Posted on 07/10/2007 5:48:08 PM PDT by blam
GGG Ping.
ping.
I never doubted, so can't say I'm surprised. Thanks for the post of this.
ML/NJ
I don’t see what all the fuss is about. No thinking person has ever asserted that the Bible is devoid of factual history. The question is how much of it is factual, given that its various books have been transmitted by a combination of oral tradition and hand-copied text, with most books undergoing plenty of rounds of both.
Insignificant and non-controversial details like the one mentioned here are the least likely to be changed to accommodate the political or religious agenda of the re-teller or re-copier. Many such details were no doubt dropped or mistakenly changed along the way, but it’s hardly surprising that some made it through the process unchanged.
*Ahem*
Have you read any Palestinian-authored history texts lately?
Interesting...now that the experts believe Jeremiah is fact based, can we postulate that Genesis 1:1 is true?
Remember the story of Lot's wife ~ it's an ancient tale also told in pictoglyphs in Northern Finland and nearby Russia.
It may be 7500 years old ~ which is 3 times as old as this item.
The Bible doesn't really explain why Lot's wife turned to (rock) salt, but the petroglyphs explain it clearly as a consequence of her failing to find husbands for her daughters.
Eventually we are going to be able to pin down the sources for the stories Moses thought suitible for inclusion in the Bible he put together.
"This is how Jerusalem was taken: 1 In the ninth year of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the tenth month, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon marched against Jerusalem with his whole army and laid siege to it. 2 And on the ninth day of the fourth month of Zedekiah's eleventh year, the city wall was broken through. 3 Then all the officials of the king of Babylon came and took seats in the Middle Gate: Nergal-Sharezer of Samgar, Nebo-Sarsekim a chief officer, Nergal-Sharezer a high official and all the other officials of the king of Babylon. 4 When Zedekiah king of Judah and all the soldiers saw them, they fled; they left the city at night by way of the king's garden, through the gate between the two walls, and headed toward the Arabah."
Some of the 'more mudance' parts of the scriptures read just like this. Many wonder why such things would be present. One obvious reason: to lend historic context to people, places, events, and time. And as this researcher has found: it holds together with outside sources.
Yes, a notable find indeed.
Although “scientific biblical criticism” could be traced back earlier, it really took off in Germany about 1870. There was a political push behind it: Bismark funded positions in German universities as one aspect of his campaign of persecution against the Catholic Church, which he thought necessary to turn Germany into a modern state.
On no particular scientific evidence, most of the Bible was declared to be fictional, or to have been pieced together from various unreliable sources.
Since then, however, archaeological discoveries have consistently confirmed the truth of the biblical narrative. This discovery is fascinating precisely because it confirms the existence of a minor figure, thus confirming that the author of Jeremiah knew what he was talking about, and was not some scribe working hundreds of years after the fact and inventing details on his whim.
Some parts of the Bible, of course, are stories, and so indicate themselves to be. But things like the Exodus from Egypt or the Babylonian exile and Persian restoration are historical facts, constantly being confirmed by small pieces of archaeological evidence.
He was a Republican Congressman? (sarcasm, mostly)
Sure, as soon as you provide the cuneform tablet written a few years before the creation that substantiates it...
Thanks so much blam, for posting this interesting tid-bit!
To you two gals....ping!
Ping
You know, the "realists," the "scientific community," the "elite intelligensia", running our colleges, universities and many teaching in religious seminaries, etc.
They are way, way too smart for God.
Um, wouldn't that be 8 years before the seige of Jerusalem???
And the "chief officer" being the same as the "chief eunuch"?? No, thanks, I don't want the benefit package on that key-man employment contract...
And even if it were 100% the very same person, how does that verify any other part of the Old Testament?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.