Yahoo Web Search

  1. About 267,000 search results
  1. Dictionary
    • 1. (6th century bc), last king of Babylon, son of Nebuchadnezzar. According to the biblical book of Daniel, he was killed in the sacking of the city and his doom was foretold by writing that appeared on the palace walls at a great banquet.
  2. › wiki › BelshazzarBelshazzar - Wikipedia

    Belshazzar played a pivotal role in the coup d'etat that overthrew the king Labashi-Marduk (r. 556 BC) and brought Nabonidus to power in 556 BC. Since Belshazzar was the main beneficiary of the coup, through confiscating and inheriting Labashi-Marduk's estates and wealth, it is likely that he was the chief orchestrator.

  3. Belshazzar [N] [H] [S] Bel protect the king!, the last of the kings of Babylon ( Daniel 5:1 ). He was the son of Nabonidus by Nitocris, who was the daughter of Nebuchadnezzar and the widow of Nergal-sharezer. When still young he made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and when heated with wine sent for the sacred vessels his "father ...

  4. Apr 26, 2021 · Belshazzar was the last king of ancient Babylon and is mentioned in Daniel 5. Belshazzar reigned for a short time during the life of Daniel the prophet. His name, meaning “Bel protect the king,” is a prayer to a Babylonian god; as his story shows, Bel was powerless to save this evil ruler.

  5. Belshazzar: [noun] a son of Nebuchadnezzar and king of Babylon in the book of Daniel.

  6. Belshazzar, coregent of Babylon who was killed at the capture of the city by the Persians. Belshazzar had been known only from the biblical Book of Daniel (chapters 5, 7–8) and from Xenophon’s Cyropaedia until 1854, when references to him were found in Babylonian cuneiform inscriptions.

  7. www.kingjamesbibleonline.orgbelshazzarBELSHAZZAR IN THE BIBLE

    Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand. Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonied. Then commanded Belshazzar, and they clothed Daniel with scarlet, and put a chain of gold about his neck, and made a proclamation ...

    • How Archaeology Vindicated The Bible’s Curious Claims About King Belshazzar
    • Doubts About Belshazzar
    • Daniel in The Critics’ Den2
    • End of An Empire
    • Buried Treasures
    • Holding The Title
    • The Unbeatable Book

    by Keaton Halley With a thousand of his lords in attendance at the feast, Belshazzar, King of Babylon, dusted off the golden goblets that his predecessor Nebuchadnezzar had plundered from God’s temple in Jerusalem. Belshazzar and his party guests drank wine from the sanctified vessels “and praised the gods of gold and silver, bronze, iron, wood, and stone” (Daniel 5:4). That’s when all heaven broke loose:

    Is this story just a legend, or does the Bible preserve accurate history? Years ago, some skeptics denied that there ever was a king of Babylon named Belshazzar, claiming that his name and story were invented by someone unfamiliar with true Babylonian history.1

    Because of the remarkable fulfilled prophecies in Daniel, critics have long tried to cast doubt on its historical reliability.3 Although Daniel lived in the 6th century BC, critics want to date the writing of the book to the time of the Maccabees—four centuries later. This allows them to say that Daniel’s prophecies were actually written after the events they ‘predicted’. So, it’s no wonder critics have commonly assumed Daniel contains significant historical errors, including its claims about Belshazzar.

    The Bible presents the famous ‘writing on the wall’ episode as occurring on the same day that the city of Babylon, capital of Babylonia, fell to the Medo-Persian empire under King Cyrus the Great. Indeed, Daniel gave King Belshazzar this interpretation of the writing: “God has numbered the days of your kingdom and brought it to an end” (v. 26), and “your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians” (v. 28). The Bible claims that Belshazzar was killed “that very night” (v. 30), and with his death the Babylonian kingdom was now controlled by Medo-Persia.4 However, all other known historical records once disagreed. Ancient historians like Herodotus, Megasthenes, Berossus, and Alexander Polyhistor, not to mention a vast number of cuneiform documents, were united in claiming that the last king of the Neo-Babylonian empire was Nabonidus.5 Belshazzar was not even mentioned anywhere except in the book of Daniel and literature derived from it.6

    But just when it looked like all the evidence was stacked against Scripture, a series of archaeological discoveries showed that Belshazzar did exist after all, and the details given about him in the Bible are profoundly correct. First, in 1854, four clay cylinders with identical inscriptions were excavated from Ur.7 These Nabonidus Cylinders contained Nabonidus’ prayer to the moon god for “Belshazzar, the eldest son—my offspring.”8Thus, Belshazzar’s existence was confirmed—as Nabonidus’ firstborn son and heir to his throne. Then, in 1882, a translation of another ancient cuneiform text, the Nabonidus Chronicle, was published. According to this document, Nabonidus was a mostly absentee king, spending 10 years of his 17-year reign living in Tema, Arabia (725 km / 450 miles away from Babylon). The king left Belshazzar, whom the text calls “the crown prince”, to take care of affairs in Babylon during that time.9 Also, the Chronicleexplained that Nabonidus was away from Babylon when it f...

    Naturally, critics try to downplay these discoveries, pointing out that Belshazzar is never officially identified as king in any Babylonian document. Yet, even if he was never technically king by Babylonian standards, it makes perfect sense for Daniel to refer to him as such. It was not uncommon for the ancients to describe a less-than-supreme ruler as king, as in the case of Herod Antipas, who was only a tetrarch (cf. Matthew 14:1, 9).12Plus, regardless of his official title, Belshazzar was for all practical purposes king of Babylon in his father’s absence. Remarkably, this also sheds light on a small detail in the text—why King Belshazzar only offered the thirdhighest position in the kingdom. Since Nabonidus remained alive until even after Babylon fell, this means that Belshazzar was more like a co-regent, ruling at the same time as, and under the authority of, his father. So Nabonidus was in the ‘number one’ position, while Belshazzar was actually second. This explains why Belsha...

    Now, if the critics were right that Daniel was not written until hundreds of years after these events, it is unlikely that the author would have known about Belshazzar or the fact that he was second in command. But the fact that Daniel is historically accurate—even down to what once seemed to be an insignificant detail—shows that Daniel’s account was penned near the time of the circumstances it records. Daniel was right all along and, as archaeology has shown, he had a better understanding of Belshazzar and his role in the Neo-Babylonian empire than the critics! This should not be surprising. The Bible is God’s Word, and whatever it teaches is true and cannot be overturned—unlike the theories of the critics, which are frequently dashed to pieces in light of new discoveries.

    • Keaton Halley
  1. People also search for