I've been studying the Bible anew and have just realised that the writer of Daniel gets the kings of Babylon completely wrong and confused. he says that Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son Belshazzar . Then along comes good old Cyrus the great who liberates the Jews.
Yet this is wrong! Belshazzar's father was Nabonidus who was a king unrelated to Nebuchadnezzar . Nabonidus did take off and leave his son Belshazzar as regent for many years too.
So it would seem that the writer of Daniel was either confused, uneducated and or ignorant of the Babylonian history. It also appears that the account of Daniel was written some time in the Maccabean era and not contemporaneous to the supposed events described.
The Nebuchadnezzar of the bible was succeeded by amel-marduk. Which is something you don't find in the bible . Neither do you find in the Borg's literature the indisputable fact that there are four kings inbetween Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar. Nebuchadnezzar the second of the bible begins reigning in 605 bc and Cyrus the great takes over (five kings later) in 539 bc. Unfortunately I am no good at maths and cannot tot up how many years there are inbetween those.