What I can tell you is that the assertion that the Bible is unscientific is wholly untrue. The archaeology and the scientific evidence for repeatable facts is there. In fact, we're just starting to see where many of the health benefits in Kosher law would have been. Faith in Christ being who He said He was has to come from both a reasonable, educated looking at the facts and from a knowledge in your heart. It's not blind faith - it's an educated knowledge of the most reasonable answer combined with the knowledge in your heart and real-world experiences.

If you'd like to know anything else, let me know! The most important thing is that Christ loves you and He wants a relationship with you :)

Blessings friend,

Mark

There are many other archaeological evidences. Does this prove the religious content is true? Absolutely not, I'll acknowledge that with no problem. What it does show is that the Bible is an accurate - an extremely accurate for the time in fact - historical text that has been very well preserved. The authors of each of the many books (remember the Bible is a collection of books by different authors written at different times - so it's not just "one book" we have for evidence) clearly had the intention of recording factual events.

The actual religious content of course, cannot be proven scientifically. Nor can the creation of the world or anything like that - you can only scientifically prove repeatable events. Science is great for what it's made for - but that's outside the limits of science. Science is a way to study the repeatable natural laws of the universe.

I'm afraid this will have to be broken up a couple times:

I'm always happy to respond to the invitation you offered. I deleted your second comment because of the word you used, it's not that bad I know - but I know some people who are viewing my channel who would find it rather offensive.

The evidence is mostly archaeological. If we read through the Biblical descriptions of places, we can find those places. Unlike Pat Condell said, there are few people who would dispute the existence of Jesus as a person. An ossuary (bone box basically) was recently found that read "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus" - the odd thing about this (as those were common names and could be coincidental) is that "brother of" would not have been considered relevant information normally - it'd have to be one special brother.