What is the main skeptical argument against the book of Daniel?
Skeptics argue an imposter wrote Daniel long after the events, denying its claimed authenticity. A main argument is that Daniel contains portions in Aramaic and the rest in Hebrew, which scoffers use to challenge the book. They maintain the book is not what it claims to be, and they point to its bilingual composition as evidence.
Les explains that the scoffers love to scoff at the book of Daniel, maintaining that some imposter wrote it long after the fact and that it is not what we claim it to be. Their main argument is that Daniel writes a good portion of the book in Aramaic and the rest in Hebrew. Les counters that this is not a point of scoffing but a point of inspirational truth. Daniel was a young Hebrew lad brought captive to Babylon, and just as a teenager sent to Russia would learn Russian, Daniel learned Aramaic through the king's instruction to prepare him and other sharp young Jewish men for service in his government. So it was natural for him to write in Aramaic. Les also notes that Daniel is a prophecy dealing with the Gentile empires as they have contact with Israel; prophecy is always centered on Israel, but it includes those Gentile empires that included Israel in their conquest.