I do not know his full name but he is not Aubrey Mathews. He claims to be
from Palestine and says that he converted to Christianity after serious
research.
He only responded to few points. (yet?)
...............................
TILL
Biblical inerrantists will argue that the word "father" was being used only
in the sense of "ancestor" and "son" in the sense of "descendant," but that
quibble won't work, because Belshazzar was not a descendant of
Nebuchadnezzar. Babylonian records (*The Nabonidus Chronicle*) reveal that
Nabonidus was born at Haran and was the son of Nabu-balatsu-iqbi, the
Assyrian appointed governor of the district, and his mother was Adad-guppi,
who was thought to be a priestess of the moon-god Sin (*Eerdmans Bible
Dictionary,* 1987, p. 742).
Walid responds:
Belshazzar was related to Nebuchanezzar because his mother, Nitrocris was
Nebuchadnezzar's daughter. Also "son of" in Semitic usage is equivalent to
"successor of", so it is propper to call him that even if he was not of the
lineal descent (cf. R. P. Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar 1929).
Also, in the Assyrian records Jehu is called the son of Omri and he was not
from the lineall relation and was only a royall successor.
It seems that Adnan's friend who calls me(Walid) Ametuer Apologist himself is
an Amatuer Archeologist, so welcome to the world of Amatuers. He likes to
citisize Daniel questioning his accuracy on the biblical accounts
concerning Belshazar, Darius, and Cyrus. Yet R.P Doughterty concerning
Belshazar said: "Of all known Babylonian records dealing with the situation
at the close of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, the fifth chapter of Daniel
ranks next to cuneiform literature in accuracy so far as outstanding events
are concerned". And I wonder how does our Amatuer Archeologist rank when
compared to R. P Doughterty. I refer him to his book, Nabonides and
Belshazzar, 1929, p 200. Also Joseph Free, Archeology and Bible History,
1950, p.235, he says: "The matter concerning Belshazzar, far from being an
error in Scriptures, is one of the many striking confirmations of the Word
of God which have been demonstrated by archeology. Also see references from
J. B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, 1969, pp 221 301 305-6 308-16
560-566. C. J. Gadd, Anatolian Studies 1958.
I repeat one of the weak arguments he presented incase you missed it:
He says : "There are just two little problems with this biblical claim that
Darius the Mede received the kingdom when Babylon fell: (1) Cyrus was the
one who captured Babylon".
Walid's response:
The fact that Cyrus captured Babylon does not give him the absolute
sovereignty, also that goes for Darius since he only recieved the kingdom.
Also refer to John C. Whitcomb Jr, The Historicity of Darius the Mede, and
all the above...), and I will pass more homework to you.