Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums
Viggen

Tablet aids Old Testament's credibility

Recommended Posts

The British Museum has hailed a discovery within a modest clay tablet in its collection as a breakthrough for biblical archaeology - dramatic proof of the accuracy of the Old Testament. The cuneiform inscription in a tablet dating from 595BC has been deciphered for the first time - revealing a reference to an official at the court of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, that proves the historical existence of a figure mentioned in the Book of Jeremiah.

 

This is rare evidence in a non-biblical source of a real person, other than kings, featured in the Bible.

 

full article at The Australian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salve, V! An interesting link. I suppose the next step would be the validation of this "Nebo-Sarsekim", as he can always be a homonym. Anyway, I think a lot of us admited that "the Biblical story is not altogether invented" for a long time before reading this article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a lot of us admited that "the Biblical story is not altogether invented" for a long time before reading this article.

 

On the other hand, a mere "reference to an official at the court of Nebuchadnezzar," even if it should be the same person mentioned in the OT, is a considerably long leap from parting the seas, and is hardly "dramatic proof of the accuracy of the Old Testament" as the article claims.

 

Consider:

 

"The tablet names a Babylonian officer called Nebo-Sarsekim, who according to Jeremiah xxxix was present in 587BC when Nebuchadnezzar "marched against Jerusalem with his whole army and laid siege to it"."

 

And:

 

"The cuneiform inscription records how Nebo-Sarsekim lavished a gift of gold on the Temple of Esangila in the fabled city of Babylon..."

 

Were the Babylonians like snowflakes, no two of them having the same name? Were sons never named after fathers or grandfathers? How do we know that the author of Jeremiah didn't need a Babylonian name for his story, heard "Nebo-Sarsekim" and liked it? Even if it's the same person, so what? All it does is provide evidence (evidence, not proof) that the Bible isn't a complete fabrication.

 

I just don't see the logical progression from one document to the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Map of the Roman Empire

×