>>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?

Reply10: No, Christ is the personifier of Wisdom, so when Wisdom is actively being personified, that is Christ.

>
>>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.

Reply10: Athanasius struggled with it to, trying to make it fit Trinitarianism, so he totally came up with a funky meaning for the text that makes no sense at all. Still, he thought Prov 8:22 was of Christ.


>
>>
>>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?

Reply10: I use the term imagry, because the Targum and the LXX clearly define it as creation, but it is creation being described in a way of birth, and hence the use of QANAH.

>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>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?

Reply10: Is it being actively personified? Yes, so that is Christ.

>
>?
>>
>>Reply9: By being around those who express the attribute.
>
>Response: You getting wierd on me here.

Reply10: Just calling it like it is. Wisdom is with God, no? The angels? Jesus himself displays it as well, no?

>
>>>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.

Reply10: Christ is not an attribute, Christ is a personifier of an attribute. When we see the active personification, this is Christ.

>>
>>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.

Reply10: Genre has nothing to do with the grammar and grammar is 100% the issue.

>>
>>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.

Reply10: Glad you learned something new. There is that missing passive (or sometimes middle) verb, which is associated with intermediate agency...

>
>>>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.

Reply10: Nope. I suggest you flip open your friendly neighborhood lexicon.. or is that spiderman.. well here lexicon, and look up ARCWN.

>
>>>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?
>

Reply10: It comes do to semantic signaling. How would a reader in the 1st century understand it? We can better understand that by evaluating the passages to which there is no debate, seeing how it was used, and then applying that to the passage in question so that we can formulate the correct answer.


>>Reply9: Nope, wrong use of DIA. See BDAG.
>
>Response: That is a new on me, never heard of an active dia.
>>

Reply10: :)