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

Response: Well here is the problem I think you run into with that.

1. You said that wisdom is an attribute of God.

2. You said that wisdom is a creation.

3. If wisdom is a creation, then there was a time when God had no wisdom.

4. Therefore, you have a not so bright God, and a God who had to create an attribute.
>
>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!

Response: Well, as you know I don't regard the church fathers an infallible, secondly, there are alot of issues where me and the church fathers disagree. Why? Because there method of interpretatoin was different than my own, not saying that all of them were off, but they got a little off on a lot of topics.
>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.

Response: Wisdom cannot have a birth, an attribute of an infinite God cannot be created. So it is not fitting.
>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).

Response: God cannot create an attribute otherwise God is not God. Each aspect of his charecter must be eternal.
>
>Reply8: Where is prudence personified? It isn't. The same
>for knowledge.

Response: Wisdom is said to dwell with prudence,how do you dwell with a non person?
>Reply8: John Gill writes the following:

Respnse: Well John GIll is definitely stretching it, because Matt's passage is a qoute from Isaiah about God's servant, it has nothing to do with Proverbs, it is not even qouted in Matt, futhremore, it said that Christ would not be yelling , the excate opposiste of proverbs. And Luke 14:21 is a parable not a fufillemnt of proverbs 8, again another stretch.

>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.


Response: First of all there is no article infront of Amon so it is not the architech, it is indefinite, so she is besides God as *a* architech wisdom is not an architech in itself. So the title is masculine but has nothing to do with wisdom's gender.
>
>
>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.

Response: Well Romans 11:36 expresses agency through the Father as well. And the only reasno why I said that was because you wanted lexical data, that is all, I still think ruler is the best answer.
>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.

Response: Uh yes, the only reason why the plural is used is because the writer is always discussing more than one ruler, archon is just a cognate of arch, just because it is a participle does not change it's meaning.
>
>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.

Response; The only difference in the biblical writers minds was the audiecne they were talking to or about, they just happened to be plural. Again archon is just a cognate.
>Reply8: Yes, if you want to contradict Col 1:16 and John
>1:3. Can't have it both ways.

Response: Not really Roman 11:36 places agency through the Father, and ruler is consistant with Col 1:17-18, but I think I would rather go with ruler.
>>Reply8: When did I ever deny that was the meaning of QANAH?
> I stand by what I have said.

Response: Well consider my arugement above.
>
>Reply8: Missed it again. It is NOT feminine because he
>CHOSE to make it feminine, it is feminine because the NOUN
>is GRAMMATICALLY feminine.

Response: You are ignoring genre, you do realize that Solomon is writting poetry don't you? Futhremore I have explained why wisdom cannot be created.