Well, to tell you the proof, I'd be willing to accept that Biblical chronology shows everything BUT God existing. Let me give you some examples myself:

- (edit: moved them to the bottom, in order to avoid repetition)

Depends on the clarity of the prophecies themselves. Why, for instance, doesn't God predict something like: "In a year that you will come to name 1940, a land which you will come to call Europe will be swept by war. Out of the two factions, one will have a man which you will call Adolf Hitler as a frontman..."

Frankly, I too can predict that one day people will not walk or run on great distances, but will use "chariots that eat the land as they go", and that someday, mankind will "cruise through the skies in chariots so fast and powerful, that they will leave a hot trail of myst behind them."

Actually, Alexander the Great, from my shabby knowledge of history, was Macedonian.

Furthermore: Daniel was written, by canon, somewhere around 300 BCE. Being also written in Arameic, and knowing that Arameic had only later become "official" language, it comes to mind that Daniel wasn't speaking BEFORE Alexander, but AFTER, and therefore Daniel's story is rather a historical metaphor than a prophecy, in relation to what you are suggesting.

Even further than that: The battle of Hellespont did take place in 334 BCE, but the Persians were only defeated in 333 BCE, after the battle of Issus.

Honestly, I don't know how in the world would Jews travel 40 bloody years to Canaan, from Egypt, when that trip takes about five days, let's say 10 because they were many and had to get organized.

Simple calculus, just to show you what piece of crap that story is:

Length of the equator is approximated at 40,000 km. If you go round it for forty years, it would mean that you have to make 1,000 km per year. Considering that there are 365 days, it would mean that you have to do less than 3 km per day in order to finish it in that time.

And believe me, even a turtle moves faster than that.

Besides, let's accept that they had to wage wars onto many different people (only that I have no idea how the heck would so many types of people settle in that small area, that is freakin barren desert, by the way), but how the heck do you go to waging war when you know that there's an Egyptian army of charioteers that move about 20 times faster than you on your tail.

This is actually false, because there have been periods when Jerusalem was back in the hands of the Jews (right before the conquest of Pompeii, in the interstitial period, etc.).

Besides, from 1948 to 1967 Jerusalem was half in the hands of Israel, as in many other periods. And that "half" is exactly the "old Jerusalem", that particular Jerusalem that was mentioned in the Bible.

You yourself just stated what those 2300 days mean, and I've just told you that they refer to an event that happened BEFORE Daniel. So why give it another meaning?

Also, why would prophets need to use "day" with the following meanings:

- millions of years (Genesis)

- days (Jesus staying in the desert)

- days (Daniel - note that Daniel states clearly: 2300 mornings and evenings, it doesn't state "days". Perhaps Daniel wanted people to be certain that he was referring to actual days, not metaphorical days)

- years (Ezekiel)

Can you explain that?

I'm certain that if we look at otherwars/conquests, we could find other similarities.

I'm going to go even further into proving that you are wrong:

Even if some historians accept that the date of the battle of Issus is uncertain, being possible to actually be 334 BCE, another question comes into mind: How in the world were Persians already in Israel at that time?

The first conquests of Jerusalem, actually, date back to 586 BCE. It is a known fact that generally, back then, battles were fought next to rivers, especially big ones, for two reasons: one, because there was watter supply and natural defense (advantage defenders), and two, because the opposing army could be circled more easily, having to circle only half of it because of the river (advantage attackers).

So, your story is simply a very convinving coincidence, which is historically doubtful.

Are you a Jew? I'm not. Why would I adhere to their God?

Of course they can't. Let me prove you just how they can't (citing SAB):

- The third year of the reign of Jehoiakim would be 606 BCE, at which time Nebuchadnezzar was not yet king of Babylon. It was 597 BCE that Nebuchadnezzar invaded Jerusalem for the first time (without actually destroying it). By that time Jehohiakim was dead and his son, Jehoiachin, was ruling.

- The author of Daniel knew of only two Babylonian kings during the period of the exile: Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, who he wrongly thought was the son of Nebuchadnezzar. But Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BCE and was succeeded by his son, Awil-Marduk. In 560 BCE, Amel-Marduk was assassinated by his brother-in-law, Nergal-shar-usur. The next and last king of Babylon was Nabonidus who reigned from 556 to 539, when Babylon was conquered by Cyrus. It was Nabonidus, and not Belshazzar, who was the last of the Babylonian kings. Belshazzar was a the son and viceroy of Nabonidus. But he was not a king, and was not the son (or any other relation) of Nebuchadnezzar.

- Darius the Median is a fictitious character whom the author perhaps confused with Darius I of Persia, who came to the throne in 521 BCE, 17 years after the fall of Babylon. The author of Daniel incorrectly makes him the successor of Belshazzar instead of Cyrus

Daniel is precise like this, of course...

I'm waiting. Any other "prophecies" you'd like to bring into discussion?