Sunyata@wastherain.net wrote in news:k10fv1lufol6etk932iguunaqu8t4s356d@
4ax.com:

When I used to watch TV I'd channel surf around the usual, and more
than once happened onto informative shows regarding evidence,
forensics, etc.

One thing I've gleaned, hopefully correctly, is that evidence that
asserts itself as the truth is not admissible. I wonder if the Bible
would be inadmissible since it asserts itself to be true, and if so,
how come it's (usually) used to swear in a witness?

Is that much different than evidence that cannot be cross-examined?

Thanks in advance for any comments.

The bible at best is "hearsay" evidence. That is evidence that someone
has heard from someone else but not witnessed themself. Meaning that as
far as "evidence" for the "truth" the bible is meaningless.
Additionally, there is no one who knows who really wrote the bible, so
it's value as "evidence" is non-existent. And finally, the bible is
basically a work of fiction, so again, it is meaningless as evidence.

As to it's use for "swearing in", that is cultural and social rather than
legal, based on the ancient superstitions of the majority of people in
the US (or any other country that uses such an archaic symbol).