Partial quotes are sometimes worse than outright lies, so be careful.
Perhaps they were too small, but you will carefully note that I did put three periods(...) at the end of my quote to indicate to the reader it indeed was a partial quote. No intent to mislead and am usually careful.
That said, how the rest changes my point or the beginning quote in any way I am at a loss. I agree with it all. Why do you think I was lying with it, please explain?
This is clearly God being described. The Bible clearly teaches God's eternal existence yet occasionally speaks of "his days", so "ancient of days" (or equivalent) can describe the Eternal God. I didn't invent that, it's in the Bible.
#1) These are different words to the phase in question, not only that it is in a different language. Micah is in Hebrew, Daniel 7:9 is in Aramaic. It does correspond to a Hebrew word, but the one in question.
#2 That said, this is a valiant try. 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. Here it is:
"Days of old(i.e. the Hebrew "yowm olam")" never describes G-d Himself. Check the side notes of your NET Bible to confirm. Check out common sense too. G-d existed before there ever were "days", so it stands to reason that G-d's beginnings could, by definition, not be from "days of old".