Tony: IF you cannot provide scripture for the following , don't waste your time.

>Reply3: Basic logic dictates that a person is not an
>attribute. Another case of just arguing to argue.

Respnse: So you disagree with Paul when he says that Christ is wisdom, if you disagree with that statement and want it to mean something else than what I am saying, then provide scripture, otherwise it is time to move on.
>
>Reply3: I'm not reading personifier into the text, because
>the text is the personifier speaking.

Response: So now the text is the personifier? Are you even readin what you write?? And can you support this with scripture, if not then it is time to move on. This is a non response
>>>
>
>Reply3: Common sense my friend. It is great when you use
>it. A person is not an attribute, a person can only
>personify an attribute.

Response: I asked for scripture support not common sense, that is three non responses. Time to move on Tony, ya got nothing here.
>
>Reply3: An attribute can't speak, the personifier of the
>attribute can.

Response: And that attribute is Christ according to Paul, if you disagree then provide scripture, other wise, it's time to hang it up.

>>Reply3: As my Hebrew teaching friend point out, that makes
>NO SENSE. That isn't how Hebrew work. Even your quote is
>working against you. If Wisdom is naturally feminine, the
>feminine form of the word is used, AMONAH. There is no
>basis. You are stuck. Do I need to quote him again for
>you?

Response: Not at all my qoute illustrates that AMON bieng masucline can have a feminine referent. And that is what it is. That is why Amon can be used instead of AMONAH.
>
>Reply3: LOL. This is too funny! You are so determined to
>be right that you make of these arguments that have no basis
>in reality! It does not matter what AMON is, the fact is
>AMON and AMONAH are the SAME WORD, one is FEMININE for use
>with women and one is masculine for use with men. If
>someone is a male, you use AMON, if someone is a female you
>use AMONAH. Your argument is dead wrong, and to think you
>already took Hebrew. You might want to take it again...

Response: That is what Walke said, that a masculine word can have a feminine referent. Qohelet was fem its referent was Solomon, Amon is mascuine, it referent is wisdom.
>
>Reply3: Except it doesn't say that at all! It says, "The
>beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. "
>I'll add that to my list of examples, thanks.

Response: You did not read, I said as a SUBJECTIVE (genitive) it would read.

Jesus Christ Son of God gospel begins as it is written,

In a subjective genitive the genitive becomes the subject and a verbal noun is requirede. That is how you can tell it is a subjective genitive if I am able to do this. If I cant it is something else.
>
>Reply3: The beginning of the gospel is presented in the
>prophets. That is his point. It is obviously partitive.

Response: But that does not make it part of the prophets.

>>Reply3: The sentence is part of verse 2, which makes the
>beginning = what has been written in the prophets.

Response: LOL that does not make it part of the prophets.

>>Reply3: Application of common sense and a quick contextual
>check goes a long way to help you see the facts..

Response: George,Malachi, time to get your boy, he's done.