>Reply7: Sad.. very sad. I've never held this position to
>begin with, and now you build a strawman, claiming that I
>did to somehow claim victory. Try again.

Response: Then if Wisdom is not personifying Christ then it has nothign to do with Christ. Good glad we agree again. See with a little work I knew I could convince you.
>Reply7: Wisdom is wisdom. There isn't a wisdom for this
>and a wisdom for that. Christ identified himself as Wisdom.
>Paul identified Christ as Wisdom. Either he is wisdom or he
>is not. Christ is obviously not the attribute of Wisdom, so
>the only alternative is for Christ to be the one in which it
>is personified.

Response: WAY TO DUCK EXEGESIS!! Man, you might want to try boxing or something. Every heard of genre?? Wisdom in poetry is different than wisdom within an epistle.

For example if I write a love letter to my wife and tell her I love here, would be different than writting a business letter where I tell someone I would love to meet them. You have no interestin in exegesis.
>
>>Reply7: Now you are running from the issue, "Well they also
>believed that...." Lets not whine please.

Response: How am I running when you brought them up, just because the ANF believed something does not mean that one is obligated to agree with them.

Wisdom is
>plainly created in verse 22, for it says EKTISEN! As for
>connecting it to Rev 3:14, take that up with C.F. Burney in
>his Journal of Theological Studies article. He made the
>connection.

Response: Glad you said that, because you listed all of the choices earlier for arche meaning first created or something, and noted below in this post that you had the majority of definitoins, true. However, the word qanah (the Hebrew not Greek) is more likely possesed or aquired as you know, very rarely is it used as create.

84 times it occurs in the Old Testament, 70 times as ktaomai and only 3 as ktizo.

So the majority of appearances of a word does not negate that it can mean something besides it normal appearance, therefore even though you have more appearances of arche more than I do , does not mean anything, unless you want to agree with me that qanah should be translated as possessed as opposed to created.

>
>Reply7: Not if they are not personified. But again, I've
>said it before, and I'll say it again, according to
>Prov.8:14 the personifier of Wisdom is the personifier of
>Understanding.

Response: So where is wisdom dwelling with prudence at? And where did he find knowlegde and descretion, ya know they were hiding out somewhere. By the way if Jesus wisdom and understading who is this knowledge charecter?

Futhremore you never did tell me which street corner that was Jesus was shouting (prov 1:20) just curious to its location.
>
>Reply7: Hmmm.. Then why have a feminine form and why did
>Solomon choose the feminine over the masculine? See, you
>still aren't dealing with the issues.


Response: Because he *personifying* wisdom that is why. He is applying human charecteristics to an abstraction. It is beyond grammer.
>Reply7: And as we note, BDAG does not apply this to Rv
>3:14. Why? Because it is highly improbable. So if you want
>to call that support, it is terribly weak. It is amazing
>the translations we could come up with if we went around and
>just picked any ol' definition we wanted from a lexicon.


Response: Well if I used yours in BDAG I could keep oringinator, since it says "the first cause..."

Cool I can keep originator, thanks.
>
>Rather, ARCWN would normally be used, as is most common for
>the singular. ARCH is typically pluralized when it refers
>to positions of authority, and when that happens, it
>typically does so in a more abstract sense, not refering to
>specific authority, but authorities in general. I have
>demonstrated my position and the foundation for it is solid,
>unfortunately you have been unable to provide a good counter
>for it.

Response: The plural form is no different than the singular, all it means is that there is more than one. Again arche means ruler, how else do we get monarch, archangel etc. it had to come from somewhere. I think you are winging it now.
>

>
>Reply7: Try again. A number of those are plural, and are
>not used at all as you are claiming for Rev 3:14.

Response: Homemade greek grammer, plural makes no difference.

Again,
>there is a reason why BDAG does not provide a gloss for Rev
>3:14 here..

Resp0onse: Then originator fits, if that is the case.

You are using a lexical entry that disagrees
>with your position, because it flat out states that
>"first-created" is the "linguistically probable"
>translation. Even if all of your entries were valid
>comparisons (which they are not), your "support" is very
>small when compared to mine.

REsponse: And so is originator according to BDAG, and size means nothing unless you want to agree that qanah means acquired or possessed in Prov 8.
>
>>Reply7: I am arguing for grammatical gender vs. natural
>gender. Solomon obviuosly had a REASON for choosing the
>masculine AMON, you just refuse to accept this for it hurts
>your position. Wisdom being a female is insignificant, for
>it accounts to nothing more than the gender of the noun.


Response: Wisdom as a female counts for genre, since he is personifying it. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees.
>