>>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.

Reply9: We are not speaking of the attribute, but the personifier.


>>
>>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.

Reply9: And they disagreed amoungst themselves, but they did not disgree on this.


>>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.

Reply9: But birth imagry is used, hence you find many translations render it "born" in Proverbs 8.

>>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.
>>

Reply9: Nobody is saying the attribute is created, the personifier of it is created.

>>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?

Reply9: By being around those who express the attribute.

>>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.

Reply9: Call it what you want. Personally, I don't think it is necessary to consider it about Jesus myself. The only time I personally view it as Jesus is when Wisdom is active (i.e. speaking), for that is when there is a personifier.

>
>>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.

Reply9: It has everything to do with it, as is highlighted in my post on how you are stuck. Let me provide that quote again though.

"What is this "wisdom" that is forced to live in a feminine cell due to the linguistic constraints imposed by virtue of the fact the word is "feminine" nevermind the precise gender of the subject....and yet manifests itself in a masculine role with "ah-MOHN"? Ah-MOHN is his executioner since it identifies the real "gender" of "Wisdom". How many languages have proper noun that inherently are masculine or feminine and require additional data to narrow the gender to one. Ah-MOHN did that for us at Proverbs 8. He is stuck.

"In other words, the burden rests on him to explain why a feminine word having the capacity to apply to either a masculine or feminine subject all of sudden shows up as a masculine. Ahmon defines the "wisdom" for us and he, your correspondent, is not happy with the answer."


>>
>>
>>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.

Reply9: Not intermediate agency. I suggest you reference BDAG on DIA. Ruler is ARCWN ala Rev 1:5, it is never used in the construction found in Rev 3:14 for a person as ruler.


>>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.

Reply9: Obviously you've not really studied the use of ARCH/ARCWN in scripture. I have, and the use of the plural of ARCH is noteably different, and the singular does not fit the use of Rev 3:14 that you are looking for. Construction is consistently in use of the first, not the ruler.

>>
>>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.

Reply9: Yes, it is, but that doesn't change the USE OF THE LANGAUGE. You are just running in circles. I've provided the statistical evidence. You need to demonstrate ARCH used in the way you are claiming it is used at Rev 3:14.. of a person with a genitive.

>>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.

Reply9: Nope, wrong use of DIA. See BDAG.

>>>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.

Reply9. The Targum says created, the LXX says created, the Hebrew uses birth imagry. Nobody claims the attribute itself is, but the personifier is.

-Tony