Where the scriptures translate in verse 5:2 of Daniel, the Hebrew word ‘av’ to read father, it can also be translated as ancestor or predecessor; Belshazzar was not the direct son of Nebuchadnezzar but he was descended from him through his mother who married Nabonides.
Nabonides is considered the last great king of Babylon. His relationship with the previous Kings of Babylon is unclear, perhaps he was once a great general, but he came to the throne by overthrowing a young king named Labashi-Marduk. It is likely Nabonides substantiated his claim to the throne by marrying Nitocris, a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar, since he was not a blood relative to Nebuchadnezzar.
Being a religious eccentric, in 549 BC Nabonides left Babylon to live at Teyma (Tema) located in what is now Saudi Arabia northeast of Hijaz, where the ancient trade route between Medina and Dumah crosses the Nefud desert. Tayma is approximately 400 kilometers north of Medina. While on religious sojourn Nabonides left his son behind to rule in Babylon, but Belshazzar never fully came to the throne.
Skeptics believed that the writer of Daniel made an historical error in calling Belshazzar king, but when Belshazzar told Daniel that if he could interpret the strange writing on the wall he (Daniel) would be granted authority in the kingdom as third ruler, the scriptures show a detail which lends credence to the account. Belshazzar was not the first ruler of the kingdom, but he was in a secondary position, appointed to reign in Babylon while his father was away. By Babylonian tradition, all in the city with the secondary ruler would call him king. Belshazzar offered to Daniel third position, so the writer of the Book faithfully related the fact as a minor detail, and then much later archaeological evidence substantiated the trivia.
These findings in archaeology show that the writer of Daniel was telling of a real man named Belshazzar, thus the other details are likely true, also. These were no fables.
It is interesting to note that in the past some people stamped this passage and all of the Book of Daniel as mere myth-telling because Historians didn’t believe there was such a king as Belshazzar who ever reigned in Babylon. But in 1854, a member of the British Consul was exploring ancient ruins in southern Iraq and dug into a great tower built there. He found a time capsule: clay cylinders inscribed with cuneiform writing; the cylinders were inscribed at the time of Nabonidus, king of Babylon from 555-539 B.C., and commemorated repairs the king made to the tower; they included a prayer for long life of Nabonidus and his oldest son, Belshazzar, proving Belshazzar was not a fictional character.
I don't know anything about Hebrew, but it seems pretty clear from even the English translations of the Bible that the term "son" can be used also to mean "descendent." Christ was the son of David, for example.
And Adam means "man" so the phrase "son of man" or "son of Adam" might mean the same thing, or at least might be easily confused and misinterpreted where they are used in the Bible.
If you keep this in mind while reading the genealogies, you find that these ambiguities can potentially rebut a lot of the doubts people have that are based on apparent discrepancies in the genealogies. They also enable you to construct a time line that does not necessarily lead you to conclude that the world is only 5,000 years old, as my pastor often claims. Personally, I don't believe that, yet when you actually read the Bible, you can see how that conclusion could be drawn from the text.
Some of the atheists I've known over the years ridicule that claim as proof that the Bible is not accurate. Of course, you can't say for certain that the devil did not create fossils to mislead us, as my pastor claims, but on the other hand, I suppose God could have created the world yesterday and planted false memories in our minds about what happened last week. Somehow, I don't think that's what happened though. If you can rebut the 5,000 year time line, you don't need to confront that issue.
the cylinders were inscribed at the time of Nabonidus, king of Babylon from 555-539 B.C
How did they know it was 555-539 B.C.????????
There are only too options open regarding Daniel: Either Daniel was exercising a gift of predictive prophecy about future events, or the Book of Daniel is a fraud, perpetrated at the time, or near the time, of the Maccabees (160 BC). The issues are too stark to present any other possibilities.
"Minimalists" begin from the assumption that "supernatural prophecy" is impossible (owing to the lack of a "supernatural" anything) while believers begin from the assumption that Scripture may not be exhaustive, but it is not false.
I wrote a paper in college exploring this issue years ago, and came to the conclusion that most of the mininmalist arguments didn't add up to a lot, and were largely based on their a priori assumptions (though proving veracity is not so easy, either).
MHG, I can send you a copy of it if you give me a mailing address through private email.