Michael Jursa (British Museum) and 587 vs. 607 B.C.

by Dogpatch 34 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Dogpatch

  This was sent to me as a comment for Free Minds. The author says, I'm not sure if you are aware of this fact or not: If you look at the Awake! May 2009 pg 11 , it says that Jerusalem siege was in 607, according to professor Michael Jursa working in the British Museum, but curiously if you go to the British Museum official webpage, (in "Search" put Michael Jursa) you´ll see that it says the siege of Jerusalen was in 587 BC !!. Ooops...looks like they are caught in another lie! Not a surprise.

  Any thoughts? Full article HERE

  Randy

  Existence of Babylonian official connected with the Fall of Jerusalem and mentioned in the book of Jeremiah confirmed in cuneiform tablet

  Working at the British Museum, Assyriologist Michael Jursa has made a breakthrough discovery whilst examining a small clay tablet with a Babylonian cuneiform inscription. The document is dated to the 10 th year of Nebuchadnezzar II (595 BC). It names a Babylonian officer, Nebo-Sarsekim, who according to chapter 39 of the Book of Jeremiah was present at the siege of Jerusalem in 587 BC with Nebuchadnezzar himself. The tablet thus confirms the historical existence of the Biblical figure. Evidence from non-Biblical sources for individuals named in the Bible other than kings is incredibly rare.
  
  Nebo-Sarsekim is described in the book of Jeremiah as ‘chief eunuch’ (as the title is now translated, rather than ‘chief officer’). The Babylonian tablet proves that his name was really pronounced as Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, and gives the same title, ‘chief eunuch,’ in cuneiform script, thereby confirming the accuracy of the Biblical account.

  The discovery highlights the importance of the study of cuneiform. The British Museum’s collection contains well over one hundred thousand inscribed tablets which are examined by international scholars on a daily basis. Reading and piecing together fragments is painstaking and slow work, but cuneiform tablets are our only chance of obtaining knowledge of this fateful period of human history. Other discoveries made whilst examining tablets include an Assyrian version of the Old Testament flood story, observations of Halley’s Comet and even rules for the world’s oldest board game.

  MORE
• 

  cantleave

  Has anyone brought this lie to the attention of Michael Jursa?
• 

  BluesBrother

  After a quick look at their article, I think that they are using Mr Jursa to confirm the existance of the tablet and the man's name in the Bible. They also slip in that Jerusalem fell in 607, but that is not a quoute from Jursa
• 

  cantleave

  The Awake Article in full

  *** g 5/09 A Receipt That Corroborates the Bible Record ***

  A Receipt That Corroborates the Bible Record

  ? A two-inch-wide [5.5 cm] clay tablet was unearthed in the 1870’s near modern-day Baghdad, Iraq. In 2007, Michael Jursa, a professor at the University of Vienna, in Austria, came across the tablet while doing research at the British Museum. Jursa recognized the name Nebo-sarsechim (Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, in its Babylonian form), a Babylonian official mentioned in the Bible at Jeremiah 39:3.

  Nebo-sarsechim was one of King Nebuchadnezzar’s commanders at the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E., and according to the tablet, he is called “the chief eunuch.” Moreover, the title chief eunuch was held by only one man at any given time, providing strong evidence that the Sarsechim in question is the same man mentioned in the Bible.

  The tablet records a gold delivery that Nebo-sarsechim made to the temple of Marduk, or Merodach, the chief god of Babylon, whose name is also mentioned in the Bible. (Jeremiah 50:2) The receipt is dated the 10th year, 11th month, and 18th day of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. The gold delivery, however, had nothing to do with the sacking of Jerusalem, which occurred years later. (2 Kings 25:8-10, 13-15) Nevertheless, “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,” said Professor Jursa. Acclaimed as one of the most significant discoveries in modern Biblical archaeology, the tablet “supports the view that the historical books of the Old Testament are based on fact,” says Britain’s Telegraph newspaper.

  The Bible’s veracity, however, does not depend on archaeology. Far more powerful evidence can be found within the Bible itself, especially in its prophecies. (2 Peter 1:21) For example, more than 100 years in advance, Jehovah God, speaking through the prophet Isaiah, foretold that all the treasures in Jerusalem would “be carried to Babylon.” (Isaiah 39:6, 7) Likewise, through the prophet Jeremiah, God foretold: “I will give all the stored-up things of this city [Jerusalem] . . . into the hand of their enemies. And they will certainly plunder them and take them . . . to Babylon.”—Jeremiah 20:4, 5.

  Nebo-sarsechim was one of those enemies, and as such, he was also an eyewitness of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy. In fact, whether he knew it or not, he actually shared in that fulfillment.

  [Footnote]

  At Jeremiah 39:3, the New World Translation reads: “Samgar-nebo, Sarsechim, Rabsaris,” following the punctuation in the Hebrew Masoretic text. But the Hebrew consonantal text could be rendered: “Samgar, Nebo-sarsechim the Rabsaris [or, the Chief Court Official],” which agrees with the cuneiform tablet.
• 

  JWoods

  One thing that always bothers me a little about these constant arguments over 587 versus 607 versus anything else threads is this:

  Are we sort of validating the argument that if a person had the right date you could add up to the end of the modern gentile times?

  By that I mean - rather than discuss the historical date, might it be better to attack the total nonsense of trying to add this up to 1914, 1934, or whatever the date? Or to remind interested persons in such dates that NONE OF THESE JW CHRONOLOGIES HAVE EVER WORKED?

  I sometimes see JW apologists and trolls kind of finding refuge in arguing the date itself (i.e. 607) rather than the whole sorry lack of sense in this hacked-up chronology in the first place.
• 

  bohm

  I have to agree with BB. Deceptive? no doubt. A lie? no.
  Just the usual BS.
• 

  Mickey mouse

  The tablet records a gold delivery that Nebo-sarsechim made to the temple of Marduk, or Merodach, the chief god of Babylon, whose name is also mentioned in the Bible. (Jeremiah 50:2) The receipt is dated the 10th year, 11th month, and 18th day of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. The gold delivery, however, had nothing to do with the sacking of Jerusalem, which occurred years later.

  The above is from the May 2009 Awake. There is a problem with the above.

  According to the WBTS, Nebuchadnezzar's reign was from 624-582 B.C.E, so his 10th year of reign would have been 614. All other authorities date the document as being in the 10th years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, in 595BCE.

  Oops, I guess this is what happens when you try to sweep 20 years of history under the carpet.
• 

  jonathan dough

  I'm stating the obvious, but for those lurking JWs who are still clinging to 607, it's impossible according to the Bible for Jerusalem to have fallen in 607 B.C. and here is the overwhelming proof: http://144000.110mb.com/607/index.html
• 

  Mad Sweeney

  JWoods makes a point that I've thought of before, as well. It doesn't matter when Jerusalem was destroyed because there is NO SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE that the date of Jerusalem's destruction is the start of ANY SIGNIFICANT TIME PERIOD. The Dubs take a dream that Daniel applied to Nebuchadnezzar with NO IMPLICATION OF ANY SECONDARY FULFILLMENT and INVENT a secondary fulfillment using DISPERATE AND UNRELATED cherry-picked verses from Revelation, Ezekiel, and other places.

  How do they pull it off? They make it so confusing and ridiculous while at the same time dogmatic, that the rank and file assume that one has to have super-duper holy spirit in order to figure that stuff out, therefore the perceived AUTHORITY of the GB in calculating that mess is enough to satisfy them (most of them, anyway).
• 

  JWoods

  Thanks, Mad Sweeney. Exactly what I was thinking about it.

  Good grief - if YHWH wanted to prophecy 1914 this way - why not just spell it out? Why make it an archeological scavenger hunt? Maybe, just maybe, because this is all the ranting of wannabe end-date prophets of the 19th century, and it DID NOT WORK!!!???

  To take it to just another level - can you IMAGINE what a real scholar like this Michael Jursa would think about the twisted logic (and factual mis-representations) that the WTS is putting onto his legitimate work?