1 Timothy 5:19 and DNA testing

[ThePuppyTurtle]

1 Timothy 5:19 and DNA testing. “Do not accept an accusation against a presbyter unless it is supported by two or three witnesses.”

So am I not allowed to accept that a priest murdered someone, Even if there is DNA at the scene? What it his fingerprints are on the victims neck?

Do fingerprints and stray hairs count as witnesses?

 

[patrick457]

1 Timothy 5:19 and DNA testing. “Do not accept an accusation against a presbyter unless it is supported by two or three witnesses.”

So am I not allowed to accept that a priest murdered someone, Even if there is DNA at the scene? What it his fingerprints are on the victims neck?

Do fingerprints and stray hairs count as witnesses?

I think you need to look at this passage in the historical context. In Jewish law, you needed a minimum of two persons to testify in court. Deuteromy 19:15 says for example: “One witness shall not arise against a man for any sin or guilt that he may commit; according to two witnesses or according to three witnesses a matter shall stand.” In those days of course they did not have DNA tests or something along those lines. It was the word of witnesses against the accused.

 

[GT333]

1 Timothy 5:19 and DNA testing. “Do not accept an accusation against a presbyter unless it is supported by two or three witnesses.”

So am I not allowed to accept that a priest murdered someone, Even if there is DNA at the scene? What it his fingerprints are on the victims neck?

Do fingerprints and stray hairs count as witnesses?

Seems to be an antagonistic question. Do you think scripture written nearly two thousand years ago should include modern scientific methods that no reader could comprehend for twenty centuries? Context, context, context.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Seems to be an antagonistic question. Do you think scripture written nearly two thousand years ago should include modern scientific methods that no reader could comprehend for twenty centuries? Context, context, context.

No antagonism intended at all.

 

[GT333]

Then forgive me. I dont understand the logic. Obviously ancient writers could not address science that would not exist for centuries. At that time, it would have been unfair to accuse anyone based on the testimony of one person. Its all Timothy could`ve understood, or other readers, at that time. It makes perfect sense.

 

[ThePuppyTurtle]

Then forgive me. I dont understand the logic. Obviously ancient writers could not address science that would not exist for centuries. At that time, it would have been unfair to accuse anyone based on the testimony of one person. Its all Timothy could`ve understood, or other readers, at that time. It makes perfect sense.

But shouldn’t scripture, this type of statement at least, always be applicable?

 

[patrick457]

But shouldn’t scripture, this type of statement at least, always be applicable?

In the spiritual sense yes (in a certain way). But in the literal sense, not always. For instance, we Christians no longer follow the mandates for animal sacrifice or keeping kosher or whatnot. I doubt even that many Christians today follow St. Paul’s injunctions that women be silent at church or that men should not have long hair.