The prophecy recorded at Daniel 8:5-8, 21, 22 and 11:3, 4 also provided impressive details with regard to an unusually great “king of Greece.” This ruler would be cut down at the zenith of his power, and his kingdom would then be divided into four but not among his descendants. More than 200 years after this prophecy was recorded, Alexander the Great proved to be that mighty king. Secular history tells us that he was cut down by an untimely death and that his empire was eventually split among four of his generals​—not his descendants.

Critics have claimed that this prophecy must have been recorded after the fact. Look again, though, at the above-cited account in the book of Daniel. When viewed from the standpoint of prophecy, its details are remarkable. But when viewed as history masquerading as prophecy, does there not seem to be a glaring lack of detail? If an impostor who lived after Alexander were trying to impress readers with a supposed prophecy, why did he not include the point that immediately following Alexander’s death, two of his sons would try to establish their kingship but would be assassinated? Why did he not mention that it would be decades before all four generals would establish themselves over different parts of Alexander’s empire? For that matter, why did he not mention the names of the great king and his four generals?

The claim that Bible prophecy was written after the event is a long-held but unproven assertion made by those who before examining the evidence have decided that foretelling future events is impossible. Because they refuse to accept the Bible as God’s Word, they are compelled to explain everything from a purely human, material standpoint. Nevertheless, God wisely inspired just enough prophetic detail to establish his authorship.a