You see, analysis of an artefact at the British Museum has found evidence that supports the historical existence of a minor personage who appears in one of the ancient story-book's chapters. Apparently this constitutes "proof of the accuracy of the Old Testament".
From UK's Telegraph:
Searching for Babylonian financial accounts among the [cuneiform] tablets, Prof Jursa suddenly came across a name he half remembered - Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, described there in a hand 2,500 years old, as "the chief eunuch" of Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon.The media seems to have made the completely logical leap from this interesting historical tidbit, to the inference that everything in the Old Testament is therefore factual. Of course! We now have proof of the existence of one historical figure, who witnessed a battle described in the Bible, so it stands to reason that everything else in the Bible must be based on historical fact as well. Because, you know, it's not like the Bible was compiled from writings by hundreds of different authors over hundreds of years or anything.Prof Jursa, an Assyriologist, checked the Old Testament and there in chapter 39 of the Book of Jeremiah, he found, spelled differently, the same name - Nebo-Sarsekim.
Nebo-Sarsekim, according to Jeremiah, was Nebuchadnezzar II’s "chief officer" and was with him at the siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC, when the Babylonians overran the city.
Please don't try to contact me this afternoon. I'll be busy frantically repenting. And checking the Bureau of Meteorology website's rain map. You know, in case I need to start building an ark or something.
One of many historical events accurately described in thesuper-accurate history text-book "The Old Testament".
Interesting topic Munkster and sure to get the tongues wagging. Many of the people mentioned in the Bible are accepted historical figures, e.g. Nebuchadnezzar II, so this discovery doesn't really mean anything significant either way. Except perhaps a curiosity and a chance for journalists to whip up a story. Most Christians with a brain accept that the Bible cannot be 100% accurate, and at the end of the day the number of hairs Jehosamathhafat had on his butthole is not relevant to the faith.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely, Mr Afe.
ReplyDeleteInteresting photograph of Noah's Ark. Did you source it from AFP? I hear they got some natty pictures of the Sermon on the Mount and St John's revelation as well.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Song of Solomon, I think the XXX Network are televising the events as they happen.