We may see. And semantic diddling is irrelevant. I mean what one defines as science or not matters nothing. What does matter is what on evidence and reason undermines what the Bible says, records or claims.
We already know the degrees of denial about Genesis. The 'scientific' evidence is that the events never happened, nor could happen. I know that there have been many efforts to wangle it in various ways, but that only shows they know it doesn't work as the Bible actually says.
There are doubts about the origins of the rivals of Israel (Edom, Moab) as lesser sons of Lot and doubts about the Exodus. Doubts about the siege of Jerusalem (whether Assyria was smitten or Hezekiah surrendered), but not so much about the prophecies of Tyre. It was not eradicated. It didn't even need much rebuilding. It was there in Jesus' day and Paul's (1) It is still there today.
The much trowelled - over Daniel is dateable to 162 BC or something like - just before the Maccabean revolt and i reckon is a rallying cry for the revolt, cast as a prophecy of success 500 years before. The 'prediction' can be matched to the actual history until that date, when it fails. The evidence is convincing that at least the Believer take on Daniel is wrong. Cue Denial.
Nt, starts with the nativity, demonstrably false. Cue denial. Luke flounders right away with a massively elaborated 'rejection at Nazareth' at the start of the mission, discrediting him still further. There is addition (Herod's involvement in the trial, the penitent thief), fiddling (the calling of disciples combines with the haul of fish) and the anointing at Bethany disguised (why?
) and moved to Galilee and his own creations, like surely the parables some of the most famous of which aren't in the other synoptics. Cue the usual excuses. They will not wash with anyone willing to question (2).
Matthew is just as bad and a bit crazier. (descending angel and opening graves). But he does like his OT as a source of 'Prophecy' (which he does not appear to understand). I think he and Luke used a separate source ("Q") with material they both added to their gospels (not in Mark (3) and in different places. Mainly the 'sermon' material, but also John's question. But not (obviously) the nativities, death of Judas or the resurrection, all of which contradict each other.
John of course is very different, cue excuses and flummery like talking of 'Jerusalem material' like that explained why the Palsied man takes up his bed and walks in Jerusalem in John but in Galilee in the synoptics. Which may also explain why we have no Bar - Timaeus but a blind man healed in Jerusalem with a Very dubious wrangle with the Priests following. And a young man raised from the dead, a stunning miracle virtually ignored in the synoptics - except Luke has the son of the woman of Nain raised from the dead - Raised From The Dead - in a sort of routine way like curing his hiccups. There' the clue, I think, to how the gospels were concocted, fabricated and fiddled and have been foisted on us ever since.
This is the internal evidence of the Bible, but there is external reason to doubt. There is no Passover release known. It is incredible that in all the histories nobody even mentioned this major way of weleasing wapscallions. Also the Passover date seems fabricated (for doctrinal reasons) while the story seems to place the events at Sukkhot. One reason why I think many of the events are real, but didn't fit the Christian narrative, so had to be changed.
But debunks - logical if not scientific. No angelic message in John. No appearance in the evening in Matthew and no appearance to the women in Luke or John. Matthew had to add that and surely never saw Luke's gospel nor Luke, Matthew's gospel. Or he would have altered it as he did the angelic message because he knew Paul's letters and the disciples had not gone to Galilee nor spread the word to all nations, but had stayed in Jerusalem and Paul had taken on that mission. So he wrote Acts to cover that.
Cue denial. I may have to ague any and all of this. I know because of the debates about the differing dates of Passover and about the women splitting up which have NO evidence or merit in the Bible or without, but rely on "The Bible is true, so any excuse will do".
(1) I have to mention one excuse which was nearly 'Sauce' (or cheek) "They didn't rebuild Tyre - they put a different city on top and just called it the same name". How far will denial go?
(2) this is the thing - they do not rely on a good case but on the great majority being willing to believe the excuses.
(3) I further claim a Theory I haven't heard with Ehrman or anyone else, that Mark also has additions not found in Matthew or Luke which means that Mark is also a version of an earlier gospel. Further, that Mark and Matthew share common material not found in Luke - The "Great omission"; a smokescreen title that is supposed to explain why when it doesn't explain anything.
