I’m sorry my link wasn’t exciting enough. You asked me to cite a lexicon that upheld my position, and I did.
I’m confused that you say Daniel 7:27 makes no reference to people. It says, “shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High” or in the Hebrew “le’am qaddise elyonin” or in the LXX “hagiois hupsistou.” There is no word for “the Most High” in either the Masoretic or LXX. There is no definite article. The kingdom is given to these people who very well may be “the saints of the Most High,” but the referent is still the saints, not the Most High.
If v.27 is intending to communicate that the kingdom will be given to God Himself, then I have to ask, what is the function of mentioning these people? v. 18 tells us flat out - these people will receive the kingdom and possess the kingdom forever.
These people are seen in a vision described in vv. 9 - 14 where the Ancient of Days gives the kingdom to one like a son of man. Daniel is confused. He asks an attendant to explain the meaning of all this to him, and the attendant says that the holy ones of the Most High will receive the kingdom forever and ever. The Son of Man is an image representing this people, and Jesus will take this same image to describe himself and what God is doing in him.
There are several places in the Old Testament where a group of people, especially Israel, is referred to as a single person. Perhaps the most famous is Hosea 11 where the language freely switches between singular and plural, or several passages in Isaiah through the 40s and 50s chapters referring to Jacob and Israel as a single person.
>> Your argument boils down to, “I’m right despite how the word is properly defined.”
No, my point is that we do not have some universal, objective definition of ancient Persian words. You keep talking as if there’s a vault somewhere with the Official Standard Definition and I’m rebelliously not conforming to it. That’s not how translations or linguistics work. Someone didn’t invent English by writing an English dictionary and insisting everyone use those words and meanings to communicate. Dictionaries are records of how words were understood at the time the dictionary was written. In this case, we’re trying to reconstruct these definitions from words that nobody has used for literally millennia.
So, yes, forgive me if I’m not swayed because you can copy and paste 19th century lexical research. It’s totally fine to decide that you will accept an argument based solely on authority; just realize that’s what you’re doing. You’re unable to actually argue any reasons why your interpretation should be preferred or refute alternate interpretations. If you want to say, “These lexicon authors I agree with are really smart and, even though I don’t understand how they arrived at these conclusions, nor do I understand why yours are wrong, I trust these guys and they say you’re wrong,” that’s totally fine. Go with it! They probably are smarter than I am! Just don’t expect that to be sufficient grounds to convince anyone else.