” 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.
“they were in the Vulgate with disclaimers that they were not to be taken as authoritative!”
Not so. You can review Gutenberg’s bible yourself.
The Gutenberg Bible is prefaced with Jerome’s Epistle to Paulinus.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001053.htm
There is the English text.
“You can’t cite the authority of the Vulgate and then dismiss the proclamations contained in the Vulgate”
One, those proclamations are not in the Vulgate.
Two, irrespective to Jerome’s difficulties, it doesn’t change that these books are still canonical. It was not Jerome’s decision to make, whether to include or exclude them.
“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.”
Ok, here’s the problem. The earliest extant manuscript evidence is in Greek - in the Septuagint. And they have all the parts of Daniel. Together. Would you use this one, or would you use a newer extant incomplete Hebrew manuscript that only had parts of Daniel?