The prophecies in Daniel 7 and 8 are so accurate that skeptics have put forward the idea that it was actually written in the second century B.C., as opposed to the historical date of around 530 - 550 B.C.
It's worth noting that the later date for Daniel was first proposed in the 3rd century AD by a pagan philosopher named Porphyry. But he, like all modern critics of Daniel, was not basing this idea on anything other than the fact that he thought prophecy is impossible.
If I had the time and patience, I could write a long post about the arguments critics bring forward in favor of the later date of Daniel, but I'm only going to focus on the argument from Greek words for now. Critics argue that because Alexander the Great had not yet conquered Babylon, Daniel should not have used any Greek words. Daniel used Greek words, therefore Daniel must have been written after Alexander's conquest.
What you won't hear from these skeptics is that there are only 3 Greek words in Daniel. What's more is that they're transliterations, not actual Greek words. To illustrate this, consider how often the Hebrew word "yom" appears in Theistic Evolution debates. You won't find anything that looks like "yom" in any ancient Hebrew text, because in Hebrew, "yom" looks like יְוֹם So "yom" is a transliteration. In the same way, all three Greek words in Daniel are transliterations into Aramaic, which is what we would expect from 530 B.C., not 200 B.C.
Furthermore, these three words are all instruments: The sumphonyah, the kitharos and the psanterin (which, in this article, are transliterations of transliterations). Of the three, only one of them, the psanterin, does not appear in any preserved historical records before Daniel. And of course, that's not to say Daniel is the first to ever use this word, it just means we haven't found any earlier records of it yet. To say that therefore Daniel must have been written later is an argument from silence.
But the reason I honed in on the argument from Greek words is that it's the one that backfires the most. See, it makes sense, given that the Babylonians had Greek slaves, Greek trading and Greek pottery, that Greek instruments would also have been present in Babylon during the time of Daniel, and would carry their names with them. But it makes no sense that those would be the only Greek words if Daniel was written around 165 B.C. I say that because by this time, Greek had been the common language for 165 years. But Daniel was written in the common languages of 530 B.C.
But if all the evidence supports the traditional authorship date, why do Bible critics propose a later date? Because of the prophecies in chapters 7 and 8. But this is circular reasoning. It's the denial of fulfilled prophecy based solely on the fact that it is fulfilled prophecy. This is completely irrational, and ultimately, it is an attempt to bury the evidence. But you can't bury evidence that doesn't exist. Therefore, in attempting to bury the evidence, skeptics have unwittingly admitted that it does exist. Please allow me to introduce you to the God who inspired such prophecy.