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

Response: Seems to me that Christ sometimes is wisdom (when it is convenient) and sometimes is not wisdom. So this means that proverbs 8 does not support the creatoin of Christ right?

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

Response: Origin struggled with wisdom being created however, wondering like I am if there was a time God had no wisdom. But he was consistant in keeping wisdom as Christ unlike you are doing.

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

Respnse: So it birht is imagry then wisdom was not born so to speak therefore this verse cannot support Chirst having a beginning right?
>>>
>>>
>
>Reply9: Nobody is saying the attribute is created, the
>personifier of it is created.

Response: So since the attribute is the topic of PRoverbs 8, and is nto created therfore you can't use this verse to support Christ beign created correct?

?
>
>Reply9: By being around those who express the attribute.

Response: You getting wierd on me here.

>>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.

Response: So sometimes wisdom is Chirst and other times it is not? Ohhh kkkk.
>
>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."

Respnse: 1. I think the prof is ignoring genre, but again as I said I will give him the respect and double check wiht my prof on thursday.
>
>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.

Response: That is interesting in BDAG a causal dia, never heard of it before. I don't think the construction makes a difference, it is just a genitive, unless you are arguing for a specific type of gentive, it would make no difference, now if yuo could illustrate why it can't then that would be a diffferent story.

>>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.

Response: They are cognates, they mean the same thign.

>>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.

Response: Why would I have to provide statistical data, unless there was reason too. In othere words what is grammtically special about that genitive that makes it impossible for arche to fit there?

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

Response: That is a new on me, never heard of an active dia.
>