Daniel 5 records the downfall of Babylon and identifies the King of Babylon as Belshazzar. However, both Xenophon
and Herodotus recount the fall of Babylon to
Cyrus the Great, yet neither of these writers give the name of the king
of Babylon. Additionally, both Berossus’ and Ptolemy's king lists have Nabonidus as the last king of Babylon with no mention of Belshazzar.
So this begs the question. Is this an error? Christians were mocked and attacked on this one for decades. But did you notice the past tense in that last sentence. They were mocked.
So while secular history had lost the knowledge of King Balshazzar for centuries the Bible had it all along. An archeology discovery in 1854 has confirmed Daniel's historical record to be accurate. That's right, in 1854 historians finally got their first physical evidence outside of the Bible.
Apparently, in the third year of his reign Nabonidus went for a long journey and entrusted the rule of his kingdom to his son. When Cyrus overthrew Babylon, Nabonidus was in Tema in North Arabia.
What a win for the Bible! As a Christian this gives me confidence. Confidence to trust the Bible even if "conventional wisdom" doesn't necessarily agree.
No comments:
Post a Comment