Discovery Gives More Credibility/Validity to Christian Scriptures
Discovery Channel: Ancient Tablet Vouches for Biblical King
“Non-biblical evidence for individuals named in the Bible is rare, particularly for people who were not royals. But an ancient Babylonian tablet provides further proof that a king and his servant — both named in the Book of Jeremiah — existed in the 6th century B.C.
According to an announcement by Assyriologist Michael Jursa and the British Museum, the small clay tablet from the museum's collections bears the name of Babylonian officer Nebo-Sarsekim. In chapter 39 of the Book of Jeremiah, this individual is described as being with King Nebuchadnezzar II at the siege of Jerusalem in the year 587 B.C.”
“Brody thinks the tablet represents "further verification that certain historical elements within the Book of Jeremiah are valid."”
“Non-biblical evidence for individuals named in the Bible is rare, particularly for people who were not royals. But an ancient Babylonian tablet provides further proof that a king and his servant — both named in the Book of Jeremiah — existed in the 6th century B.C.
According to an announcement by Assyriologist Michael Jursa and the British Museum, the small clay tablet from the museum's collections bears the name of Babylonian officer Nebo-Sarsekim. In chapter 39 of the Book of Jeremiah, this individual is described as being with King Nebuchadnezzar II at the siege of Jerusalem in the year 587 B.C.”
“Brody thinks the tablet represents "further verification that certain historical elements within the Book of Jeremiah are valid."”
Also: TimesOnline
30 comments:
Thanks for the read and all the work you do for the Kingdom. You are in our(me and girlfriends) prayers.
It is nice sometimes for Christians to see and read things like this post and what it means. Lets face it we all face those days when our faith is tried. Things like this help to put away questions. Little things make huge impacts.
More credibility? Hardly. And by the title of this post you even admit that the christian scriptures are lacking credibility.
So it mentions a guy who actually lived. So what. Doesn't go anywhere near proving huge floods or rib women. And you are hanging your religion on it? Pretty thin "evidence" to get happy about isn't it?
mb,
"And by the title of this post you even admit that the christian scriptures are lacking credibility." -- It is only lacking credibility in the mind of the critic, and discoveries like this work on that mind.
"Pretty thin "evidence" to get happy about isn't it?" -- Is it really that thin? We have people today that say God doesn't exist simply because they can not see or understand Him.
Tim
blog guy,
I appreciate your prayers, and return the favor.
Tim
"discoveries like this work on that mind"
Uh no. Discoveries like this mean nothing to us because they prove nothing. They are only picked up by the deluded believer such as yourself because you don't have the powers of thought to be able to see that mention of one guy does not in any way prove other fairy tales in the same cobbled-together book. No proof at all. None. Zero. In fact, christians hanging their hats on "discoveries" like this is one more piece of evidence that your belief has no proof and is false.
mb,
My full quote was, “It is only lacking credibility in the mind of the critic, and discoveries like this work on that mind.” Noting, “the mind of the critic”. It may not touch your mind, but this does not mean it does not touch the mind of some critics, for historians have found many items that further validate the Scriptures to those that are not Christians, which already believe by faith. And, actually, these types of discoveries show the critic that our faith indeed has a foundation in believing Scripture.
Again, a lack of belief is not based on proof, but the opinion that since one is unable to see or understand God, He must not exist.
Tim
So how do you discriminate between things you cannot see or understand? Which exist? Which don't?
mb,
How do you?
Well I don't believe in anything that there is no evidence for.
My question is how do you know god is real when you cannot see/touch/taste/smell/understand god? How do you know that god is not actually Allah or Krishna? How do you know they are not real?
You are asserting one is real and the others are not. You have no evidence for any of these claims, and all of them are just as likely as each other. My point of view makes sense. Yours does not.
mb, your hate of religion has blinded you to a wonderful historical discovery. This is equivalent to finding the record of a monetary transaction between an Atlantean and an Egyptian. Seriously, imagine someone finding your checkbook 3000 years from now and seeing that you made a check out to Walmart.
You do believe things which there is no evidence for. Evolution is not full of evidence that all have come from one, but evidence that certain things existed at a certain time. It is scientists, with preconceived ideas, who decide where to piece the fossils together, although full of gaps, that they lead to a common one. The Big Bang is thought of as fact when there is no way to “see/touch/taste/smell/understand” it fully for no one was there when it supposedly happened and there is but guesses as to what was before or led to it.
Whether you choose the Big Bang and I choose God, the fact is we return both with the FACT – We don’t fully understand how it all began. Although we have Scripture which tells us God spoke all into existence, others are left with trusting science to one day hopefully explain how it all started. And pray science doesn't "find" God.
So, yes, you do believe in things without evidence. Remember, vjack said, "Belief Does Not Equal Truth!", so simply saying one believes the evidence points to evolution and the Big Bang in no way makes it so.
How do I know Christianity is real and all others are fakes? A simple comparison of the idea of sinful man, the message, the prophets, and Jesus Christ.
Absolute Rubbish.
There is definitely proof that evolution and natural selection are both natural phenomenon, even you will use it to explain your Noah's ark crap (I can point to the comments you make on my Noah's post), and enough fossils and other information to collate all the data together. This is not a matter of belief, as you think it is, but a matter of proof.
On the other hand, you have absolutely no scientific proof whatsoever to prove your God. And for you to say that a "simple" comparison will suffice to prove your religion beyond all doubt smacks of hypocrisy, because similar stories of Jesus and his sacrifice can be found in other ancient religions(something which hitchens have presented on a CNN program).
Beast
Beast,
As for your favorite remembrance of Noah's Ark. [1] I believe only in micro, whereas you believe also in macro evolution. [2] My point was to ask you why couldn't evolution [which you believe] solve your inability to believe the animal issue you see with Noah's Ark and/or I used the evolution notion of staying within a species, not the evolution of one species into another, whereas I noted a bear remains a bear. But this is all off topic here.
Again, fossils positioning into a line from the first cell unto the human today is more of a dotted line forced together by science, than a solid line which smoothly embraces itself.
Concering "scientific proof" as to prove God, science has already determined it is UNable to prove or disprove God, therefore to ask me for such proof is meaningless.
When you asked for comparison, I didn't just say Christ (which is much different than other religious persons). I also mentioned, " A simple comparison of the idea of sinful man, the message, the prophets, and Jesus Christ."
Tim:
I have reiterated and answered your questions many times, and you seemed incapable of mere comprehension, so I reiterate again:
1. Microevolution and macroevolution speaks of the same evolutionary process, just that the former takes a short time and the latter an accumulation of the former.
2. Judging by biblical timeline, the best estimate for the Noah's flood would be 2000-3000B.C. For bears to evolve to so many different species with their own specific diets within such an incredibly short amount of time is virtually impossible. Besides, bears are not domesticated animals, which makes such evolution over that incredibly short time almost impossible.
Tim, if you do not understand Science, ask. I don't mind reiterating. Just be humble about it.
Beast
A simple comparison of the idea of sinful man, the message, the prophets, and Jesus Christ."
Comparison with......what? Zeus? Mithra? Allah? Explain yourself.
Beast,
1. Micro stays within the species. Macro is a species change into a completely different species. Scientist may have us believe one leads to another, but proof only lies in Micro, for no one has observed or recorded any such Macro change. There is only the finding of fossils which show different species existed and science says they go together, therefore they try and piece them together, apparently refusing to notice the gaps.
2. This is based on the ideas that Science has presented. If Science is wrong, then so is this opinion. There was another article I read that said it could only take thousands of years for evolution. Eitherway, the point was not to prove evolution or trust in it for the answer, for God does not need it, nor do I need it to trust Scripture. Not to mention your claim that even if they found Noah's ark (which they may have) you said you still would not believe.
This has nothing to do with humility; it has to do with the fact that Science has not presented enough foundational facts to have me lose my faith in God and trust in Science. In fact, as this topic speaks of new discoveries which only strengthen that faith, not that it is needed, but it is another testimony to those whose refuse to believe. And if evidence historians find (Scriptural names, places, arks, etc.) is not enough to have you believe, then why should evidence presented by Science that has gaps cause me to trust them over God?
As for the comparison, you can use any religion or god you choose. Compare their idea of sinful man, the message they present, the prophets they have, to Scripture, the gospel message, the prophets, and Jesus Christ the Savior in Christianity. You will find all but Scriptural Christianity lacking.
1. Wrong.
Macroevolution is just as factual as microevolution. To say that science has no proof is simply farcical. If macroevolution wasn't proven, scientists such as Dawkins would never come out and state as such. Fossils, carbon dating, and other scientific data gleaned all point towards a long gradual period of evolution. "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Dawkins is a great illustration of the permutations required for such changes.
2. I do not disagree that evolution can take place within a short period of time: Bacteria can mutate with a matter of months, because they can multiply by tens of thousands of generations within a short period of time.
For animals such as bears, evolution and natural selection has to work hand in hand: Because bears evolve and range over an incredible range: From the northern polar bears, to the honey bears and black bears of Asia, the chances are that evolution and tracking over huge distances would logical involve a slow, gradual evolutionary process. Bears are, after all, not bacteria.
Unlike dogs, which took ten thousand odd years to evolve that many species due to artificial breeding, bears do not interbreed easily, and hence any form of species change would not happy that fast.
If you want to consider history, consider this:
The Sumerians were first recorded in 5000 BC, and even then, they were a victorious early tribe. The Chinese were already forming their dynasties in 3000 BC (The Shang Dynasty was the first). But yet Christians insist that the earth is 6000 yrs old.Logical?
I find scriptural christianity lacking in almost every department, having studied it for ten years. Just a dissection of noah's ark is enough to prove me right.
Beast
Hey tim:
Try explaining 5000 yrs of short gun evolution with so many classes of bears (some extinct with the last couple of hundred years):
* Family Ursidae
o Subfamily Ailuropodinae
+ Giant Panda, Ailuropoda melanoleuca
+ Dwarf Panda, Ailuropoda minor (extinct)
o Subfamily Agriotherinae
+ Agriotherium (extinct)
# Agriotherium inexpectans (extinct)
# Agriotherium sivalensis (extinct)
# Agriotherium roblesi (extinct)
# Agriotherium africanum (extinct)
o Subfamily Tremarctinae
+ Spectacled Bear, Tremarctos ornatus
+ Florida Cave Bear, Tremarctos floridanus (extinct)
+ Giant Short-Faced Bear, Arctodus simus (extinct)
+ Short-Faced Bear, Arctodus pristinus (extinct)
+ Brazilian Short-Faced Bear, Arctotherium brasilense (extinct)
+ Argentine Short-Faced Bear, Arctotherium latidens (extinct)
o Subfamily Ursinae
+ Brown Bear, Ursus (Ursus) arctos
# Subspecies Syrian (Brown) Bear Ursus arctos syriacus
# Subspecies Grizzly Bear, Ursus arctos horribilis
# Subspecies Kodiak Bear, Ursus arctos middendorffi
# Subspecies Himalayan Brown Bear, Ursus arctos isabellinus
# Subspecies Bergman's Bear, Ursus arctos piscator (extinct?)
# Atlas Bear, Ursus arctos crowtheri (extinct)
+ American Black Bear, Ursus (Ursus) americanus
# Subspecies Cinnamon Bear, Ursus americanus cinnamomum
# Subspecies Kermode Bear, Ursus americanus kermodie
+ Polar Bear, Ursus (Thalarctos) maritimus
+ Asiatic Black Bear, Ursus (Selenarctos) thibetanus
# Formosan Black Bear, Ursus thibetanus formosanus
# Ursus thibetanus gedrosianus
# Ursus thibetanus japonica
# Ursus thibetanus laniger
# Ursus thibetanus mupinensis
# Ursus thibetanus thibetanus
# Ursus thibetanus ussuricu
+ Sloth Bear, Melursus ursinus
# Subspecies Sri Lankan Sloth Bear Melursus ursinus inornatus
# Subspecies Indian Sloth Bear Melursus ursinus ursinus
+ Sun Bear, Helarctos malayanus
# Subspecies Borneo Sun Bear Helarctos malayanus euryspilus
+ Auvergne Bear, Ursus minimus (extinct)
+ Etruscan Bear, Ursus etruscus (extinct)
+ European Cave Bear, Ursus spelaeus (extinct)
+ MacFarlane's Bear, Ursus (Vetularctos) inopinatus (cryptid; if a good species, extinct)
All it takes is the scientific timeline to be off, then all else crumbles, right? Hmmm... What is all of the timeline based on?
38 million years of erstwhile evolution, tim. all 38 million years of it. Not to mention that more species of bears went extinct during all this time.
What is the "38 million years" timeline based on?
Evolution.
Okay.
What timeline is "Evolution" based on?
Nature's time line. Mother Nature. Gaia. Earth. Got it???
What is "Nature's time line" based on?
What is your timeline based on? The year you came into existence, and the time time you expire.
Same with nature, mother earth, etc. Everything has a lifespan. Even our planet has one too.
What is time based on and how can one determine "38 million years"?
* the age of rocks around a fossil can be considered
* mathematical calculations are used
* the state of decay, carbon-14, and isotopes figure in calculations
* tree of life relationships often help sort the dates
Are you saying that "time" is based on the "age of rocks"?
How do we determine the "age of rocks", what is the foundation for "mathematical calculations", and on what are the "tree of life relationships" based?
Go read them up yourself. I am not your mother who is going to spoonfeed you.
Richard Dawkins has already elucidated much of what is available in the realms of science. Go finish up on the God Delusion.
Beast
Post a Comment