I understand your skepticism. It’s just - we know what the bible was like prior to Luther. The books were in the Gutenberg bible. They were in the Vulgate.
They have been in both for over a millennium before Luther came on the scene. I cannot see the justification for taking them out just because Luther said so. It stands to reason that if Daniel is inspired, then the entire book is inspired, not just ‘Daniel minus certain parts’.
” It’s just - we know what the bible was like prior to Luther. The books were in the Gutenberg bible. They were in the Vulgate.”
Sure, but they were in the Vulgate with disclaimers that they were not to be taken as authoritative! You can’t cite the authority of the Vulgate and then dismiss the proclamations contained in the Vulgate. So which is it? Do you trust the Vulgate on the matter or no?
“It stands to reason that if Daniel is inspired, then the entire book is inspired, not just ‘Daniel minus certain parts’.”
It stands to reason that if Daniel is inspired, it was written by Daniel and his scribe, as it attests, and therefore written in the language that was in use at the time, not in two separate languages that were in use at two different times.