Hinduism has a certain flexibility and adaptability through its historical ambiguity.
But, where a religion is not historical, it is that much less testable.
Consider the following: 1) More manuscripts exist for the New Testament than for any other of antiquity—5,000 ancient Greek manuscripts, 24,000 in all including other languages. Having all the books of the New Testament initially written within the times of eyewitnesses means that they did not have time to devolve into myth and folklore.
The multiplicity of manuscripts allows for a tremendous research base by which we can test the texts against each other and identify what the originals said. 200, and the complete New Testament can be found dating back to A. Plus, their truth claims were held accountable by members of the church who, as personal witnesses to the events, could check the facts.
One could even say that the history of the Bible is so compelling that to doubt the Bible is to doubt history itself, since it is the most historically verifiable book of all antiquity.
" Answer: Comparing Hinduism and Christianity is difficult, in part, because Hinduism is a slippery religion for Westerners to grasp.
First, Christianity should be considered for its historical viability.
Christianity has historically rooted characters and events within its schema which are identifiable through forensic sciences like archeology and textual criticism.
Comparing Hinduism and Christianity can easily overwhelm the novice of comparative religions.
So, the proposed question should be considered carefully and humbly.