I will prove it once and for all and get it done & over with.
Christianity is about Jesus and the Bible. To prove that Christianity is fallible/falsifiable, you have to prove that the Bible is not reliable. To do that also, there are 3 tests for the Bible.
[1] Bibliographical Test: this test is an examination of the textual transmission/translation by which documents reach us. In other words, how reliable are the copies (not the original) in regard to the manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and extant copy?
The history of Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) is available to us from just eight MSS dated about A.D. 900, almost 1,300 years after he wrote. The MSS of the history of Herodotus are likewise late and scarce, and yet, as F. F. Bruce concludes, "No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thuscydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of use to us are over 1,300 years later than the original." [F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Downers Grove, IL 60515:InterVarsity Press, 1964), pp. 16 f.; p. 33.]
Aristotle wrote his poetics around 343 B.C. and yet the earliest copy we have is dated A.D. 1100, nearly a 1,400-year gap, and only five MSS are in existence.
Caesar composed his history of the Gallic Wars between 58 and 50 B.C. and its MSS authority rests on 9 or 10 copies dating 1,000 years after his death.
When it comes to the MSS authority of the New Testamen (NT), the abundance of material is almost embarrassing in contrast. After the early papyri MSS discoveries that bridged the gap between the times of Christ and the second century, an abundance of other MSS came to light. Over 20,000 copies of the NT MSS are in existence today. The Iliad has 643 MSS and is second in MSS authority after the NT.
[2] Internal Evidence Test: At this point, the literary critic still follows Aristotle's dictum: "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself." In other words, as John W. Montogemery summarizes: "One must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies." [John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 1971), p. 29.]
This "ability to tell the truth" is closely related to the witness's nearness both geographically and chronologically to the events recorded. The NT accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus were recorded by men who had been wither eyewitnesses themselves or who related the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events or teachings of Christ.
Luke 1:1-3 - "Inasmuch as many have under taken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most exellent Theophilus"
2 Peter 1:16 - "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitensses of His majesty."
Lawrence J. mcGinley of Saint Peter's College comments on the value of hostile witnesses in relationship to recorded events: "First of all, eyewtnesses of the events in question were still alive when the tradition had been completely formed; and among those eyewitnesses were bitter enemies of the new religious movement. Yet the tradition claimed to narrade a series of well-known deeds and publicly taught doctrines at a time when false statements could, and would, be challanged" [Lawrence J. McGinley, From Criticism of the synoptic Haling Narratives (Woodstock, Maryland: Woodstock College Press, 1944), p. 25.]
Will Durant, who was trained in the discipline of historical investigation and spent his life analyzing records of antiquity, writes: "Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed -- the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possibel insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can dount the reality of the future behind them. That a few simple men would in one generation have invented so power full and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascination affeature in the history of Western man" [Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, the story of civiliazation, Vol. 3 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1963), p. 557.]
[3] External Evidence Test: The issue here is whether other historical material confirms or denies the internal testimony of the documents themselves.
Two friends of the Apostle John confirm the internal evidence from John's account. The historian Eusebius preserves writings of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (A.D. 130): "The Elder [Apostle John] used to say this: 'Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he [Peter] mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not, however, in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachings as necessity required, not as though he were making a compilation of the sayings of the Lord. So then Mark made no mistake, writing down in this way some things as he mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing not to omit anything that he had heard, not to include any false statement among them." [Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 39.]
"Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts." [Joseph Free, Archaeology and Bible History (Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press, 1969), p.1]
A. N. Sherwin-White, a classical historian, writes that "for Acts the confirmations of historicity is overwhelming." He continues by saying that "any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted" [A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 189]
After personally trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scriptures, I have come to the conclusion that they are historically trustworthy. If a person discards the Bible as unreliable in this sense, then he or she must discard almost all literature of antiquity. One problem I constantly have is the desire on the part of many to apply one standard or test to secular literature and another to the Bible. We need to apply the same test, whether the literature under investigation is secular or religious. Have done this, I believe we can say, "The Bibel is trustworthy and historically reliable in its witness about Jesus."
Christianity is about Jesus and the Bible. To prove that Christianity is fallible/falsifiable, you have to prove that the Bible is not reliable. To do that also, there are 3 tests for the Bible.
[1] Bibliographical Test: this test is an examination of the textual transmission/translation by which documents reach us. In other words, how reliable are the copies (not the original) in regard to the manuscripts (MSS) and the time interval between the original and extant copy?
The history of Thucydides (460-400 B.C.) is available to us from just eight MSS dated about A.D. 900, almost 1,300 years after he wrote. The MSS of the history of Herodotus are likewise late and scarce, and yet, as F. F. Bruce concludes, "No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thuscydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of use to us are over 1,300 years later than the original." [F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Downers Grove, IL 60515:InterVarsity Press, 1964), pp. 16 f.; p. 33.]
Aristotle wrote his poetics around 343 B.C. and yet the earliest copy we have is dated A.D. 1100, nearly a 1,400-year gap, and only five MSS are in existence.
Caesar composed his history of the Gallic Wars between 58 and 50 B.C. and its MSS authority rests on 9 or 10 copies dating 1,000 years after his death.
When it comes to the MSS authority of the New Testamen (NT), the abundance of material is almost embarrassing in contrast. After the early papyri MSS discoveries that bridged the gap between the times of Christ and the second century, an abundance of other MSS came to light. Over 20,000 copies of the NT MSS are in existence today. The Iliad has 643 MSS and is second in MSS authority after the NT.
[2] Internal Evidence Test: At this point, the literary critic still follows Aristotle's dictum: "The benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself." In other words, as John W. Montogemery summarizes: "One must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies." [John Warwick Montgomery, History and Christianity (Downers Grove IL: InterVarsity Press, 1971), p. 29.]
This "ability to tell the truth" is closely related to the witness's nearness both geographically and chronologically to the events recorded. The NT accounts of the life and teaching of Jesus were recorded by men who had been wither eyewitnesses themselves or who related the accounts of eyewitnesses of the actual events or teachings of Christ.
Luke 1:1-3 - "Inasmuch as many have under taken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most exellent Theophilus"
2 Peter 1:16 - "For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitensses of His majesty."
Lawrence J. mcGinley of Saint Peter's College comments on the value of hostile witnesses in relationship to recorded events: "First of all, eyewtnesses of the events in question were still alive when the tradition had been completely formed; and among those eyewitnesses were bitter enemies of the new religious movement. Yet the tradition claimed to narrade a series of well-known deeds and publicly taught doctrines at a time when false statements could, and would, be challanged" [Lawrence J. McGinley, From Criticism of the synoptic Haling Narratives (Woodstock, Maryland: Woodstock College Press, 1944), p. 25.]
Will Durant, who was trained in the discipline of historical investigation and spent his life analyzing records of antiquity, writes: "Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed -- the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possibel insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can dount the reality of the future behind them. That a few simple men would in one generation have invented so power full and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic, and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascination affeature in the history of Western man" [Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, the story of civiliazation, Vol. 3 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1963), p. 557.]
[3] External Evidence Test: The issue here is whether other historical material confirms or denies the internal testimony of the documents themselves.
Two friends of the Apostle John confirm the internal evidence from John's account. The historian Eusebius preserves writings of Papias, bishop of Hierapolis (A.D. 130): "The Elder [Apostle John] used to say this: 'Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he [Peter] mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ, not, however, in order. For he was neither a hearer nor a companion of the Lord; but afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who adapted his teachings as necessity required, not as though he were making a compilation of the sayings of the Lord. So then Mark made no mistake, writing down in this way some things as he mentioned them; for he paid attention to this one thing not to omit anything that he had heard, not to include any false statement among them." [Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 39.]
"Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts." [Joseph Free, Archaeology and Bible History (Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press, 1969), p.1]
A. N. Sherwin-White, a classical historian, writes that "for Acts the confirmations of historicity is overwhelming." He continues by saying that "any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted" [A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 189]
After personally trying to shatter the historicity and validity of the Scriptures, I have come to the conclusion that they are historically trustworthy. If a person discards the Bible as unreliable in this sense, then he or she must discard almost all literature of antiquity. One problem I constantly have is the desire on the part of many to apply one standard or test to secular literature and another to the Bible. We need to apply the same test, whether the literature under investigation is secular or religious. Have done this, I believe we can say, "The Bibel is trustworthy and historically reliable in its witness about Jesus."
