The Bible contains many different forms of literature, only some of which purport to be historical narrative. Poetry and wisdom literature are not intended to be history. Prophecy may refer to history or it may be symbolic or refer to future events, either immediate or far referenced. However, no archaeological discovery to date has disproved any part of the Bible's historical sections, either OT or NT. What has become clear is that these sections of the Bible were written by the persons and on the dates that are claimed in the text.

Recent works by N.T. Wright and R. Bauckham especially show that the NT writers related events that were based on eyewitness testimony, and that those witnesses actually believed what they saw, even if they doubted at first (as even some of Jesus' inner circle did). If any of you assert that a given Biblical supernatural event did not happen, just because it didn't happen to you, then you are being illogical and irrational.

Ted Rossier, Norman, Oklahoma, USA

No serious historian disputes that the Bible is a useful historical source at least some of the time. What is disputed are claims (which historians, as historians, can never make) that the Bible is 'inerrant' or things of that sort. Accuracy has been proven, and there are lots of places where the Bible provides accurate information. There are also places where it has been shown beyond reasonable doubt that the Bible doesn't. And of course, the Bible is a collection of books, some of which don't provide any historical information or even claim to, others of which do so with varying degrees of accuracy.

In short, this discovery is interesting for historians and prone to misinterpretation by religious believers, who will try to turn this confirmation of a Biblical detail into something it is not and could never be, a proof of the Bible's inerrancy.

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com/2007/07/accuracy-is-not-inerrancy.html

James McGrath, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA

You know, God doesn't have a plan, He has a purpose and nothing can stop Him. Yes, He allows us to have our own opinions and express them. He allowed Adam and Eve the same freedoms. He also allowed them to show their love for Him by one simple act of obedience that didn't deprive them of anything. Thus, the reason we find ourselves in this discussion. Adam and Eve made the wrong choices and passed onto us inherited sin and the condemnation of death they received by their disobedience (Romans 5:12) . But Jehovah's purpose hasn't changed from the day Adam disobeyed by eating the forbidden fruit. (Isaiah 55:11) What He purposed for Adam, by all indications, will shortly began to be realized. Most persons agree we are living in the last days. According to Bible revelations we are living deep in the last days when Jehovah will soon act on behalf of his people. Then, all in opposition will be on the wrong side of the "war of the great day of God Almighty".

Barbara, Grand Rapids, MI

The bible took from many sources, no surprise it includes references to historical figures. It's a breathtaking jump of induction to assume this proves all in the bible is thus proven. I guess any book with the same reference would also then be proven totally correct? I wonder which of the versions of the bible with the same reference is correct?

But this is a trivial digression. The real issue is the lack of proof for the extraordinary claims in the bible, about a god, virgin birth, miracles, apotheosis, etc. Extraordinary claims warrant extraordinary proofs. For these there are no proofs, extraordinary or otherwise.

Jim Schlembach, Houston, Texas

Dearest Tim,
What you fail to realize is that this is but one of the many archaeological findings that line museums worldwide which testify to the bibles accuracy in historical events. Consider also that much of what secular history testifies to was written down by these "Men" in some cases hundreds of years in advance. The details of such events as the fall of Babylon which was prophesied some 200 years in advance (and secular history can also prove that) proved to be accurate down to the letter. We are not talking Nostradomus here where foretold events could apply to any time period. We're talking inspired writings which are historically accurate down to the smallest detail. While God does not need historical findings to prove his word is accurate, it is interesting that so many pieces of evidence continue to be discovered or unearthed ...........

Jessica Parke, Idaho, USA

The significance of this find is as external evidence of the historical reliability of Jeremiah 39. This demonstrates the likelihood that this passage at least was written not long after the events described - as some have previously claimed.
Of course this does not 'prove' the historical reliability of the whole Bible - historical records are never 'proven' by corroborating evidence but the credence we give to such records is increased.
Proof of the Bible's reliability necessarily comes from a combination of evidence from many different sources, both objective and subjective.

Paul Shaddick, Bristol, UK

You don't need to speak the word of a god to record history!

The fact that the bible records some historical facts from the last BC millenium just gives weight to that men wrote it at that time, certainly gives no further weight to their claims of a supernatural almighty being.

David, London, UK

The post-Solomon accounts of the fall of the Israelite empire are pretty obviously historical. Though it is nice to have the identity of a Babylonian general confirmed, it doesn't really change our attitudes to the text. What would be far more interesting would be something that shed light on the book of Esther, which we don't know how to interpret in historical or, indeed, religious terms.

Malcollm McLean, Bradford, UK

Whose 'correct terminology'?

Bob, Herts,

AD and BC are correct. BCE and CE are substitutes to allow for the sensitivities of those who do not admit Christ.

The Bible may or may not be accurate as an historical document: consider Genesis. If Genesis were absolutely accurate we would be descended from incest.

David Rohl's books are interesting and place the events of Genesis in an historical context.

No matter the accuracy of the history the Bible is not wholly believable as a guide to faith or do you contend that we should still ask priests to diagnose leprosy?

David Morrison, Airdrie, UK

Sorry to be in the middle of the road where one can get run over but this proves that parts of the Bible are historically accurate, but not necessarily that the rest of it is. As the Bible is meant to be a library of ancient writings inspired by God, no doubt some of it is accurate reporting, while other parts are poetry or retelling of older legends with a purpose of emphasising God's creative and loving nature (and occasionally other natures that the influential people of the time found politically expedient to promote, wrath, vengeance etc). To use this discovery as evidence for the Garden of Eden, or even the Flood, just cheapens the experience of reading the Bible as a whole, and serves only to exclude the 'ungodly', i.e those who differ in interpretation from the ultraconservatives who often appear to dominate the discussion these days about Biblical accuracy. The Bible is human writing inspired by God, but it is not necessarily always historically accurate.

Bob Gloster, Gloucester UK,

Let's see how long it takes the antiquity authorities to label this a forgery.

John Cavender, Crossville, TN

The correct terminology is A.D. and B.C. the other method is a a sop to those who do not recognise Christ. Our dating systedm is based on The Year of Our Lord or the Year of Grace. The Muslim has a different daiing system.

So far as the article is concerned hisstorical references are no proof of faith. If we believed Genesis then we are all the product of incest.

David Morrison, Airdrie, UK

It should not need stating that because some things in the Bible have backing as being historically true does not mean that everything in the book is historically true.

Tina Rhea, Greenbelt , Maryland US

Sorry Nigel, but in what sense is BCE and CE 'correct' terminology? Has Canberra passed a law on this which is universally applicable? Surely such terminology is in the end a preference. I would have thought that the house style of The Times is the arbiter here.

Benny, Milton Keynes,

There is good, independent evidence that Christopher Robin existed. Does that provide powerful proof that the Pooh Bear stories are historically accurate?

Ian, Glasgow, UK

Dalya Alberg,

I think you have the year Nebo-Sarsekim was present at Jerusalem mixed up. Jerusalem was likely a wilderness in 587BC having been abandon for 20 years after it fell to Babylon in 607BC. Remember to count backwards when using BC dates. The Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem to rebuild around 537BC.

"The tablet names a Babylonian officer called Nebo-Sarsekim who, according to Jeremiah 39 was present in 587BC."

Jeremiah 39:2 says that Sar'sechim was one of the princes present in 607BC when the siege against Jerusalem had broken through.

Jonathan, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

Robin - the bible is made up of a number of different books, none of which were actually written by God. Just because one book of the Old Testament may contain a tiny bit of historical fact - it doesn't make the whole thing true.

The equivalent would be like reading Sartre's Reprieve - or most works of fiction - yeah, it features Hitler and Chamberlain as characters, but the rest are fictional characters. Most novels are given a certain amount of factual basis otherwise we have nothing to go on when we read them. Practically all Mythology has elements of factual historical basis - Greek, Roman, Maori, Nordic etc.

The Bible cannot and should not be viewed as one book which is an accurate historical document. The books that are included and the books which are excluded from the Bible are determined by man and not God.

Tim Williams, Brighton, Sussex

a sorry attempt to bolster the miserable failing zionist agenda.

chris, newcastle, uk

Who says BCE and CE are the correct terminology? I don't remember voting on changing BC and AD - and they have been around for quite some time. Of course if we change those why not the number 2007 - that is just as linked to the principle a change in history happened around the time Christians believe Jesus was born, give or take a year or two. If you are offended by BC and AD then you should be equally offended by 2007 - lets have some consistance in your argument!

Tim, Plymouth, UK

Please use the correct terminology - BCE (& CE) instead of BC (& AD.)

Nigel, Melbourne, Australia

As an atheist amateur historian I have always accepted that there are kernels of truth murking about in the obvious mythology of the Bible. I suspect that both the Babylonian and Egyptian Captivities have some basis in fact - the Devil being in the details - but one independent confirmation no more establishes the literal proof of the Bible than the discovery of Troy validates the mythology of the Iliad.

Michael Fallert, San Francisco, USA

it is great to have the authenticity of the bible narrative confirmed like this - but hey! we shouldn't be surprised ... there is no more truthful book written than the Bible - it is Gods revelation to mankind! the disappointing thing is that this little spot of sunshine will pass by the great mass of humanity as they regretfully contine at full pelt along the wide road that leads to destruction.

Roger , Helston, UK

Is there any reference in this tablet to someone named Brian?

steph, Manchester,

100,000 inscribed tablets! I wonder how many of the others have archaeological evidence for the Bible. Archeology always proves the Bible!

Matt Kottman, Leatherhead, England

This is one of many powerful proofs of the historical accuracy of the Bible provided by archaeology. The point is that this cuneiform tablet acts as a totally independant testimony to events which are only otherwise recorded by God's word. Because it has remained buried in the earth for so long, then like a witness who has been isolated from all other witnesses, there can be no accusation of collusion. The Bible is therefore vindicated as an eye-witness account, written at the time of the events which it records. The grudging admission of Geza Vermes that "the Biblical story is not altogether invented" does not do justice to this strong corroboration. May the British Museum continue to make progress bringing to light the trerasures they hold.

Robin Compston, London,

Funny, I was under the impression that Nebuchadnezzar had left some graffiti on a wall in Beirut (which now has a restaurant just next to it). Maybe the person that told us (when we were there in 2001) just meant the graffiti was from the _time_ of Nebuchadnezzar, but I was unde the impression it was actually his doing...

Kim, Melbourne, Australia