Truth has a context; an outright lie does not; and the context of 4 000 years of Jewish history reinforces its truth
If a court is confronted by a dispute of fact, it determines the truth by allowing cross-examination of the witnesses. If witness A says B killed C, and B has an alibi, A and B will be questioned at length. The questions, we know, will involve the detail or context of the version of each.
An outright lie, a complete untruth, has no context; it exists in vacuo, all by itself. Of course, a partial truth has some context, and the more detailed and consistent and extensive the context, the greater the truth. If A is lying, he will have difficulty in explaining all of the details of B killing C, and of the events surrounding and leading up to the incident, including when, where and how the killing occurred, and where he was when he observed it. And, of course, if B is lying, he will have difficulty in giving the details of the facts and circumstances of his alibi. A court will eventually determine the truth by having regard to which witness supplies the fuller and more consistent context.
The epic story of the Jewish people, beginning with Abraham and covering 4 000 years until now, reflects numerous connected events, all of which constitute a massive context reinforcing the authenticity of the whole, and especially the central fact of the Revelation at Sinai.
Podcast ChaiFM - Insight 10