The full translation of the tablet reads: (Regarding) 1.5 minas (0.75 kg) of gold, the property of Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, the chief eunuch, which he sent via Arad-Banitu the eunuch to [the temple] Esangila: Arad-Banitu has delivered [it] to Esangila. In the presence of Bel-usat, son of Alpaya, the royal bodyguard, [and of] Nadin, son of Marduk-zer-ibni. Month XI, day 18, year 10 [of] Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.
Archaeological finds in regard to biblical accuracy are quite intriguing. It's interesting to note that a few great archaeologists were quite impressed with what they discovered when trying to refute the bible’s historical claims.
William Ramsay had set out to disprove Luke in the late nineteenth century, but after 30 years of archeology in Asia Minor and the middle east, Ramsay concluded the opposite of what he initially believed. He ended up calling Luke one of the greatest historians ever, and eventually converted to Christianity.
Likewise, William Albright had originally regarded the Bible as simply a book of literature that was not based on historical fact. During his field studies in the from 1930-1971, he found conclusive evidence to reverse his position. He found that the bible was consistent with archaeological findings.
HT to Salvador at Young Cosmos.
