Until 1854, science thought Belshazzar never existed yet his reign was covered in the Bible 530 BC. How?

Question

Daniel 7:1
[ Daniel’s Vision of Four Beasts ] Earlier, during the first year of King Belshazzar’s reign in Babylon, Daniel had a dream and saw visions as he lay in his bed
http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/?search=Belshazzar&searchtype=all&version1=51&spanbegin=1&spanend=73

Encyclopædia Britannica: Belshazzar died c. 539 BC
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9015322/Belshazzar

Answer 1

i read recently where they had just discovered the tomb of King Herod also ... the ruler in Jesus' time ..

Answer 2

You have to understand that it is a different Belshazzar. The one people don't think exists is the one that was one of three wise men. No one disputes the existence of this Belshazzar. If you look it he died at 539 that would be nearly 500 years before Christ was born.

Answer 3

History is a funny thing. It doesn't always document events or persons, especially from the BC era -- at least not until we find the right place to dig for evidence. The Bible, on the other hand, was inspired by God so it is an accurate report of historical events that have little other historical records.



This was seen with the existence of the Hittites. History had no record of this civilization, however, when archeologists followed the Biblical account of this civilization and looked in those places, they did find evidence of them.

Answer 4

The Bible wasn't the only source. Your own linked article says that Xenophon's Cyropaedia was also a source. I never heard that there was any controversy over Belshazzar. Is this supposed to be a miracle of some kind?



@>}----}----



AD

Answer 5

Because science deals in proof and there was no proof. When the proof appears the answer is true.



And dont say "science", that is too broad a term, molecular geneticists could care less about belshazzar.

Answer 6

"Science" thought Belshazzar never existed? Or do you mean to say, "There was no other evidence for his existence outside of a mention in the Bible, so therefore, many historians doubted his existence"? Because in the real world, we like to have evidence to support hypotheses.

Answer 7

How? I don't think I understand the question. If you mean the bible is an historical record, I'd agree on some points. If you mean it's because it's the word of god, I'd disagree.



I'm not sure why anyone would think there isn't some historical fact in the bible. I've seen historical fact in mythological tales, too.

Answer 8

Oozoo,

Your denial is showing...Come on, fess up to your creator and live in the sunshine instead of an old musky cave.

Bad liberal,

Archaeologists and such are always finding things that the Bible speaks of. Your problem is that (You Can't Handle The Truth!)

Answer 9

Oh, that was good. The Holy Bible is historically accurate. Prophesies have come true. People need to pay more attention to what it says! God bless and have a great night.

Answer 10

The Bible is very reliable. When the Red Sea Scrolls were found, they confirmed the OT.

Answer 11

Because if you look back in a broad enough way everything is right you just have to interpert it differently. Religous fool.

Answer 12

What has science to do with the Bible? Or vice versa, for that matter?

Answer 13

Because the Bible has a terribly poor track record as a historical document and critical readers approach it with the assumption that its contents need taking with a pinch of salt. Sometimes it says something that actually happened regarding someone who actually existed, unadorned with prejudicial spin. But that's a bonus.



That's why.

Answer 14

Well they found Troy based on the Iliad too..... I guess we all need to bow down to Zeus.

Answer 15

because The Bible is the greatest piece of ancient middle eastern history, pin pointing exact dates, rulers, cities, etc. God bless.

Answer 16

nostradamus prophecies are more accurate than the bible