>>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.


Reply8: Well, it says Christ is "the Wisdom of God" I accept it. You obviously don't.


>
>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.

Reply8: You are trying to dismiss the level of significance in the fact that they all nearly universally accepted this, no matter what they agreed or disagreed on in other points. That really is the significant part here too. While they disagreed on so many other points, the fact that Jesus was Wisdom was almost never brought into question.. in fact, I can't think of a single time it was!

>
> 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.

Reply8: I would not translate QANAH as create, for it does not mean such. The LXX says create though, as does the Targum. The reason Qanah is used is that it is associate with birth (Gen 4:1), and birth imagry is used for Wisdom in Proverbs 8. So it is highlight fitting.

>
>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.

Reply8: QANAH carries the meaning of aquired. However, God can only aquire things by creating them, for he is the source of all things. Word usage is not simply the appearance of the word, but HOW the word is used (i.e. the type of construction it is used in).


>
>>
>>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?

Reply8: Where is prudence personified? It isn't. The same for knowledge.

>
>Futhremore you never did tell me which street corner that
>was Jesus was shouting (prov 1:20) just curious to its
>location.

Reply8: John Gill writes the following: "she uttereth her voice in the streets: of the city of Jerusalem, and other places; nor is this contrary to Mat_12:19; which is to be understood of crying in a bawling and litigious way, of lifting up the voice in self-commendation, neither of which Christ did; and yet might cry and utter his voice in the streets, that is, publicly preach his Gospel there, as he did; and he also sent his servants into the streets and lanes of the city to call in sinners by the ministry of the word, Luk_14:21; which perhaps may be meant of places in the Gentile world; nor is this sense to be excluded here; it may be figuratively understood of the public ministration of the word and ordinances in the church called the streets and broad ways of it, Son_3:2."

>>
>>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.

Reply8: Yes, we are BEYOND grammar.. We are in NATURAL gender. If Wisdom were a literal woman, it would have been feminine. If it is a man, it would be masculine. There is NO other reason for Solomon to have used AMON instead of AMONAH.

>>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.

Reply8: Well BDAG says that first-created is linguistically probable, so I would accept that. Further, originator, as we have already highlighted, is contradicted by the use of TOU QEOU, as well as the intermediate agency expressed in Col 1:16 and john 1:3.


>>
>>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.

Reply8: Ehh, no. The use of the plural is noticably different in scripture than the use of the singular. As I have demonstrated, and as Revelation 1:5 highlights, ARCWN normally is used for ruler. It would be rather odd that John used ARCWN in 1:5, but not in 3:14 if he meant the same thing.


>>
>
>>
>>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.

Reply8: Obviously there is, because we find that the plural is often used for authority, but the singular is almost never. In the mind of Biblical writers, there must have been some difference, or they would not have used ARCWN so much.

>
> 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.

Reply8: Yes, if you want to contradict Col 1:16 and John 1:3. Can't have it both ways.

>
> 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.

Reply8: When did I ever deny that was the meaning of QANAH? I stand by what I have said.

>>
>>>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.
>>

Reply8: Missed it again. It is NOT feminine because he CHOSE to make it feminine, it is feminine because the NOUN is GRAMMATICALLY feminine.

-Tony