Not the same thing at all. An eye witness that appears in court, is accepted by the court as being one who can testify, and then given the opportunity if asked to give his testimony of what he saw. If he tells the truth, and is believed then his testimoney may be accepted by the jude and/or jury in making a decision on guilt of innocence. If he lies and is found out to have lied, then he can be charge with doing so, and could be penalized for doing that himself.<quoted text> Eyewitnesses are used every day to convict people in a court of law, but not good enough to be credible of bible facts?,I must disagree.
The eye witnesses in the Bible are often mentioned by writers, stating that 500 people witnessed an event, and the writer wrote that many decades after the event, and we have no even written words of any of those witness to even attest to their being a witness, which could not be proved anyway 2000 years later.
If we had several eye witnesses who immediately wrote down what they had seen, and these represent both people supporting the cause and people opposed to it, and if these separately written accounts were identical or close (as no two people will tell the same story even when they are telling what they honestly believe), then we might have some evidence which could be consider as possible proof. We have no such records, and their authenticity could not be proved anyway, without having some ways, which might exist today, but didn't back them, of proving that the writings were actually made by a specific person.