When Walvoord wrote his book, "Daniel, The Key To Prophetic Revelation", he completely bypassed the commentators. Instead he went DIRECTLY to the Scholars, because they are the SOURCE of veracity, -- but a commentator is simply someone who has a "thought".
And so where Montgomery, Young, Keil, & Kliefoth (and even Newton, but wasn't cited by Walvoord) had their Scripturally and/or Historically based insights, Walvoord COMPLETELY IGNORED THEIR OBSERVATIONS. So NOW Walvoord is nothing more than a commentator, and he knows that his conclusions DEFY SCRIPTURE, but it's the BEST LIE he can provide, because he can't resolve the Scholar's clues, -- and neither could the Scholars.
But if we see the clues in a "modern" context (Ref. the angel in 12:4 & 9), the solutions are readily apparent. -- But the commentators (and Walvoord) didn't have sufficient "hind-sight", so they could ONLY present their BEST LIES.
And all I'm asking from you, is to provide the Cyrus DUAL MONARCHY (Two Horns) which never existed; and validate Alexander's FIVE GENERALS which endured for 42 years.
You trust the lying commentators over History, and I trust History over the lying commentators. So between the two of us, who has more veracity?
Bobby Jo