And I’m not really sure why you are preferring the LXX for your translation and interpretation of Daniel. You say you trusted the Hebrew scholars who translated from Hebrew to Greek; are you implying you DON’T trust the Hebrew scholars who translate the Hebrew into English today?
And, as you probably know, the LXX diverges quite wildly in many places from the Hebrew.
I don't read Hebrew is why I go to the LXX. It's not a matter of trusting modern Hebrew scholars, it's a matter of the OLD Hebrew scholars who did the original translation of the Hebrew (and Aramaic) into the Greek language, and whose translation was quoted by Jesus and His Apostles: also, it's the version that was in use in the 1st century and a few centuries after. Anything wrong with doing that?
And, as you probably know, the LXX diverges quite wildly in many places from the Hebrew.
I'm aware of that. However, there was no controversey from Hebrews of the 1st century over any divergences until the argument about whether to use the LXX or the Masoretic text. However the Masoretic has many varients when compared to the Dead Sea Scrolls, and that is an even bigger argument among scholars today. While the precise meaning of some texts of the NT are sometimes uncertain, that is more often the case with the Hebrew and Aramaic texts. Thus my use of the Greek LXX.