Archaeological and Scientific Evidence AKA I'm going to need some alcohol
Actually this is thankfully short. Mostly because there's not much in the way of content. Most of it is links to other sites.
However there is this disclaimed at the bottom that I find interesting.
Disclaimer-In His Steps Ministries does not endorse or agree with some of the doctrinal beliefs or teachings of sites that are recommended throughout our website. These sites are only given as additional resources that have some items that we find of value. We acknowledge that as in every other religion or belief system, there are individuals or organizations in Christianity that are 'flakey', 'off base', claim facts that are fiction, etc. Use wisdom and the intelligence that God has given you, even those of you who do not believe there is a God.
In other words they put this stuff up as evidence but don't actually promise that it proves anything. Well at least this was short.
Validity of the Bible
Ok, I'm calling bullshit right off the bat.
"Many spiritual seekers wonder why there is not more historical evidence to verify the birth, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus. Here is something to consider. There is no need for more evidence because the Holy Bible itself is historical evidence. he Old Testament has over 60 prophecies about Jesus that were fulfilled. The Bible has the Four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) that document Jesus' life. The balance of the New Testament has references to Jesus. There are 66 books of the Bible. Almost every single book of the Bible has either a prophecy about Jesus or verses that point to the Gospel message. There are over 24,600 manuscripts of the New Testament and over 24,000 original manuscripts of portions of the New Testament.
Why would there need to be more historical evidence?"
I can see that at no point does this section actually address the fact that the bible cannot be used to prove itself because it is the book that is making the claim to be proven. Which pretty much instantly invalidates the rest of this section. But let's see what it hits me with.
The first bit asks "can the bible be trusted?" It argues that some peopel would say that the bible is biased because it was written by Christians and thus can't be trusted. It argues that many history books and autobiographies are written by people with biases but we still trust them.
I would just like to interject something as an aside here. You see what I wrote up there. Those three sentences. This fucking site took four cock-guzzling paragraphs just to say that. The content on this site is so damn padded just so that it can look like it's saying more than it fucking is.
Ok, rant over.
Essentially it completely overlooks the fact that the reason we don't trust the bible is because it's wrong about even the most basic information and not because it's written by people with a bias (though that doesn't help).
Here's how this part ends.
"There is something that is unique about the Bible compared to any autobiography, biography, or history book - the Bible is the inspired, infallible Word of God. This means it was God breathed. The authors of the Bible wrote what God had them to write. Yes, they wrote with their style of writing, but the accuracy of what they wrote was based upon being inspired by God. We know, as a spiritual seeker you may not believe this. That is ok. We are going to provide more evidence for the Validity of the Bible."
So the bible is valid because it was written by god. And we know this because the bible says that it is.........sigh.
The next part tries to make take the argument that the bible manuscripts we have aren't accurate. It says that to determine the accuracy we must compare it to other books at the time. It compares the bible with other manuscripts based on how many original copies there are and the time span that they were created in relation to their being placed in a book. And it's total bullshit.
I was going to quote Historicity's post from before ( a very excellent post,might I add) where Badger made the same claim about there being over 24,000 copies of the bible, but there's no point. The numbers in this chart don't even add up now that I look at it. Going by this chart the new testament was made into a book only twenty five years after it was authored which is ridiculous. There's nothing more that needs to be said here.
It then goes on to list how science is proving the bible to be accurate more and more each day. Naturally with no examples. It then states how the prophecies of the bible are being fulfilled. Again with no examples.
It ends by pointing out that Jesus has a large section devoted to him in the Encyclopedia Brittannica and that The Readers Digest Book of Facts lists Jesus' existence as a fact.
Seriously this is the argument it ends on. I keep trying to scream but for some reason the sounds won't come out.
I won't bother with the last section of the site now that I look at it. It's just asking the C.S Lewis question of whether Jesus was a liar or a lunatic. There's nothing in there worth analyzing.
Which means that this was it people. This was Dinks big evidence. Nothing, literally nothing. There was nothing here for me to work with. Not one single thing said on this site would even cause the person reading it to register a blip on a cat scan.
I would do the last site but I wouldn't even know where to start. It's basically like a Christian news site that focuses on all sorts of bible stuff. There's really no focused theme for me to look at. It doesn't make any claims it's just reporting things. So I guess I'm done. It's late, I'm tired and my brain is currently curled up in one corner of my skull weaping uncontrollably from the abuse that it's taken tonight.
Fuck owing people. I'm coming for your young.