Re: the Ancient of Days

I did not accuse you of lying; I was mere pointing out the danger of leaving out part of a quote that could change the reader's understanding. And yes I do thing the remainer of the quote clarifies the meaning, which is that instead of ONLY referring to David it points ultimately to the Messiah, who both preceded and would follow him. The partial quote gives the reader the impression that there is no hint in the context about the eternal nature of the Messiah, which isn't true.

You said, "Calling G-d "Ancient of days" would be descriptive of Him since no one else is older when it comes to days. Saying G-d's beginnings were in "days of old" would not/cound not be, so my statement still stands true".

Who said anything about God's BEGINNING? He has no beginning or end, since he is outside of time. As you pointed out earlier, "goings forth" doesn't necessarily mean "birthplace", so no one is saying God had a beginning.

The whole Bible is God-breathed, so which particular language was originally used is irrelevant to the determination of God's eternal nature.