Stephen Hawking has died at the age of 76.

[RoadRunner79]

---

So what?   Does that mean that they are unjustly biased?  It seems to me, that we are both biased, but what matters, is if we are unjustly so.   Would you agree?

For as often, as I hear that Christians are just in an echo chamber (as ironic as that is; to say to Christians who come here).  I don't find that Christians are the ones who dismiss things, because of their source!

I thought I would look at this, so I picked a link at random, I choose this one.

http://coldcasechristianity.com/2018/a-b...oboration/

Here we have someone who claims to be some kind of cold case investigator and I went to the first example of his ‘proof’ here is the passage .

*Related to Belshazzar
The existence of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, was once doubted by critics. Belshazzar is named in Daniel 5, but according to the non-Biblical historic record, the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus. Tablets have been discovered, however, describing Belshazzar as Nabonidus’ son and documenting his service as coregent in Babylon. If this is the case, Belshazzar would have been able to appoint Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” for reading the handwriting on the wall (as recorded in Daniel 5:16). This would have been the highest available position for Daniel. Here, once again, we see the historicity of the Biblical record has been confirmed by archaeology.

From link above and italics mine*

Lets break it down a little…

The existence of Belshazzar, king of Babylon, was once doubted by critics. Belshazzar is named in Daniel 5, but according to the non-Biblical historic record, the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus. Tablets have been discovered, however, describing Belshazzar as Nabonidus’ son and documenting his service as coregent in Babylon.

He completely ignores that the bible says that he was the son of Nebuchadnezzar.
He (Belshazzar), was never actually King as listed in Daniel.
Nabonidus  is not mentioned in the bible.

He then goes on to say..

Here, once again, we see the historicity of the Biblical record has been confirmed by archaeology.

How?  no it hasn’t we see the usual theist practice of simply declaring something as true

That took me longer to cut and paste than to find clear flaws in. and was the very first one I read.

This is decent read of Daniel..

https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblica...#ref597863

For many centuries the apocalyptic character of the Book of Daniel was overlooked, and it was generally considered to be true history, containing genuine prophecy. In fact, the book was included among the prophetic books in the Greek canon. It is now recognized, however, that the writer’s knowledge of the exilic times was sketchy and inaccurate. His date for the fall of Jerusalem, for example, is wrong; Belshazzar is represented as the son of Nebuchadrezzar and the last king of Babylon, whereas he was actually the son of Nabonidus and, though a powerful figure, was never king……..

This is the kind of thing we are up against when we look at 'biblical proofs' That wouldn't be so bad, inaccuracies, and getting it just wrong is explainable in archaeology, but when we are also faced with the claim that a mighty god (who cannot get things wrong)  inspired and protected these accounts, it's then we have a problem.

---

If it is true, that it took you longer to cut and paste that, then to spot the error, then I am going to assume that you are far more familiar with the intricacies of this part of history than I.  I'll admit that I haven't spent a great deal of time studying this area (to be able to spot an error so quickly) but I am interested and like to get all the information.   Such discussions are good, because they incentivize me to dig deeper into things.

To get technical, Belshazzar was the descendant of Nebuchadrezzar  .  One of the things, that I have learned in my studies of the Bible, is that the Hebrew language has a much smaller vocabulary than Greek or English.  Therefore one word my have a range of meanings, that may not match in a language with a broader vocabulary.  I have had this explained before in unrelated matters, and when I looked up the Hebrew word {ab}, in my software it does give a definition of father, as well as predecessor or forefather. 

As to Belshazzar being King;  this is not quite as cut and dry as you might like either.  Belshazzar's father (Nabonidus) was technically King.  And it appears that he was a very absent King, as his father preferred to travel and study old buildings, leaving Belshazzar to rule.

According to the Book of Daniel Belshazzar was called the “King” of Babylon. This claim hase been assailed by anti-Daniel critics (not Farrel Till) who point out the fact that Nabonidus was still king of Babylon officially as long as he was still alive. –Archaeological Experts point point out that Belshazzar “stood in as temporary ruler” in his father’s absence. One could say he was a stand in king. They also point out:

Further vindication of Daniel’s calling Belshazzar the king of Babylon is found in ancient text of  (which is pro-Cyrus propaganda). In talking about Nabonidus it says:

After he had obtained what he desired, a work of utter deceit, had built this abomination, a work of unholiness -when the third year was about to begin- he entrusted the army [?] to his oldest son, his first born, the troops in the country he ordered under his command. He let everything go, entrusted the kingship to him, and, himself, he started out for a long journey. The military forces of Akkad marching with him, he turned to Temâ deep in the west.

For a fuller explanation for both of these see https://explanationblog.wordpress.com/20...hadnezzar/

Here is the authors conclusion

The conclusion of this post is that there is no historical problem about Belshazzar in the book of Daniel. Perhaps a blood-relationship will indeed be proved in the future or perhaps the meanings of the terms father and son as “predecessor” and “successor” are really all we need to resolve any so-called “problem” in Daniel about this person.  — Also, I want to point to the lack of knowledge about Belshazzar out side of the Bible until the 19th century as proof of the books authenticity. Furthermore, the claims that Daniel made a mistake in identifying Belshazzar as the “son” of Nebuchadnezzar are nothing more than critical grumblings that were began when skeptics were forced to eat crow when it it was discovered that Daniel’s mention of a previously unknown Babylonian ruler had been vindicated.

Thanks, I always find it enjoyable;  digging into these things.  And if you are interested in further reading, I would recommend the Word Press link above.