What became of Nebuchadnezzar after becoming an animal?

[gnostic]

You are the one who said that Daniel met Cyrus and even the Book of Daniel does not say that.

It doesn't say meet, but Daniel supposedly met Darius the Mede, who according to Daniel 5 & 6, this Darius captured Babylon, which isn't true, because Babylon surrendered to Cyrus, not to the fictional Darius the Mede.

There is no Median king named Darius. The last Mede to rule Media was Astyages, who was contemporary to Nebuchadnezzar, because they were brothers-in-law, and were allies, Astyages was also contemporary to Nabonidus and to Cyrus, especially since Cyrus II was the one started the revolt and war against Media (Persia was a subject kingdom). Cyrus defeated Astyages in 550 BCE. So the only king ruling Media at the time of Babylon's fall was Cyrus, since he annexed Media into his growing empire.

The war between Cyrus and Astyages is recorded in the Nabonidus Chronicle.

There is no Darius, unless you mean Cyrus' nephew who ruled Persian Empire afterward in 522 BCE, as Darius I or Darius the Great, and he was Persian, not Mede. Darius was famous expanding the empire all the way to Greece, but only to lose the war to Athens' much smaller army in 490 BCE (Battle of Marathon).

If Babylon was captured by the Persians, then they would have to surrender to Cyrus not to Daniel's nonexistent Darius the Mede.

Whoever wrote the Book of Daniel don't know the 6th century histories of Babylon and Persia that well.

But Daniel couldn't have met Cyrus when Babylon surrendered, because Daniel himself is a fictional character too.

Why are we still arguing over this subject?

We know that you would only accept Daniel (book), but this book is seriously inaccurate because we do have contemporary texts in this period of history (6th century BCE), enough to know that the author of Daniel didn't write his book in this century.

 

[Triumph]

It doesn't say meet, but Daniel supposedly met Darius the Mede, who according to Daniel 5 & 6, this Darius captured Babylon, which isn't true, because Babylon surrendered to Cyrus, not to the fictional Darius the Mede.

There is no Median king named Darius. The last Mede to rule Media was Astyages, who was contemporary to Nebuchadnezzar, because they were brothers-in-law, and were allies, Astyages was also contemporary to Nabonidus and to Cyrus, especially since Cyrus II was the one started the revolt and war against Media (Persia was a subject kingdom). Cyrus defeated Astyages in 550 BCE. So the only king ruling Media at the time of Babylon's fall was Cyrus, since he annexed Media into his growing empire.

The war between Cyrus and Astyages is recorded in the Nabonidus Chronicle.

There is no Darius, unless you mean Cyrus' nephew who ruled Persian Empire afterward in 522 BCE, as Darius I or Darius the Great, and he was Persian, not Mede. Darius was famous expanding the empire all the way to Greece, but only to lose the war to Athens' much smaller army in 490 BCE (Battle of Marathon).

If Babylon was captured by the Persians, then they would have to surrender to Cyrus not to Daniel's nonexistent Darius the Mede.

Whoever wrote the Book of Daniel don't know the 6th century histories of Babylon and Persia that well.

But Daniel couldn't have met Cyrus when Babylon surrendered, because Daniel himself is a fictional character too.

Why are we still arguing over this subject?

We know that you would only accept Daniel (book), but this book is seriously inaccurate because we do have contemporary texts in this period of history (6th century BCE), enough to know that the author of Daniel didn't write his book in this century.

Understand Daniel is not talking about the past or trying to describe historical facts. The Prophet Daniel is forming parables about what happens in the future using some names of cities and rulers in the past. Choosing a Persian as a character was deliberate as Persia/Iran is a nation being discussed in the future, end of days war. Daniel using symbolism is revealing very important events in our generation.

 

[gnostic]

Understand Daniel is not talking about the past or trying to describe historical facts.

But that's exactly what Brian2 believes.

Sure, he (Brian2) believe what he want, but the facts remained there dateable stone stelae, clay tablets and clay cylinders, dated to the 6th century BCE, that provide some detail about the lives of the reigning rulers in Babylonia, Persia and even Media (though not directly, meaning you would have to rely on Neo-Babylonian and Persian sources, to know the history of Media).

These tabets, cylinders and stelae contained information about that period, in which who rule when, who was related to whom.

Whereas the Book of Daniel was composed later - 300 years after Nebuchadezzar II.

The point is that these Persian and Babylonian sources are either contemporary or near-contemporary written in that century.

Plus, some of these sources include the names of rulers' children. And one fact is that Belshazzar isn't Nebuchadezzar's son. No, Belshazzar's father is Nabonidus, the last Chaldean king of Babylonia (not just of city Babylon).

And that's another fact that author of Daniel got wrong, Belshazzar was never king. It was Nabonidus who was king, not Belshazzar.

 

[Triumph]

But that's exactly what Brian2 believes.

Sure, he (Brian2) believe what he want, but the facts remained there dateable stone stelae, clay tablets and clay cylinders, dated to the 6th century BCE, that provide some detail about the lives of the reigning rulers in Babylonia, Persia and even Media (though not directly, meaning you would have to rely on Neo-Babylonian and Persian sources, to know the history of Media).

These tabets, cylinders and stelae contained information about that period, in which who rule when, who was related to whom.

Whereas the Book of Daniel was composed later - 300 years after Nebuchadezzar II.

The point is that these Persian and Babylonian sources are either contemporary or near-contemporary written in that century.

Plus, some of these sources include the names of rulers' children. And one fact is that Belshazzar isn't Nebuchadezzar's son. No, Belshazzar's father is Nabonidus, the last Chaldean king of Babylonia (not just of city Babylon).

And that's another fact that author of Daniel got wrong, Belshazzar was never king. It was Nabonidus who was king, not Belshazzar.

Why are you trying to believe that the date it is written or how history actually happened makes any difference to how a person is shown visions of the future and what elements are to be used to describe it? The Bible should never be viewed as a history book, it is a book about a war that will destroy the world that will happen in the future. We are shown how the reasons for the war developed. There will be 7 nuclear empowered nations that will fight in WW3.
A Seraphim with 6 wings that flies with twain is a fighter jet like a F-35 that flies with Distributed Aperture System, DAS, placed in the exact 3 positions described in scripture in 2 units each, twain.
A Cherubim is the description of a duel blade attack helicopter like the Kamov-KA and the pilot is called a cherub. With the air hose in profile and a white helmet the pilot looks like an eagle The Joint Strike helmet looks like a ox/calf. The flaming sword is a missile. Helicopters are also symbolically described as locusts.
A rod of iron represents a rifle thus an army. Pillows sewn to arms are parachutes. Ground soldiers are called cattle. When a man has been shot it is described that he eats grass. The Lord of Hosts is the commander in chief of a military. The Levithan is a nuclear submarine with long range missiles.
A nation is called both a mountain and a tree. Israel is a fig tree and Lebanon is a cedar. When a forest marches that means a world war.
The BEAST is Thermonuclear World War 3. The SEA BEAST is war with the red dragon, China over ownership of the South China Sea. Red represents communism and the dragon is their national symbol. HEADS are nations with demands for rights to land and resources, Horns are nations in treaty to fight for them. China is a Head, Japan is a Head, the USA is a Horn. WW3 will like WW2 be fought in different areas of the world over completely different reasons.