Your two Old Testament Lexicons are one lexicon that borrowed the entry from a previous lexicon. Another lexicon that borrows from Briggs/Driver/Brown is the Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - New American Standard which lacks any reference to deity.
You will also note that, in one of your links, it cites the Strong’s definition, which omits a reference to deity, and Pierce’s “Outline of Biblical Usage” that does the same. I hope this satisfies your requirement of citing “a lexicon that agrees with [me].”
Lexicons are not holy books handed down to us from the Galactic Council of Word Meanings. They are works of translation and interpretation just like anything else, and that’s what Gesenius is doing. He’s looking at the word’s usage in the Bible and, because he thinks it’s referring to deity, he’s including that as a necessary component in the definition. As Andrew has already pointed out, there is a wide use of the term that has nothing to do with deity if we look outside the 9 or 10 occurrences in the book of Daniel.
The LXX absolutely supports this position. I showed you. There is no referent to a divine being in the Greek of v. 27. I am starting to suspect you do not actually know Greek or Hebrew and thus are relying on amassing as many citations as you can from people who do rather than actually being able to argue your point linguistically.
Ellicott suffers from the same problem, basing his argument on “biblical Chaldee” as if that means anything.
It seems like your argument basically boils down to, “I’m right because some smart people agree with me.” I am not impressed by that reasoning.