(August 13, 2024 at 9:01 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: This is how Christian author (and ex-homicide detective) J. Warner Wallace defends contradictions in the New Testament, like how many angels there were in Jesus's tomb on his blog:
Even though I accept and affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, inerrancy is not required of reliable eyewitnesses. In fact, I’ve never had a completely inerrant eyewitness in all my years as a homicide detective. In addition, I’ve never had a case where two witnesses have ever agreed completely on the details of the crime. Eyewitness reliability isn’t dependent upon perfection, but is instead established on the basis of a four part template I’ve described repeatedly…
How does this make sense: he admits that eyewitnesses are not reliable, not inerrant, but he affirms the inerrancy of Scripture that happens to be based on eyewitness testimony. How can Scripture, supposedly based on eyewitness testimony, be inerrant, but eyewitnesses be not inerrant (always to some degree)?
I guess it's what they call "Christian logic" where you pretend to be philosophizing but just put your desires as a conclusion.
It's another false equivalence fallacy, since criminal prosecutions do not involve claims for unevidenced magic or the supernatural. If all claims carried the same burden of proof, then we'd lend the same credence to someone claiming they owned a pencil, as someone claiming they owned a unicorn.
