[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.)

[tellico]

You mistake my legitamite evaluation that the book of Daniel was not written by Daniel himself with the idea that Daniel was not a real prophet, but sorry, there are many historical details of Daniel (and the fact that a very significant amount was written in Aramaic, and that it confuses geography with terms that would not have existed until much later in history) that are obviously put onto paper by someone much later than the events described. I have no doubt that Daniel was a real prophet whose teachings were preserved, but I do not think that book was written by him, and really, that is pretty obvious with the vaguest intellectual inquiry.