• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What became of Nebuchadnezzar after becoming an animal?

Spiderman

Veteran Member
King Nebuchadnezzar had the dream where the wise men had to not only provide the interpretation of the dream, but they had to tell him the dream without any hints, explain to him what his dream was, and interpret the dream, or suffer the death penalty!

Anyway, nobody but Daniel was able to tell him his dream and interpret his dream. Eventually Nebuchadnezzar went insane, and he spent years crawling on all fours, living with the animals, living like a bull in the wilderness, eating grass. How did he turn out in the end after he got his marbles back after losing them?

A lot of scholars think Daniel actually never really existed, and that was simply a story that was told generation after generation verbally, then finally written down, and is not historically accurate. Do you believe the biblical account of Daniel is actually innerrant historical document (without anything inaccurate)?

Why does the world not have any people like Daniel, when there's more souls, far far more today than then, or ever, when the world needs somebody like him most, to Shepherd and guide the people, to influence world leaders, when so many souls are starving and in danger of being lost, why are all the people like Daniel , people that lived at a time where the world needed them far less?

If we had one person like Daniel in the world today, he would strongly influence whoever is the leader of the nation, and he would probably heavily influence leaders of many nations, and the whole world would be turning to him more than they turn to the Pope or anyone.

The world is very hungry for the truth. It's just, there's so many scandals in every religious denomination, people don't know where to turn for the truth, so they just despair and become lukewarm believers ( without much fervor zeal), or agnostics.

I'm very skeptic and suspicious of this fact that all these great prophets and sign and wonder workers, existed in ancient time, where science and medicine was not advanced enough to verify and certify the miracles, there were not cell phones to pick up on what was actually going on, we don't have videos of these people, recordings of them.

Now that we have all these inventions, I see no evidence that any such people exist on the entire planet, when there's more people than ever, and we need them more than ever. Doesn't that strike you as cause for suspicion and skepticism?

So, I've read the Bible from Genesis to revelation. But that was a long time ago.

The disease and disorder that Nebuchadnezzar experienced, actually has happened before in modern times, where a person begins to believe they are an ox, and acts like one.

Nebuchadnezzar was a prodigal son, if I've ever heard of one.

And in bestial form: the king becomes boanthropic (boanthropy being the delusion that one is an ox)
85605213c83a3f014f7d0f9b3c6b2b00.jpg
nebuchadnezzar.jpg
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
Book of Daniel says the Great Emperor of Babylon “was driven from men and did eat grass as oxen”. Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire from 605BC to 562BC.

According to the Bible, he conquered Judah and Jerusalem and sent the Jews into exile. He was also credited with building the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.

Nebuchadnezzar was humbled by God for boasting about his achievements, lost his sanity and lived like an animal for seven years, according to Daniel, chapter 4. When his sanity was later restored he praised and honoured God.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
What do historians and Biblical scholars say about him?
He allegedly gained his sanity back and praised an honored God, after being in that condition for years, as the most famous person to have ever suffered that disorder, possibly the worst case of it in history.

But I don't recall what's actually said about him after turning into a human walking on all fours and eating grass. I guess I'll have to go do the research myself.
 

Eyes to See

Well-Known Member
There is a really good book on the book of Daniel. It is a good read. It dedicates a chapter to answer a lot of the skeptics about Daniel's veracity:

https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101999021

Here are a few good points from it. Belshazzar, a "son" of Nebuchadnezzar, ruling as king when the city was overthrown. He is the one that saw the handwriting on the wall. Critics claimed he didn't exist because his name was nowhere to be found outside the Bible. In 1850, Fedinand Hitzig said Belshazzar had to be a figment of the writer's imagination.

In 1854 small clay cylinders were unearthed in the ruins of ancient Babylonian city of Ur in southern Iraq. The cuenifrom documents from King Nabonidus included a prayer for "Bel-sar-ussur, my eldest son."

I will quote a few paragraphs:

"Yet, critics were not satisfied. “This proves nothing,” wrote one named H. F. Talbot. He charged that the son in the inscription might have been a mere child, whereas Daniel presents him as a reigning king. Just a year after Talbot’s remarks were published, though, more cuneiform tablets were unearthed that referred to Belshazzar as having secretaries and a household staff. No child, this! Finally, other tablets clinched the matter, reporting that Nabonidus was away from Babylon for years at a time. These tablets also showed that during these periods, he “entrusted the kingship” of Babylon to his eldest son (Belshazzar). At such times, Belshazzar was, in effect, king—a coregent with his father.

Still unsatisfied, some critics complain that the Bible calls Belshazzar, not the son of Nabonidus, but the son of Nebuchadnezzar. Some insist that Daniel does not even hint at the existence of Nabonidus. However, both objections collapse upon examination. Nabonidus, it seems, married the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar. That would make Belshazzar the grandson of Nebuchadnezzar. Neither the Hebrew nor the Aramaic language has words for “grandfather” or “grandson”; “son of” can mean “grandson of” or even “descendant of.” (Compare Matthew 1:1.) Further, the Bible account does allow for Belshazzar to be identified as the son of Nabonidus. When terrified by the ominous handwriting on the wall, the desperate Belshazzar offers the third place in the kingdom to anyone who can decipher the words. (Daniel 5:7) Why third and not second? This offer implies that the first and second places were already occupied. In fact, they were—by Nabonidus and by his son, Belshazzar.

So Daniel’s mention of Belshazzar is not evidence of “badly garbled” history. On the contrary, Daniel—although not writing a history of Babylon—offers us a more detailed view of the Babylonian monarchy than such ancient secular historians as Herodotus, Xenophon, and Berossus. Why was Daniel able to record facts that they missed? Because he was there in Babylon. His book is the work of an eyewitness, not of an impostor of later centuries."

Some of the details in the book of Daniel that points to Daniel's intimate knowledge of Babylon:

"Daniel’s familiarity with subtle details about ancient Babylon is compelling evidence of the authenticity of his account. For instance, Daniel 3:1-6 reports that Nebuchadnezzar set up a giant image for all the people to worship. Archaeologists have found other evidence that this monarch sought to get his people more involved in nationalistic and religious practices. Similarly, Daniel records Nebuchadnezzar’s boastful attitude about his many construction projects. (Daniel 4:30) Not until modern times have archaeologists confirmed that Nebuchadnezzar was indeed behind a great deal of the building done in Babylon. As to boastfulness—why, the man had his name stamped on the very bricks! Daniel’s critics cannot explain how their supposed forger of Maccabean times (167-63 B.C.E.) could have known of such construction projects—some four centuries after the fact and long before archaeologists brought them to light.

The book of Daniel also reveals some key differences between Babylonian and Medo-Persian law. For example, under Babylonian law Daniel’s three companions were thrown into a fiery furnace for refusing to obey the king’s command. Decades later, Daniel was thrown into a pit of lions for refusing to obey a Persian law that violated his conscience. (Daniel 3:6; 6:7-9) Some have tried to dismiss the fiery furnace account as legend, but archaeologists have found an actual letter from ancient Babylon that specifically mentions this form of punishment. To the Medes and the Persians, however, fire was sacred. So they turned to other vicious forms of punishment. Hence, the pit of lions comes as no surprise.

Another contrast emerges. Daniel shows that Nebuchadnezzar could enact and change laws on a whim. Darius could do nothing to change ‘the laws of the Medes and the Persians’—even those he himself had enacted! (Daniel 2:5, 6, 24, 46-49; 3:10, 11, 29; 6:12-16) Historian John C. Whitcomb writes: “Ancient history substantiates this difference between Babylon, where the law was subject to the king, and Medo-Persia, where the king was subject to the law.”


There is a lot more to read I shouldn't copy paste the whole thing, and I couldn't do a better job of defending it's veracity. I recommend you taking the time to read the entire chapter I have linked.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
I've read all of the Bible before, but that was a long time ago. I don't remember a lot of it.
I prefer NIV usually. One thing to know about Nebuchadnezzar is that his name resembles (but is not the same) that of a real historical king who has left behind boastful stels. These are engraved rocks talking about how mighty the king is. They are propaganda intended to last through the ages.

The scripture literally says that Nebuchadnezzar's hair grows like feathers -- a miracle. This and other things suggest to me that what is important is not the physical effects upon the man but the principles in the story. Everything in the story such as the made up but similar name, the king's obeisance to the God of Israel and his letter to all of his kingdoms praising the God of Israel...all of it suggests perhaps some artistic license and that this should be obvious. So we should focus on the principles and not upon the specifics...kind of like with that movie about Abraham Lincoln the Vampire Hunter. The movie may have a point to make but not a historical point to make. It borrows characters from real history not to deceive but to entertain or perhaps converse.

So everything in the story of Daniel has a point, but this does not mean everything in it is history. It is based upon history, and it is based upon a real exile. Daniel is set up as the ideal refugee, completely wronged by Babylon and even castrated; yet he forgives and works for the good of the place where he has been exiled. He prays for the country and also for his people, working for the good of both. Nebuchadnezzar learns to respect the L-RD because of Daniel, his friends and all of the people like them. It is left to us to determine what is the point...what matters practically today to a person who is living in exile and to someone who is not. Is the point to carry around a bottle of lion repellent or is the point to do no harm and pray for the good of the place where they live?

Similar things happen in the book Esther. Its also about the exile. Also related to the exile are the books Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah and Malachi....and others.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
I would say that historically Babylon was partially healed due to the actions of these exiles. Its sins were borne, and the exiles interceded for it. The Babylonians were able to see that these people were not a threat, that it was good and wise to let them return to their homeland to build a temple of prayer for all people. The king is like the country which has become like a beast. Babylon is a beast. It is destructive, chaotic and insane in its arrogance; but the exiles have helped it.
 

Eyes to See

Well-Known Member
You wrote:

"If we had one person like Daniel in the world today, he would strongly influence whoever is the leader of the nation, and he would probably heavily influence leaders of many nations, and the whole world would be turning to him more than they turn to the Pope or anyone."

Jesus said that his followers would be given the "helper" or his holy spirit when he left. This would help them to know what to say and when to say it. Also he said that his followers would be brought before kings as a witness to his name:

"You will be brought before kings and governors for the sake of my name. It will result in your giving a witness. Therefore, resolve in your hearts not to rehearse beforehand how to make your defense, for I will give you words and wisdom that all your opposers together will not be able to resist or dispute."-Luke 21:12-15.

The anointed Christian congregation are ambassadors on earth substituting for the Christ:

"Therefore, we are ambassadors substituting for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us. As substitutes for Christ, we beg: “Become reconciled to God.”-2 Corinthians 5:20.

These ambassadors represent Jehovah's kingdom government in heaven with Jesus Christ as king. They are among Jehovah's Witnesses. And while they do speak to kings, and have been heralded among them all throughout the last days, they go to all the people. But there are not enough of the anointed to witness about Jehovah and Jesus as his ambassadors, so those of the earthly hope who attach themselves to Jehovah's anointed ones are also commissioned as emissaries to the nations.

They both herald God's name and Jesus kingdom presence, but also are foretelling to all by means of discerning Bible prophecy what is to shortly take place.

Now as you know an ambassador does not take part of the government in which he is sent to speak in the name of his ruler. Rather he remains neutral. So too, God's ambassadors, these ones substituting for the Christ on earth do not get involved in the earth's political system of things, its governments or its wars. Religions that are involved in the affairs of this earth and committing spiritual adultery in God's eyes. They are putting themselves down on record as enemies of God and of his Christ, and the Jesus' kingdom in heaven that is soon coming to wage war with wicked human society.

The Churches of Christendom have put their hope in man-made institutions for "peace and security." Several Popes throughout the years have even put themselves down on record as stating that the United Nations is God's instrument of bringing peace to the earth. While Revelation calls the United Nations a wild beast. And says that anyone taking the her number, a man's number, 666, do not have their names written in the book of life.

The prophecy in Psalm 2 tells us that God's son Jesus Christ has been given the ends of the earth as his inheritance. He is the rightful ruler of earth. But the earth is fragmented by warring factions and world rulers who do not recoginze his authority. So he will wage war with them with the edge of his sword and put them to death:

"The kings of the earth take their stand
And high officials gather together as one
Against Jehovah and against his anointed one.
3 They say: “Let us tear off their shackles
And throw off their ropes!”
4 The One enthroned in the heavens will laugh;
Jehovah will scoff at them.
5 At that time he will speak to them in his anger
And terrify them in his burning anger,
6 Saying: “I myself have installed my king
On Zion, my holy mountain.”
7 Let me proclaim the decree of Jehovah;
He said to me: “You are my son;
Today I have become your father.
8 Ask of me, and I will give nations as your inheritance
And the ends of the earth as your possession.
9 You will break them with an iron scepter,
And you will smash them like a piece of pottery.”
10 So now, you kings, show insight;
Accept correction, you judges of the earth.
11 Serve Jehovah with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
12 Honor the son, or God will become indignant
And you will perish from the way,
For His anger flares up quickly.
Happy are all those taking refuge in Him."
-Psalms 2:2-12.

Jehovah gave the king Nebuchadnezzar a dream of a statue. It represented various world powers that had influence on God's people down to our day. During our day a stone was carved out of a mountain, not by human hands, and hurled toward the feet of the statue and pulverized it, crushing it and putting it out of existence, and in its place a mountain grew out of the stone that filled the whole earth.

That stone is Jesus Christ's incoming kingdom government. Jesus says of that kingdom in heaven, talking about the kings of the time in which we currently live:

In the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed. And this kingdom will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it alone will stand forever."-Daniel 2:44.

The kings of the earth are given the same message as everyone else. Do homage to the son. Give him honor. Repent of your wicked ways. Jehovah's witnesses have been hailed before high officials in governments around the world all throughout the last days. Have the world's rulers acknowledged Jesus as ruler in heaven? Have they given up their "right" to rule? No. They have not. I will repeat the prophecy in Psalm 2 here, while it did have an initial fulfillment in Jesus' day when the Jewish religious leaders conspired together with the Roman rulers to put Jesus to death, it has a far greater fulfillment in our times:

"The kings of the earth take their stand
And high officials gather together as one
Against Jehovah and against his anointed one.
3 They say: “Let us tear off their shackles
And throw off their ropes!”
4 The One enthroned in the heavens will laugh;
Jehovah will scoff at them.
5 At that time he will speak to them in his anger
And terrify them in his burning anger
"

The kings of the earth will take their stand against Jehovah God, and his son's kingdom. Revelation tells us that Satan will gather all the kings of the earth together to wage war against God and his incoming heavenly kingdom:

"They are, in fact, expressions inspired by demons and they perform signs, and they go out to the kings of the entire inhabited earth, to gather them together to the war of the great day of God the Almighty."-Revelation 16:14.

That day is quickly approaching. God is giving everyone fair warning before it happens. When the end comes you will know there was a prophet in your midst:

"And when it comes true—and it will come true—they will have to know that a prophet has been among them.”-Ezekiel 33:33.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
What do historians and Biblical scholars say about him?

Although we have Babylonian sources about Nebuchadnezzar taking Jerusalem, eg Babylonian Chronicle, there are no mentions of Daniel or Nebuchadnezzar’s madness, nothing about any destruction of any temple.

Plus, there are no book of Daniel in the 6th century BCE, most likely it was written in the 2nd century BCE.

And there are nothing on Daniel himself, contemporary to Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar or Cyrus, in other Babylonian sources (or in Persian sources), sources like Nabonidus Stele, Nabonidus Cylinders, Verse Accounts of Nabonidus, Cyrus Cylinder.

When you considered all that, I think the Book of Daniel is just fiction.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Neither the Hebrew nor the Aramaic language has words for “grandfather” or “grandson”; “son of” can mean “grandson of” or even “descendant of.”
This is strange. Not only does biblical Hebrew have words for grandson (נכד and בן בן), it also has words for descendant (שאר and צאצא). There are also words for great-grandson and great-great-grandson: שילש and רביע. Can't vouch for biblical Aramaic, but it would seem strange that the Aramaic of the era wouldn't have such words.
I don't deny that sometimes בן (son of) can refer to descendants other than sons, but this claim about the Hebrew is strange.
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
This is strange. Not only does biblical Hebrew have words for grandson (נכד and בן בן), it also has words for descendant (שאר and צאצא). There are also words for great-grandson and great-great-grandson: שילש and רביע. Can't vouch for biblical Aramaic, but it would seem strange that the Aramaic of the era wouldn't have such words.
I don't deny that sometimes בן (son of) can refer to descendants other than sons, but this claim about the Hebrew is strange.
I would have thought you were mistaken, but you are from Israel, I think you (of anyone here) would have the knowledge, and Google search engine translation results can actually verify your statement about Biblical Hebrew being factual or not.

Interesting. I guess the lesson for me is, don't always believe what people say about the Scriptures, or the Bible, or what words mean in Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew, or claims that there is no accurate word in those languages for an English word.

It's actually a vice I have, is assuming too much credibility is present, believing those people are stating the truth, when they make such claims.

I assume they know better than me, and I error on the side of overconfidence that people know what they are talking about, and have credibility (as long as they sound intelligent and educated).

Thank you for informing me otherwise. :) ;)
 

Spiderman

Veteran Member
Although we have Babylonian sources about Nebuchadnezzar taking Jerusalem, eg Babylonian Chronicle, there are no mentions of Daniel or Nebuchadnezzar’s madness, nothing about any destruction of any temple.

Plus, there are no book of Daniel in the 6th century BCE, most likely it was written in the 2nd century BCE.

And there are nothing on Daniel himself, contemporary to Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar or Cyrus, in other Babylonian sources (or in Persian sources), sources like Nabonidus Stele, Nabonidus Cylinders, Verse Accounts of Nabonidus, Cyrus Cylinder.

When you considered all that, I think the Book of Daniel is just fiction.
Who would do such a thing, and for what purpose?
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
Interesting. I guess the lesson for me is, don't always believe what people say about the Scriptures, or the Bible, or what words mean in Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew, or claims that there is no accurate word in those languages for an English word.
A pinch of doubt is a useful tool in life.
Who would do such a thing, and for what purpose?
Most academic scholars think that Daniel is a veiled description of the Seleucid era in the Land of Israel (which eventually brought about the Hasmonean Revolt). Likewise, many apocryphal Second Temple texts are taken to refer to this era or that era, this event or that event. Remember that pinch of doubt? It comes in handy. The truth is, fishing out hints for events not specifically mentioned in these works has made many a buck to many an academic. The same goes for "figuring out" the "secret code words" in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
 

Eyes to See

Well-Known Member
This is strange. Not only does biblical Hebrew have words for grandson (נכד and בן בן), it also has words for descendant (שאר and צאצא). There are also words for great-grandson and great-great-grandson: שילש and רביע. Can't vouch for biblical Aramaic, but it would seem strange that the Aramaic of the era wouldn't have such words.
I don't deny that sometimes בן (son of) can refer to descendants other than sons, but this claim about the Hebrew is strange.

This is referring to the Hebrew that was used in the 6th century B. C. E. From what I could dig up there was no such distinction back then:

"The Hebrew word ben, besides the meaning of "son," can refer to a grandson, great-grandson, etc., since there is no other Hebrew equivalent. Likewise, the Hebrew word ab, besides the meaning of "father," can refer to a grandfather, great-grandfather, etc. For this reason, the biblical genealogies could represent highlights of the complete genealogy, with only the most noteworthy generations represented."

"The ancient Hebrew wording has no designation for grandfather, great grandfather, grandson, great grandson, etc."

In fact if you take the Hebrew words you provided and look them up in the
The Complete Tanakh (Tanach) - Hebrew Bible
The Jewish Bible with a Modern English Translation and Rashi's Commentary
found here:
https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/63255/jewish/The-Bible-with-Rashi.htm

None of them appear in the ancient Hebrew text.
 

Eyes to See

Well-Known Member
I would have thought you were mistaken, but you are from Israel, I think you (of anyone here) would have the knowledge, and Google search engine translation results can actually verify your statement about Biblical Hebrew being factual or not.

Interesting. I guess the lesson for me is, don't always believe what people say about the Scriptures, or the Bible, or what words mean in Greek, Aramaic, or Hebrew, or claims that there is no accurate word in those languages for an English word.

It's actually a vice I have, is assuming too much credibility is present, believing those people are stating the truth, when they make such claims.

I assume they know better than me, and I error on the side of overconfidence that people know what they are talking about, and have credibility (as long as they sound intelligent and educated).

Thank you for informing me otherwise. :) ;)

You are right. You shouldn't just believe anything that you read. If you look up those modern Hebrew words he provided none of them are found in the ancient Hebrew manuscripts. Do the research yourself and you will find that Harel13 provided Hebrew words that were not in use in the ancient Hebrew texts.
 

Harel13

Am Yisrael Chai
Staff member
Premium Member
This is referring to the Hebrew that was used in the 6th century B. C. E
6th century BCE Hebrew in terms of literary sources is more expansive than just the Bible, because there are fairly many Hebrew inscriptions and ostraca from the era. So the question would be whether we find these words there.

Now, about the Bible:

צאצא appears in Isaiah and Job. Interestingly, 1.5 books associated by academics with the Babylonian Exile.

נכד and נין appear in Genesis, Job and Isaiah.

שאר appears all over, in many different eras.

שילש and רביע appear only in the Torah. So that's a point for you, maybe - again, we must see what has been found in extra-Biblical Hebrew texts.

Of course you didn't find the words I provided in the Chabad search. The words I provided are the roots, but they appear in different forms in the Tanach (plural, fem. v. masc., etc).
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
I prefer NIV usually. One thing to know about Nebuchadnezzar is that his name resembles (but is not the same) that of a real historical king who has left behind boastful stels. These are engraved rocks talking about how mighty the king is. They are propaganda intended to last through the ages.

The scripture literally says that Nebuchadnezzar's hair grows like feathers -- a miracle. This and other things suggest to me that what is important is not the physical effects upon the man but the principles in the story. Everything in the story such as the made up but similar name, the king's obeisance to the God of Israel and his letter to all of his kingdoms praising the God of Israel...all of it suggests perhaps some artistic license and that this should be obvious. So we should focus on the principles and not upon the specifics...kind of like with that movie about Abraham Lincoln the Vampire Hunter. The movie may have a point to make but not a historical point to make. It borrows characters from real history not to deceive but to entertain or perhaps converse.

So everything in the story of Daniel has a point, but this does not mean everything in it is history. It is based upon history, and it is based upon a real exile. Daniel is set up as the ideal refugee, completely wronged by Babylon and even castrated; yet he forgives and works for the good of the place where he has been exiled. He prays for the country and also for his people, working for the good of both. Nebuchadnezzar learns to respect the L-RD because of Daniel, his friends and all of the people like them. It is left to us to determine what is the point...what matters practically today to a person who is living in exile and to someone who is not. Is the point to carry around a bottle of lion repellent or is the point to do no harm and pray for the good of the place where they live?

Similar things happen in the book Esther. Its also about the exile. Also related to the exile are the books Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zechariah and Malachi....and others.

Do you think the Book of Daniel is actual history?
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Although we have Babylonian sources about Nebuchadnezzar taking Jerusalem, eg Babylonian Chronicle, there are no mentions of Daniel or Nebuchadnezzar’s madness, nothing about any destruction of any temple.

Plus, there are no book of Daniel in the 6th century BCE, most likely it was written in the 2nd century BCE.

And there are nothing on Daniel himself, contemporary to Nebuchadnezzar, Belshazzar or Cyrus, in other Babylonian sources (or in Persian sources), sources like Nabonidus Stele, Nabonidus Cylinders, Verse Accounts of Nabonidus, Cyrus Cylinder.

When you considered all that, I think the Book of Daniel is just fiction.

It is strange to say that we have found no mention of Nebuchadnezzar taking Jerusalem and destroying the Temple therefore it did not happen.
There is mention of Nebuchadnezzar's madness but not in the way Daniel describes it.
It is strange to say that archaeologists have found no copies of the Book of Daniel in the 6th Cent BC therefore it was not written then.
It is strange to expect to find the name Daniel when his name was changed to Belteshazzar. Are names of other leaders of the Maggi found anywhere?
You already know that supposed historical problems with the book of Daniel have been answered by archaeology and so really all you are basing your scepticism on is your scepticism about the prophecies in Daniel being true.
 
Top