Fulfillments of Bible Prophecy

quote:

---

believe that its likely because Belshazzar was ruling babylon single handedly, as a co-regent of his father. there is acheological evidence (Nabonidus Chronicle) to support the fact that Nabonidus did not reside in Babylon but chose to give it to Belshazzar.

---

The Nabonidus Chronicle indicates that Nabonidus had returned to Babylon by the 17th year of his reign (most of years 12-16 are missing), but fled the city because of the Persian victories. SO the Chronicle does not explain why Nabonidus is not mentioned at all.The Book of Daniel jumps right from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar to Belshazzar (Daniel 4 to Daniel 5) - who is repeatedly described as the son of Nebuchadnezzar (have you READ it ?) when he was in fact the son of the usurper Nabonidus.If we relied on the book of Daniel we'd not known that Nabonidus or the other kings (or that more than 20 years had passed !). Worse, the Nabonidus Chronicle makes it clear that the Persians were known to be attacking, yet there is no mention of it in Daniel 5 - the conquest just happens, out of the blue(BTW I've checked Herodotus and he DOES seem to know of Belshazzar - he just gets the names wrong, calling both Nabonidus and Belshazzar "Labynetus")

quote:

---

The question I would have is, is there a factual error in the book of Daniel's history?

---

Then you haven't been following the discussion. The question at hand is whether Daniel displays such a knowledge of the period to conclude that Daniel was written in the 6th Century BC.Since Daniel 5 seems to present Belshazzar as Nebuchadnezzars (literal) son and heir the answer is no.

quote:

---

Do you know who Nabonidus was? Have you checked to see how Nabonidus and Nebuchadnezzar are related?

---

The answers are yes, and nobody really knows respectively.

quote:

---

Nitocris was the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar so Nabonidus/Labynetus was Nebuchadnezzar's son-in-law.

---

This is speculation, not fact. As I said nobody really knows.

quote:

---

Daniel refers to Nebuchadnezzar as the "father" of Belshazzar because in patriarchal societies, the head was the father of all the offspring.

---

I asked if you'd read Daniel 5. Obviously you haven't. There are a number of references to Belshazzar as the son of Nebuchadnezzar placed in a number of mouths. But not one mention of Nabonidus, the true king and father of Belshazzar.

quote:

---

Besides that, Belshazzar was the king of the kingdom when Daniel was there and he would have been obliged to call him the 'king'.

---

Belshazzar was never king, only the co-regent.

Either you're replying to the wrong message or you've badly misunderstood it. In fact I even raise the point that the Gosple stories could be based on Isaiah 53.

Of the three main examples offered so far not one is a clear success.Daniel 8 places the End Times in the Hellenistic era, and thus clearly failed.Daniel 9 also requires twisting to "fit" the supposed fulfilment - as well as an interpretation that contradicts Daniel 8.Isaiah 53 contains almost no confirmable details - and requires some questionable readings.Successful prophecies can only be a valid reason for believing in the Bible if there are rationally convincing prophecies. None of the ones offered here come close - in fact the claims of success are themselves faith-driven.