Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

A New Proof Of The Historicity Of The Old Testament


gtaggart

Recommended Posts

Posted

A cuneiform tablet tells the tale:

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

The cuneiform inscription records how Nebo-Sarsekim lavished a gift of gold on the Temple of Esangila in the fabled city of Babylon, where, at least in folk tradition, Nebuchadnezzar is credited with building the Hanging Gardens, one of the Seven Wonders of the World. British Museum staff are excited by the discovery. Irving Finkel, assistant keeper in the Department of the Middle East, said: â??A mundane commercial transaction takes its place as a primary witness to one of the turning points in Old Testament history. This is a tablet that deserves to be famous.â?

The discovery was made by Michael Jursa, associate professor at the University of Vienna, on a routine research trip to the museum. â??Itâ??s very exciting and very surprising,â? he said. â??Finding something like this tablet, where we see a person mentioned in the Bible making an everyday payment to the temple in Babylon and quoting the exact date, is quite extraordinary.â?

Kevin Barney posted this link on BCC.

Edit: For those who get exercised over such things, I should have used "Evidence" rather than "Proof" in the title of this thread.

Posted
Nergal-sharezer, Samgar-nebo, Sarsechim, Rab-saris, Nergal-sharezer, Rab-mag,

I take it that the Hebrew in the MT is all run together, so where one name ends and the next one begins is just a guess?

Posted

I take it that the Hebrew in the MT is all run together, so where one name ends and the next one begins is just a guess?

Hi SP--

The divisions of the names in my BH (MT) Stuttgartensia match the English translation. I certainly can't speak knowledgeably about other editions or their underlying source texts.

Best.

CKS

Posted

I'm not sure I understand in what sense this shows "the historicity of the Old Testament".

The Old Testament mentions a man who apparently did exist, in what appears to be the correct time that the man existed, and thus . . .

. . . the earth is roughly 6000 years old?

. . . all of the assertions in Jerimiah are true?

. . . the Book of Job is to be taken literally?

or just

. . . the Old Testament mentions a man who apparently did exist in what appears to be the correct time that the man existed.

(I'm not trying to be jerky, I'm just wondering what we think this provides evidence for.)

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...