>Reply3: Obviously you don't know what it means to
>personify. I am 100% correct. Dictionary.com says under
>personify: "To represent (an object or abstraction) by a
>human figure. " Jesus is a human figure by which the
>abstraction is represented.

Response: I see you did not put down the first defintion there, smooth. But that would make your arguement backwards now, because you mean to say that Christ is being represented in Prov 8 by wisdom not vice verse. So that defintion does not apply here by the way you never did tell me who understanding and knowledge were.
>>>>
>Reply3: It is feminine. Here is what Halot says (notice
>what I placed in "****.. ****"): tl,h,qo: pt. qal
>*****fem.***** from lhq (Gesenius-K. §122r; R. Meyer Gramm.
>§94, 2g; Joüon §89b), Sept. evkklhdisdth,j, Symmachus
>paroimiasth,j, Vulg. concionator: leader of the assembly,
>speaker of the assembly Qoh 11f.12 727 129f, tl,h,Qoh; 128;
>for the meaning of this word see e.g. E. Podechard
>L’Ecclésiaste 128-134,; Lauha BK 19:1; Fohrer Fschr. D.W.
>Thomas 97f; THAT 2:613 :: Ullendorff VT 12 (1962) 215: the
>fighter, challenger, tl,h,Qoh;Åqo as a translation of
>Aramaic al'h]q'. †

REsponse: That is weird that is the first time I ever seen HALOT disagree with my software, but it still is no problem for these reasons.

1. The context tells us that the teacher is the son of David not daughter or david, wisdom in PRoverbs 8 has no such context.

2.It is known that when feminine forms are used for male referents as in arabic, ethopic and aramaic it denotes a professional title or vocational office. Such as the word scribe. So again this is not a problem.

>
>Reply3: As I already demonstrated, they can and do.

Response; Might want to rethink that one.
>>Reply3: The person is not identified directly in the
>context of Proverbs, thus it follows the grammatical gender.

Response: The person is identified as a male however, ya know the part that calls him the son of david.

>>>Reply2: Yes, and thus Wisdom = beginning, just like Christ
>>>= beginning (Rev 3:14).

Response: You mean originator. You are doing fuzzy math here.
>Reply3: Revelation 3:14's linguistically probable
>translation is beginning as in first-created(see BDAG).
>ARCH is never used for origin in scripture, and using it as
>such would be against the use of TOU QEOU. As for ruler,
>that would be ARCWN ala Rev 1:5.

Response: Hmm on page 138 of BDAG it says "the first cause, the beginning, it says your view is probable however. Although I think that arche normally means ruler since that is where we get monarch and archbishop or arch angel from and scripture speaks of rulers as arche as well.
>Reply3: Yes, I agree, he does not, but that seems to be
>John's basis for the use.

Response: Sure although someone on this site showed me something from hinduism that looks interesting it is up above in this post one of the first post.
>
>Reply3: I agree that Jesus is not literally feminine,
>however, if we were to speak of him without identifying him
>the subject and just spoke of the SOFIA, we would translate
>it with feminine pronouns.

Response: Sure, but that does not happen here in the Bible. The subject is always identified or context tells whether the person being discussed is male or female.
>Reply3: Maybe you should learn what personify means before
>you go making yourself look really bad (like you just did).
>Here is the complete entry so you don't repeat this error in
>the future.

Response: Oh good hte complete entry, I was wondering, but I answered this already.