[tellico]

I didn't mean to suggest it is "myth", but there is a world of difference between myth and literalism. Do you also believe the book of Daniel is "myth" since it was obviously written long after the events it portrays by someone unfamiliar with all details of the history of the time? Not at all of course, the spiritual truth in that book is one of the most powerful found in the Bible, but it is not history. Similarly, the book of Esther. I would consider both profoundly spiritual and important, but neither is literally true history in their entireties.

[PetroniusMaximus]

"I didn't mean to suggest it is "myth","

I'm sure you didn't.


"Do you also believe the book of Daniel is "myth" since it was obviously written long after the events it portrays by someone unfamiliar with all details of the history of the time?"

I don't believe Daniel is myth. It sounds like you have been introduced to higher criticism in some form. As a former student of and reader in HC, I can tell you that often it is the higher critics and radical scholars themselves who are "writ[ing] long after the events... [and] unfamiliar with all details of the history of the time."

Here is an additional problem. If you are a Christian (not meaning to assume) then you must give the words of Christ significant, if not the very ultimate value with regards to the topics he addressed. He spoke directly of Daniel when he said:

"So when you see the abomination of desolation spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains." - Matt 24

So it is clear that Jesus himself ascribes to Daniel the authorship of the work under his same name.


(BTW there are many strong arguments for retaining the historical position of the authorship of Daniel if you are interested.)