A clash of Titans. LXXVIII

A clash of Titans.LXXVII

Why Darwinism's crisis continues.

Education v. indoctrination.

Evolution Education — A Debater’s Perspective
Sarah Chaffee

I write a lot here about critical thinking in evolution education. Now, I want to address teaching the controversy from a pedagogical viewpoint. That is, I’m not going to touch on the scientific controversy over biological evolution. What I want to address is why one should teach evolution, or any subject, through critical thinking and not dogmatically. 

I’m a debate coach. I began competing in 2005 and have been involved in the competitive forensics world ever since. When I first read it, Discovery Institute’s Science Education Policy got my attention. It notes, in part: 

Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in curriculum. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned. 

What, regardless of your viewpoint on evolution, does this style of teaching have to offer? What are the bonuses that such an approach brings with it?

Three Significant Benefits

First, the practice of critical analysis is just plain more interesting. Contrasting opposing viewpoints engages people, whether young or old. Defending a certain position in front of others develops curiosity. To simulate the mind, there is nothing quite like researching an issue, knowing you know it, and being ready to explain it to others. 

Second, critical thinking enables students to learn more. Debaters can easily spend an hour or two a day researching a topic. Compare this to your average university course — would a student spend that kind of time studying apart from completing required homework? 

One year, my debate topic centered on the Fourth Amendment. Now, I generally would have no inclination to spend hours and hours reading decisions from circuit courts and the Supreme Court — but I was excited about it because of debate.

Third, exposing an issue to critical scrutiny brings in elements of persuasion and public speaking. Even if we’re talking about a classroom setting rather than a debate round, students will be interested in raising questions and defending positions. Analysis allows students to have an opportunity to try to persuade others and to raise issues in front of a group. Not unlike in school sports, a healthy instinct for competition comes in. Learning through passive memorization and regurgitation has nothing to compare to that.

William Butler Yeats noted, “Education is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.” Yes, filling a pail or lighting a fire: when it comes to evolution and many other subjects, that’s exactly the choice educators face.

On separating science from philosophy.

Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science
Michael Egnor October 30, 2007 4:36 PM

Juno Walker at Letters from Vrai has responded to my post Dr. Pigliucci and Fundamentalism in Science Education. Dr Massimo Pigliucci published an essay in The McGill Journal of Education in which he made the absurd claim that effective science education would dissuade students from a belief in Heaven. I pointed out in my post that Heaven wasn't exactly a proper subject for the scientific method and that the assertion that science education was even applicable to a belief in Heaven was fundamentalism -- a kind of atheist fundamentalism. The conflation of methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism -- science and atheism -- is no more acceptable pedagogy than the conflation of science and creationism. Atheism and creationism are philosophical inferences, and, irrespective of the truth of either faith, neither is consistent with the scientific method. The scientific method -- methodological naturalism -- is the data-driven study of nature. It's based on natural, not supernatural, claims. The irony is that the McGill Journal of Education published Dr. Pigliucci's atheist broadsheet for fundamentalism in science education, but would never publish a creationist broadsheet for fundamentalism in science education.

Walker cites Darwinist philosopher Barbara Forrest to defend the assertion that atheism is a scientifically justifiable inference. Dr. Forrest:
...the relationship between methodological and philosophical naturalism, while not one of logical entailment, is the only reasonable metaphysical conclusion, given (1) the demonstrated success of methodological naturalism, combined with (2) the massive amount of knowledge gained by it, (3) the lack of a method or epistemology for knowing the supernatural, and (4) the subsequent lack of evidence for the supernatural. The above factors together provide solid grounding for philosophical naturalism, while supernaturalism remains little more than a logical possibility.
Dr. Forrest is mistaken. The demonstrated success of methodological naturalism has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of philosophical naturalism, because the assertion of philosophical naturalism (there are no extra-natural things) is outside the purview of methodological naturalism (the study of natural things). Methodological naturalism is defined by its inability to adjudicate extra-natural questions.
Dr. Forrest's claim (3) that philosophical naturalism must be true because of "the lack of a method or epistemology for knowing the supernatural" is nonsense. The methods for knowing the supernatural are by definition beyond the scope of methodological naturalism and are properly philosophical methods, not scientific methods. Forrest's implicit assertion that there is no philosophical "method or epistemology for knowing the supernatural" is an assertion that two and a half millenia of Western philosophy don't exist. What of Platonic Forms, Thomist proofs for the existence of God, Anslem's and Descartes' and Plantinga's Ontological Arguments, and Kant's Argument From Morality? It's safe to say that most of Western philosophy addresses issues that transcend our direct experience of the natural world. Ironically, Forrest's use of the scientific method to assert that the supernatural world doesn't exist employs one of the few philosophical methodologies that can't address questions outside of the natural world.

Methodological naturalism -- the scientific method -- precludes all extra-natural philosophical constraints on interpretation of physical data. That's the point of methodological naturalism -- the method of data collection and interpretation must be without extra-natural assumptions. Colloquially, methodological naturalism is 'following the physical evidence, unencumbered by extra-natural inference.' The design inference is based on evidence about the natural world. It is a violation of methodological naturalism to categorically exclude the design inference based on the postulate that the supernatural does not exist. The scientific method hews to evidence, not to philosophical dogma.

The approach to science in the era before the scientific method, much like the approach of atheists and Darwinists today, was to apply a priori philosophical constraints to the study of natural phenomena. The ancients modeled planetary motion as perfect circles because of the philosophical assumption that heavenly bodies must move 'perfectly,' and non-circular motion was considered imperfect and thus impermissible. Johannes Kepler's laws of elliptical planetary motion were an early triumph of the scientific method because Kepler discarded philosophical dogma and considered only the evidence. Of course, Kepler was a devout Christian (as were nearly all Enlightenment scientists), and he interpreted the laws of planetary motion as God's geometrical plan for the universe. Philosophical constraints -- a priori constraints -- on interpretation of data are inconsistent with the scientific method, but philosophical reflection on the data isn't. Newton derived his laws of motion from mathematical considerations and from data, yet he believed that the fabric of space and time in which the laws acted was the mind of God. Philosophical reflection on scientific data -- including reflection on supernatural causation -- has a long and quite honorable history.

So what of Forrest's fourth claim: that the truth of philosophical naturalism is supported by "the subsequent lack of evidence for the supernatural"? It's a bizarre inference, as divorced from empirical evidence as could be imagined. The past several centuries of Western science have revealed a universe created ex nihilo, governed by astonishingly intricate mathematical laws accessible to the human mind and characterized by properties of forces and energy and matter so closely tied to the existence of human life that cosmologists have had to invoke the existence of countless other universes to elide the anthropic implications. Life itself depends on a code -- remarkably like a computer language -- to produce, run and replicate cellular components that are themselves best described as intricate nanotechnology.

Here's the atheist interpretation of this scientific evidence: atheism is the only permissible explanation. Atheists are entitled to their opinion, but they have no business teaching students that atheist fundamentalism defines the limits of science.

Mary Shelley is seeming more and more oracular.

With Gene Editing, Scientists Perilously Push Borders of Biotechnology

Wesley J. Smith

The gene editing technology CRISPR and other biological laboratory manipulations have been used to manufacture mice with two biological fathers and two biological mothers. From the STAT story:

For the first time, scientists said Thursday that they had bred mice with two genetic fathers, steering around biological hurdles that would otherwise prevent same-sex parents from having offspring.

The researchers also bred mouse pups with two genetic mothers. Those pups matured into adults and had pups of their own, outpacing previous efforts to create so-called bimaternal mice.

“This research shows us what’s possible,” Wei Li, a senior author ofthe study, said in a statement. Li conducted the work with colleagues at the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Portentous Technologies

Such manipulations, if ever done in humans, could a profound impact on human society going down the generations.

Beyond the technical, legal, and ethical roadblocks that would prevent this type of research in people, experts pointed to another concern. If researchers created, say, a daughter from two mothers or two fathers, and if she were healthy and had children of her own, it is unknown what genetic ramifications might be passed onto the next generation.

These are extremely portentous technologies. But existing laws and regulations that govern the sector — which were created when our scientific prowess was less sophisticated — are quickly becoming inadequate in ensuring that proper parameters are maintained to guide the development and direction of what I believe will become most powerful technologies ever invented.

Relying on voluntary ethical guidelines created by scientists to maintain proper ethical and safety boundaries — pretty much the situation now beyond some public funding limitations — is not a policy. It is an abdication of public responsibility.

Look: When scientists split the atom, our leaders did not just sit around slack-jawed and let the sector develop as it would. They engaged. They created laws, regulations, and international protocols to govern our use of atomic energy to maximize the benefit and reduce the danger. Surely we should do no less with biotechnology, which will have far more profound and far reaching impacts on human history.

Freedom of speech must include freedom to offend?:Pros and Cons

Common descent v. Common design again.

From Ewert’s Dependency Graph Paper – A “Gut Punch” to Darwin’s Tree?

David Klinghoffer | @d_klinghoffer

A “gut punch” to the Darwinian Tree of Life is the phrase tentatively applied by the Bradley Center’s Robert J. Marks to the new paper in BIO-Complexity by Winston Ewert, “The Dependency Graph of Life.” Dr. Marks kicks off a series of conversations with Dr. Ewert for ID the Future. I’m reminded again that Marks, among many other distinctions, was born to podcast. He’s really very good at it. His interview with Ewert is a winner, quite amusing and accessible, especially for such a potentially recondite subject. He really wants to help any listener understand what’s potentially “game-changing” about Ewert’s proposal. 

Download the podcast or listen to it here.

In the first episode they discuss the background of how Darwinian theory explains life’s nested hierarchy pattern, suggestive of the famed Tree. Conventional evolutionary thinking teaches that — despite many anomalies (e.g., echolocation popping up in bats and dolphins) — common descent is the only explanation that accounts for what we see. Sure it requires various ad hoc add-ons. But do you have anything better? Ewert may: not common descent but common design.

And what is a dependency graph? That’s to be the subject of their next conversation. I believe this is going to be “Dependency Graph Without Tears,” and not a moment too soon.

I.D is already mainstream? III

Space Archaeology — How About Cellular Archaelogy.

Michael Egnor

From Abraham Loeb, chairman of the Astronomy Department at Harvard University, founding director of Harvard’s Black Hole Initiative and director of the Institute for Theory and Computation at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, in Scientific American:

How to Search for Dead Cosmic Civilizations

If they’re short-lived, we might be able to detect the relics and artifacts they left behind

The possibility [is intriguing] that we will find technological relics flying through our solar system with no detectable functionality, such as pieces of equipment that lost power over the millions of years of their travel and have turned into space junk.

How much debris exist in interstellar space would depend on the abundance of technological civilizations and the scope of their aspirations for space exploration… there might be plenty of relics out there in the Milky Way for us to explore.

Wow. Arthur C. Clark has a great novel — Rendezvous with Rama — about a similar scenario. Loved it. 

This opportunity establishes a potential foundation for a new frontier of space archaeology, namely the study of relics from past civilizations in space. Instead of using shovels to dig into the ground, this new frontier will be explored by using telescopes to survey the sky and dig into space.

In Search of Intelligent Design

Space archaeology — a  fascinating and important approach to space exploration. It’s a careful analysis of objects to search for evidence for intelligent origin, and it need not be archeological, in the sense that the designing intelligence(s) may still be at work. Yet space archeology is a great name for it. It may seem a bit like fiction, but there apparently is an actual potential artifact for study and a practical approach to actually doing space archeology:

[I]nerestingly, the first artificial relic might have just been discovered over the past year whent the Pan STARRS sky survey identified the first interstellar object in the solar system, ‘Oumuamua. The abundance of interstellar asteroids with ‘Oumuamua’s kilometer-scale length was estimated a decade to be vanishingly small, making this discovery a complete surprise.

In addition, ‘Oumuamua is more elongated than any known asteroid in the solar system. But most intriguing is the fact that ‘Oumuamua deviated from the orbit one would have expected based on the sun’s gravitational field. Although such deviations could be associated with the rocket effect associated by outgassing due to heating of water ice by the sun, there was no sign of any cometary tail behind ‘Oumuamua, and calculations imply, contrary to observations, that its spin period should have changed significantly by any cometary torque. Might ‘Oumuamua have an artificial engine? Even if it happens to be a piece of natural rock as indicated by its lack of radio transmission, this rock appears to be very unusual by many counts.

The discovery of ‘Oumumua should motivate us to keep searching for interstellar debris in the solar system. Interstellar objects may not be strictly onetime visitors. A small fraction of them may get trapped by the gravitational “fishing net” cast by the sun and Jupiter. Objects passing close enough to Jupiter could lose orbital energy through their gravitational interaction and stay bound to the solar system subsequently. Indeed, an asteroid occupying an orbit indicative of such origin, BZ509, was identified recently in a retrograde orbit around Jupiter.

It is impossible to use existing chemical rockets to chase down ‘O ‘Oumumua because of its high speed, but one can contemplate missions to land on interstellar objects that are bound to the solar system. Although they represent a tiny minority of all the asteroids or comets in the solar system, their interstellar origin can be identified based on their unusual orbits around Jupiter or, in the case of comets, through their distinct (extrasolar) isotope abundance of oxygen, detectable by spectroscopic observations of their cometary tail.

A Fascinating Object

ʻOumuamua is a fascinating object, and certainly deserves further investigation. How could we discern design from non-design? It’s an issue central to archaeology, and obviously would be central to space archaeology. It would be great science to sort out criteria for detecting intelligent agency in an object in nature, especially in a situation in which we have no idea about the nature of the designer.

Finding evidence for space junk of artificial origin would provide an affirmative answer to the age-old question “Are we alone?” This would have a dramatic impact on our culture and add a new cosmic perspective to the significance of human activity. Finding a civilization dead due to war or climate change will hopefully convince us to get our act together and avoid a similar fate. But it would be even more remarkable if radar imaging or flyby photography near an interstellar relic within the solar system would show signs of an advanced technology that our civilization had not mastered as of yet.

   “Advanced technology that our civilization had not mastered.” Like astonishingly intricate blueprints for replication, function, and maintenance, written in an elegant code akin to a language, with specificity, punctuation, and superimposed reading frames, running exquisite nanotechnology in trillions of individual units that work in delicate harmony and even, in some objects, give rise to self-awareness. 

         A Breathtaking Lack of Self-Awareness

If they found a tiny fraction of that evidence for design on ʻOumuamua, it would be the scientific discovery of the millennium. Yet we find design everywhere in living things, on an immense scale. There’s a breathtaking lack of self-awareness in the scientific community about intelligent design. Much of the most fascinating and cutting edge science in many fields is design science, but ideological blinders prevent good scientists like Dr. Loeb from acknowledging that, like space archeology, cellular archeology is science at its best. 

How is Christ Jehovah's wisdom

A Reply to 
James Patrick Holding's-Jesus: God's Wisdom 
"My lord has wisdom like that of an angel of God-he knows everything that happens in the land." 2 Sam 14:20 NIV 

Unless otherwise stated, all Scripture quotations are taken from the American Standard Version (ASV) 1901

JPH: In order to support the traditional Christian view of the relationship of Jesus to the Father, we must understand the background for certain claims about the nature and identity of Jesus in the New Testament.
Reply: Should we try to find support for the traditional [Trinitarian] view, or the view "which God entrusted to his people once and for all." Jude 3, NEB
"Inasmuch as their individual salvation depends on holding faith, which involves receiving and believing Christian dogma, they find it very difficult to ask themselves how doctrine developed. If it developed historically, can it be what it must be in order to be a faith capable of saving us, the 'faith once delivered to the saints'? 
It is a simple and undeniable fact historical fact that several major doctrines that now seem central to the Christian faith-such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the deity of Christ-were not present in a full and well-defined, generally accepted form until the fourth of fifth centuries. If they are essential today-as all of the orthodox creeds and confessions assert-it must be because they are true. If they are true, then they must always have been true; they cannot have become true in the fourth or fifth century. But if they are both true and essential, how can it be that the early church took centuries to formulate them?"
Heresies, p. 20, by Harold O.J. Brown
"The Christology of the apologies, like that of the New Testament, is essentially subordinationist.  The Son is always subordinate to the Father, who is the one God of the Old Testament.  . . .What we find in these early authors, then, is not a doctrine of the Trinity. . . .Before Nicaea, Christian theology was almost universally subordinationist." Grant, Robert McQueen  (b.1917-d.?).  Gods and the One God.  1st ed.  (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, c1986), pp. 109, 156, 160.  BL785 .G69 1986 / 85-011443.
Instead of a developed Catholic theology that Holding is clinging to desperately, would not the first realization of Christianity naturally be the best, as opposed to a later one that is tainted and homogenized? 
"It follows from this premise that any 'development' of Christianity must be seen as a decline." p. 68, The Real Jesus, Luke Timothy Johnson 
Starting with an incorrect a priori assumption is never a way one must conduct research.
JPH: Proverbs 8:22-30 "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave to the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him..." 
This passage is one of several in the Old Testament (see Ps. 58:10, 107:42; Job 11:14) in which abstract qualities are 
personified, following an Ancient Near Eastern tradition of personification. (Derek Kidner, The Wisdom of Proverbs, Job and 
Ecclesiastes, 44.) Here, and in other parts of Proverbs, Wisdom "makes claims for herself which are elsewhere made only by, 
or for, God."
Reply: Here JPH quotes from the KJV. Another alternative rendering that must strongly be considered is from the Revised Standard Version:
"The LORD created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. When there were no depths I was brought forth ["I was born" New Jerusalem Bible], when there were no springs abounding with water. Before the mountains had been shaped, before the hills, I was brought forth ["I came to birth" NJB]; before he had made the earth with its fields, or the first of the dust of the world. When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, when he made firm the skies above, when he established the fountains of the deep, when he assigned to the sea its limit, so that the waters might not transgress his command, when he marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master workman; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always."
Are these verses only personified abstract qualities? Let us take a look at JPH's proof-texts, starting with Ps 58:10: 
"Sooner than your pots can feel the heat of thorns, whether green or ablaze, may he sweep them away!" This verse, and the ones before them give examples of what some are likened to. I don't see personification here. 
Ps 107:42: "The upright see it and are glad; and all wickedness stops its mouth." 
Again, no personification here. It simply is another way of saying that "the wicked are stricken silent." NLT 
Job 11:14: "If iniquity is in your hand, put it far away, and let not wickedness dwell in your tents." Again, this is not really a parallel personification to Wisdom, is it?  It basically means to "leave all iniquity behind you." NLT 
Where do we any of these supposed examples talking, as Wisdom does? 
Additionally, where does Wisdom make claims only reserved for God, if Wisdom is "created", "born" and given "birth" to? 
The Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible Jamieson, Fausset, Brown 
"(1) Though described as with God, wisdom is not asserted to be God."
JPH: I found Stafford a very amusing read in ways because although he has some hints about Wisdom, he doesn't see the connection and how it refutes his view of Jesus -- most likely because he has no view at all into the intertestamental literature that founded the "crucial conceptual category" that the NT writers put Jesus into. In this light, I found much of Stafford's material quite irrelevant. The question, "Is Jesus Jehovah?" doesn't require a yes or no answer from our side. Wisdom covers this -- Jesus may have been going around as "Jehovah" (Yahweh) at times in the OT, using that name in his pre-incarnate dealings, but Proverbs 8, as we show in the linked essay, would suggest that there isn't a one-to-one correspondence.
Reply: I find Holding's review of Stafford's book *amusing*, as he absolutely ignores the EVIDENCE, and even misrepresents his findings. Why is the birth imagery in Stafford simply glossed over in JPH's article? 
In Ps 139:13 we have the psalmist saying that God "knit me together in my mother's womb." Job 10:11 has Job saying to God "clothe me with skin and flesh, and weave me of bone and sinew."
"The process of gestation in both cases is described metaphorically in terms of a craft. Furthermore, significantly for our structural study is the fact that in Ps 139:13 [qanah] parallels [sakhak, 'weave together'], which is the same situation we have here in Prov 8:22-23. While the usual meaning of the root qanah is >>to buy or acquire,<< the verb is used in Gen 4:1 and Dtn 32:6 as well as in Ps 139:13 where the parenting aspect is unmistakable. The third parallel verb in Prov 8:24, [kholalti], <
This is why Beck's An American Translation has: 
"The LORD became My Father at the beginning of His way...before there was any ocean, I was born." 
Adam Clarke states:
"Verse 30. Then I was with him, as one brought up ] wma amon, a nursling, a darling child. Wisdom continues its parable, says Calmet; and represents itself as a new-born child which is ever near its parent, and takes pleasure to see him act, and to sport in his presence. This is poetical and highly figurative; and they who think they find the deity of Jesus Christ in these metaphors should be very cautious how they apply such terms as these; so that while they are endeavouring to defend the truth, they may do nothing against the truth, in which most of them unhappily fail."
I think JPH has failed in this regard also. 
This birth imagery leads to a temporal/filial connection that cannot be denied. If we use the Bible to interpret the Bible, then we are left with the undeniable fact that something/someone that was given birth to, something that was acquired, something that was created indicates that there was a time before birth, when it did not exist, a time when you simply did not possess that thing you later acquired, and so on. 
Jehovah is "One that is perfect in knowledge" [Job 36:4; 37:16 ASV] there was no need for Him to acquire or possess a special type of knowledge at a later time. This is left for imperfect humans: 
"How great is he who has acquired wisdom; but unsurpassed is one who fears the Lord." Ecclus 25:10 
Dake's Annotated Bible on Prov 8:30, while pointing to other Scriptures he believes teach the deity of Christ, states: "Wisdom is pictured as a child ever near its parent and watching him in his work. THERE IS NO PROOF HERE OF THE DEITY OF CHRIST...Wisdom is simply personified in all this passage ...and it has no clear reference to Christ." 
You see, when Proverbs 8 is honestly dealt with, the conclusion is that it is damaging to trinitarians, and, as even Adam Clarke admits, does more harm than good. That is why there is a concerted effort to NOT associate Christ with Wisdom.
JPH, like many others such as Robert Bowman, like to mix up various references to Wisdom as if they are pertaining to the same thing. But such usage is as unfair as stating that all mentions of the Word must have Jesus as a referent. 
For instance, this example from JPH:

 The might of his wisdom he measures out, He is the same from eternity. Nothing is added and nothing is withdrawn, and there is no need for anyone to instruct him." (42:18-21) Wisdom is an attribute of God, and is co-eternal with Him -- otherwise, Wisdom is a thing "added" to Him, or someone has "instructed" Him. Bauckham makes a similar observation concerning a much later passage: "2 Enoch 33:4, in an echo of Deutero-Isaiah (Isa. 40:13), says that God had no advisor in his work of creation, but that his Wisdom was his advisor. The meaning is clearly that God had no one to advise him. His Wisdom, who is not someone else but intrinsic to his own identity, advised him." Richard Bauckham, God Crucified: Monotheism and Christology in the New Testament , 21. [Bold Emphasis Mine]
Is Wisdom used only ONE WAY in the Bible? No (see below)! What does 2 Enoch 33:4 really say? 
"There is no counselor and no successor, only myself, eternal, not made by hands. My unchanging thought is (my ) counselor, and (my) word is my deed. And my eyes behold all things. If I turn my face away, then all falls into destruction; but if I look at it, then all is stable." 
There is no mention of Wisdom as advisor here at all! The closest mention of wisdom is the preceding verse where we have God using wisdom to write books. 
God here is not made by hands, yet Wisdom in Prov 8 is pictured as a handiwork of God. 
Wisdom was not His advisor, His thoughts were. The above should give one pause as to the lengths some people will go to, to buttress an errant theology. 
Though not mentioned in JPH's article, Bauckham then goes on to assert, according to 1 Enoch 84:2, 3, (and Wisdom 9:4, 10) that Wisdom is sitting besides God's throne, and that this is "not parallel to the depictions of exalted angels." 
Firstly, my copy of Enoch 84 says nothing of the kind, and it is described as difficult, as Bauckham's translation of it is stated as a scribal "emendation." [1 Enoch, A New Translation by E. Isaac] Secondly, Wisdom 9 is sufficient however as one sitting by God's throne, but Bauckham completely ignores Enoch 3, where we have the "exalted" angel Metatron, "the lesser YHWH", contradicting this professor, as he has special privileges in relation to God's position, for he is the "Prince of the Divine Presence." 
See Footnote 2 
In line also with the Lamb sharing the throne of God (Rev 22:1, 3, cf. 1 Chron 29:23), Metatron also becomes enthroned (1 Enoch 55:4; 61:8; 62:1-5; 69:29; 3 Enoch 10:1-3; 16:1). 
But back to our subject, wisdom can have many connotations, but not in Prov 8:22-30.
"The portrayal of Wisdom in 1.20-33 and ch. 8 is not the same as in the instructions. She is no longer spoken of in the third person, but is herself a speaker: apart from the short introductions which set the scene (1.20-21; 8:1-3). the whole of these two long poems consist of her words, which she delivers in public. Instead of being a shadowy if important figure, she now appears as a fully fledged character." The Composition of the Book of Proverbs, p. 35, R, N Whybray
Following this we have "15 ways *wisdom* is used" according to Dake's Annotated Bible: 
1) Human education (Acts 7:22) 
2) Man's wisdom (1 Cor. 1:19-22; 2:1-13) 
3) Human philosophy and religion (Col. 2:23; 1 Cor. 3:19; 2 Cor. 1:12; Gal 1:14) 
4) Earthly, sensual, devilish wisdom (Jas. 3:14-16) 
5) Prophetic anointing (Lk. 11:49) 
6) Godly training (Lk. 2:40, 52) 
7) Anointing to speak (Lk. 21:15; Acts 6; 1 Cor. 2:7) 
8) Ministerial ability (Eph. 1:8, 17; 3:10; Col 1:19, 28) 
9) Christ the wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24, 30; Col. 2:3; 3:16) 
10) Divine gift of wisdom (1 Cor. 12:8) 
11) Divine attribute of God (Rom. 11) 
12) Heavenly wisdom (Jas. 3:17-17, 33) 
13) Spirit of revelation (2 Pet. 3:15) 
14) Ability of Christ (Mt. 12:42; 13:54) 
15) Native insight (Rev. 13:18; 17:9) 
Again, it is unreasonable to think there was a time when God did not possess wisdom. He did not need to acquire it, or even aspects of it at a later time.
JPH:  A "created" interpretation of qanah is based on false suppositions. Note how qanah is used in other passages where the context admits no such meaning:
Gen. 4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD.
Gen. 25:10 The field which Abraham purchased of the sons of Heth: there was Abraham buried, and Sarah his wife.(cf. 33:19, 47:20, 50:13, where others qanah land, obviously not "creating" it)
Lev. 25:15 According to the number of years after the jubilee thou shalt buy of thy neighbour, and according unto the number of years of the fruits he shall sell unto thee:
1 Kings 16:24 And he bought the hill Samaria of Shemer for two talents of silver, and built on the hill, and called the name of the city which he built, after the name of Shemer, owner of the hill, Samaria.
All of these should provivde substantial object lessons that merely quoting English versions is a hazardous exercise! Now that said, what of qanah? It is not "created"; the word for that is bara in the creation account. As noted, Vawter sees Wisdom as an "outside acquisition" of an independent being, a view neither Trinitarians nor JWs can accept. No one sees God getting Wisdom or Jesus on cash or credit! But there are cites that show that qanah is concerned with the "possession" aspect of the interchange process, rather than the "transaction" aspect:
Gen. 14:19 And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth: 
Prov. 1:5 A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels: 
Prov. 4:5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of my mouth.
Clearly "wisdom" is not something we create or acquire from outside; we cultivate our own attributes from within.
Reply: We do not create persons called Wisdom, because we are not creators. Jehovah, as being perfect in wisdom, has no need to cultivate it. Proverbs 4:5 parallels "wisdom" with "understanding," clearly the personified Wisdom is not referred to here. Holding's article also completely ignores the LXX translation of this word. 
The LXX (Septuagint), the very first translation of the Holy Scriptures, made several centuries before Christ, and was used by him and by the Apostles, had a variety of words it could have used for Qanah at Prov 8:22 [for instance KTAOMAI, LAMBANW, DECOMAI], but it settled on one. The Greek word for "Created" is EKTISEN (#2936). It is used at Mark 13:19; 1Tim 4:3 and Revelation 10:6. The Septuagint uses this word only once in Proverbs, and that is at chapter 8 verse 22. This is how this word (qanah) was understood by the Jews and early Christians in this verse. 
Bullinger states in his Companion Bible: "Heb. kanah. Occurs 86 times in O.T.; rendered 'possess' only four times...Sept. and Syr. render it 'created.'"
From a footnote on the NET translation of Proverbs 8:22 found at www.bible.org:

“There are two roots in Hebrew, one meaning ‘to possess,’ and the other meaning ‘to create.’ The older translations did not know of the second root, but suspected in certain places that a meaning like that was necessary (e.g., Genesis 4:1; 14:19; Deuteronomy 32:6). Ugaritic confirmed that it was indeed another root. The older versions have the translation ‘possess’ because otherwise it sounds like God lacked wisdom and therefore created it at the beginning. They wanted to avoid saying that wisdom was not eternal. Arius liked the idea of Christ as the wisdom of God and so chose the translation ‘create.’ Athanasius translated it, ‘constituted me as the head of creation.’ The verb occurs twelve times in Proverbs with the meaning of ‘to acquire’; but the Greek and the Syriac versions have the meaning ‘create.’ Although the idea is that wisdom existed before creation, the parallel ideas in these verses (‘appointed,’ ‘given birth’) argue for the translation of ‘create’ or ‘establish’ (R. N. Whybray, ‘Proverbs 8:22-31 and Its Supposed Prototypes,’VT 15 [1965]: 504-14; and W. A. Irwin, ‘Where Will Wisdom Be Found?’ JBL 80 [1961]: 133-42).” Many translators render qanahas “created.”.
“Gesenius gives as the primary meaning of qanah: ‘to get, to gain, to obtain, to acquire.’ Davies gives it the meaning of ‘to form or make, to get or acquire, to gain or buy.’ Strong defines qanah as ‘to erect, i.e., to create; by extension to procure, especially by purchase.’ ” —The Great Debate, by Robert Wagoner
The following passages translate in the KJV, the word “qanah” as buy, bought or buyer.

Gen. 25:10 
33:19 
39:1 
47:19,22,23 
49:30 
50:13 
Exodus 15:16 
21:2 
Leviticus 22:11 
25: 15,28,30,44,45,50 
27:24 
Deuteronomy 28:68 
32:6 
Joshua 24:32 
Ruth 4:4,5,9,10 
2 Samuel 12:3 
24:24 
1 Kings 16:24 
2 Kings 22:6 
1 Chron. 21:24 
Nehemiah 5:16 
Proverbs 20:14 
Ecclesiastes 2:7 
Isaiah 24:2 
43:24 
Jeremiah 13:2,4 
32:7,8,9,,15,25,43,44 
Ezekiel 7:12 
Zechariah 11:5 
13:5

The following places render “qanah” as obtain, gained, get or gotten.

Gen 4:1 (acquired, NJB) 
Psalms 74:2 
78:54 
Proverbs 1:5 (acquire, NJB) 
4:5,7 (acquire, NJB) 
15:32 
16:16 
17:16 (buy, NJB) 
18:5, 22 
23:23 (purchase, NJB) 
Isaiah 11:11 
It is rendered as “cause” (making, Young's Literal) at Ezekiel 8:3 
It is rendered “redeemed”(bought, NIV) at Nehemiah 5:8 
It is rendered “possessed’ or “possessor” at: 
Genesis 14:19, 22 and Psalm 139:13 
As we can seen “qanah” always indicates something that was not previously possessed. 
C.F. Burney, in his article, stated:

"[T]he verb kana [Burney's spelling] always seems to possess the sense ‘get, acquire’, never the sense ‘possess, own’ simply, apart from the idea of  possessing  something which has been acquired in one way or another.  This  clearly appears  from  examination  of  the usages of the verb in Hebrew, and through comparison of the cognate languages.…To this  evidence for the Hebrew usage of the verb hnq it is important for our purpose to add the proper name Elkana, which can hardly mean anything else than ‘(He whom) God has begotten or created’….Whether kana here has the sense ‘beget’ or ‘create’ is ambiguous….In face of this evidence we must surely conclude that the ground-meaning of kana is that of acquiring something not  previously  possessed, which may be done by buying or making it, in the case of a child by begetting it, in the case of wisdom by accumulating it through mental application. (emphasis added)."
Surely, to contend that Almighty God had to acquire wisdom by mental application, is at variance with the data given to us about Him in His Word. 
The Hebrew qanah as created can be viewed in passages like the following: 
Genesis 4:1: “And the man knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, “I have gotten [qanah] a man with the help of Jehovah.”—ASV. 
Genesis 14:19: “[A]nd he [Melchizedek] blessed Abram, saying, “Blessed be Abram by God Most High, Creator [qanah, margin, “or, Possessor”] of heaven and earth.”—NIV. 
Genesis 14:22: “But Abram said to the king of Sodom, ‘I have raised my hand to the LORD God Most High, Creator [qanah] of heaven and earth.”—NIV. 
Deuteronomy 32:6: “[I]s this the way you repay the LORD foolish and unwise people? Is he not your Father, your Creator [qanah, “he-created you”—The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament, John R. Kohlenberger III] who made and formed —NIV.
JPH: Ecclesiasticus 1:1-4 All wisdom cometh from the Lord, and is with him for ever. The sand of the sea, and the drops of the rain, And the days of eternity who shall number? The height of the heaven and the breadth of the earth And the deep and wisdom, who shall search them out? Wisdom hath been created before all things, And the understanding of prudence from everlasting. 
The book of Ecclesiasticus was written by Jesus the son of Sirach in about 100 B.C. It describes Wisdom as having been "created before all things," as being "from everlasting" and as comparable to "the days of eternity." In this we are in harmony with the Trinitarian view of Jesus as created or generated by the Father eternally, that is, finding his source in the Father and having no existence apart from Him, yet also having existed eternally as God does.
Reply: There are several problems with the above. One, Wisdom is not said to be "from everlasting," in Ecclesiasticus, that statement was reserved for Prudence. This is also something we see in the Pseudepigrapha. In a note on the Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers, Edited by James H. Charlesworth, he states,
"Special attention is given to Wisdom (sophia). Wisdom is personified and represented as the instrument of creation (3:19; 4:7, 38; 12:36). Wisdom is not eternal, however, since God is her father (4:38) and creator (5:3)."
The Prayers cross-reference Prov 8:22. 
Two, even if it was, AIWN(ios)(a)(ion) here does not always mean "everlasting." It actually means "age," or "a long time." 
This is can be borne out by considering how other versions treat this. The Revised English Bible has at verse 4, "Wisdom was first of all created things, intelligent purpose has existed from the beginning." The New Jerusalem Bible has, "Wisdom was created before everything, prudent understanding from remotest ages." 
JPH is echoing the same sentiment as Robert Bowman in his Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, p. 61:
"Thus [Proverbs] 8:23 says, 'From everlasting I was established...' (NASB); the phrase from everlasting is the same phrase used of God in Psalm 90:2, where the JW's recognize that God is being described as having no beginning."
The problem here is that God is Creator in regards to everlasting [olam] (Isaiah 40:28). 
Everlasting/olam is used twice at Ps 90:2, whereas, elsewhere it is used only once for created beings. It is used of the forefathers (Joshua 24:2) and the prophets (Jer 28:8). The NASB tells us how the olam here should be used, if Bowman would only have completed the verse: 
"From the beginning, from the earliest times of the earth." NASB 
Other versions of Proverbs 8:23 bear out the limitations in regards to olam where created beings are concerned: 
"From of old" New American Bible 
"I was formed in earliest times." Revised English Bible 
"Ages ago" NRSV 
"I was made in the very beginning." TEV 
"In times long past" NEB etc 
Three, it is an oxymoron to say something is created, but has existed from all time. We have no Biblical parallel to compare this phenomenal contradiction with.
Also ignored is the connection with Wisdom/Sophia and the connection with angels. 
Former Priest and author, Tom Harpur writes that Jewish wisdom literature at the time of Christ spoke of the descent and ascent of Wisdom:

"..it is possible to say that the hypostasized Wisdom of late Jewish writing 'is an anonymous heavenly redeemer figure' very similar to those in both Greco-Roman and Christian thought. At the same time, Jewish theologizing about angels also made use of the descending and ascending pattern for figures of redemption. In Isaiah 63 it was the 'angel of [God's] presence' who 'saved' the Israelites-and 'in his love and pity...redeemed them.' Dozens of similar instances can be found throughout the Old Testament. Talbert also cites numerous instances in extra-Biblical writings in which archangels descend in human form. Some of the language used of these angelic redeemers is actually paralleled in the fourth Gospel: in the Testament of Abraham, for example, the archangel comes down and tells the patriarch 'everything which he has heard from the Most High,' while in another work an archangel, the 'firstborn of every creature,' descends to earth and 'tabernacles' among men. In all these writings there is the taking of bodily form, the successful struggle with evil, and the final ascent of the heavenly being. Moreover, in some cases the angel and Wisdom traditions merge with each other and with the concepts of the Logos  and the first-born son...the themes of pre-existence, descent and glorious ascent are found in Philippians 2:6-10, and those of descent and exaltation in Romans 1:3-4, while in Galatians 4:4 there is a clear reference to Christ as an angel: 'You have received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.'In teaching about Christ as pre-existent, 'the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature [by whom] all things were created' (Col. 1:15), clearly Paul is describing not the historical Jesus whose profile we can discern, however dimly, in the Gospels, but with a figure cast in the Wisdom literature speculation-that is, with a mythological construct."
For Christ's Sake, pp. 108, 109 
The mythological construct is in accord with JPH's acknowledgement that cultures also had their Wisdom traditions, and the Jews have borrowed this language (as they have with the words hades and tartarus) and made it their own. 
The Dictionary of Demons and Deities states, under Wisdom:
"Philosophers such as the author of the Book of Wisdom took great care not to lose the mythological connection which made for good literature, and also attracted those who adopted a view of the divine world which retained its plurality while placing Israel's God at the top. Christians were no doubt indebted to a two-deity system which reckoned with a major god with whom a minor, mediating deity was associated. The minor deity could be identified as Yahweh (with El Elyon  being the high god; Deut 32:8, 9 with note in BHS), as the Son of Man (Dan 7:13, 14) or as the archangel Michael (Dan 12:1). The old mythological tradition and the two-deity system helped early Christians in their attempt to define the nature and function of Christ."
Even the suggestion that Wisdom is merely God's attribute does not provide a means of escape. 
Scholar Frances Young observes in talking of Wisdom,
"Interestingly enough, some of the names of those concretely envisaged beings, the archangels, suggest the personification of divine attributes; Gabriel - might of God, Phanuel - face of God."
From Two Roots or a Tangled Mass-The Myth of God Incarnate 
In a review of *Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence*, by Gieschen, the following comments are made:
"Gieschen's conclusions are (1) that angelomorphic traditions "were profoundly employed in earliest extant expressions of Christology," (2) that Angel of the Lord traditions in particular were very important in contributing to the linking of angelomorphic figures intimately identified with YHWH (i.e., the Angel, the Glory, the Name, the Word, Wisdom) to the fleshly Jesus who had ascended and was now enthroned," (3) that early Christians combined various antecedent traditions in formulating their Christology, and (4) that traditions about the invisibility of God were important contributors to the development of angelomorphic traditions and to early Christology. Overall, Gieschen contends that angelomorphic traditions "were some of the oldest and most significant traditions that inspired the Christology which we now find in early Christian literature, including the New Testament." Indeed, Gieschen holds that "the central root" from which various early christological traditions developed (e.g., Wisdom/Spirit/Name/Glory/Son of Man/Image/Anthropos Christologies) is "the angelomorphic tradition in which the Angel of the Lord is God appearing in the form of a man."" 
http://www.bookreviews.org/Reviews/9004108408.html
Metzger makes an interesting point:
"The dividing line between Wisdom the woman and God can grow hazy. Without the introductory verses to Proverbs 1:22-33 one might easily assume that the speaker is not Wisdom but God! Theologians have observed that Wisdom functions as a mediator between God and humanity...Wisdom's mediating role may have answered a spiritual need earlier fulfilled by the king (see Ps. 72:1; 1 Kings 8:22-53)." Oxford Companion to the Bible, (under Wisdom)
That Wisdom often looks indistinguishable from God is also echoed in other works that find it hard to tell between God's angel and God Himself. But the language of this use of agency is quite common. 
A.R. Johnson in a monograph entitled The One and the Many in the Israelite Conception of God, states the following regarding this form of speech: 
"In Hebrew thought a patriarch’s personality extended through his entire household to his wives, his sons and their wives, his daughters, servants in his household and even in some sense his property. The "one" personality was present in the "many" who were with him. In a specialized sense when the patriarch’s as lord of his household deputized his trusted servant as his malak (i.e. his messenger or angel) the man was endowed with the authority and resources of his lord to represent him fully and transact business in his name. In Semitic thought this messenger-representative was conceived of as being personally-and in his very words-the presence of the sender" (Christology and The Angel of the LORD by John Cunningham). 
Consider the following few examples: 
An angel spoke out of the bush, yet it was God speaking through the angel. In this same event, God gave Moses the law and specifically the Ten Commandments. It says in Exodus 20:1-17:
"I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me." ASV

But,  it was actually God speaking through the angel. Stephen again verifies this in Acts 7:53:

"You received the law as transmitted by angels, but you did not observe it." NAB

The law was given to Moses through the angels. As a matter of fact, the whole episode on Mount Sanai was God speaking through the angels. Act 7:38 states:

"This is he that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel that spake to him in the Mount Sinai, and with our fathers: who received living oracles to give unto us." ASV

In  Deuteronomy 29:1-6 we have Moses is speaking to Israel, but then, he is speaking in the first person as God.

"These are the words of the covenant which Jehovah commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which he made with them in Horeb. And Moses called unto all Israel, and said unto them, Ye have seen all that Jehovah did before your eyes in the land of Egypt unto Pharaoh, and unto all his servants, and unto all his land; the great trials which thine eyes saw, the signs, and those great wonders: but Jehovah hath not given you a heart to know, and eyes to see, and ears to hear, unto this day. And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes are not waxed old upon you, and thy shoe is not waxed old upon thy foot. Ye have not eaten bread, neither have ye drunk wine or strong drink; that ye may know that I am Jehovah your God."
These verses start off with Moses speaking as himself and ends with Moses speaking as God in the first person. But it is God speaking through Moses to Israel. There are many examples in the Bible of this custom of speech.
"The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, "A person's agent is regarded as the person himself." Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principle." The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, R.J.Z. Werblowski and Geoffrey Wigoder
The idea is that God gives His authority to His representatives. This idea is pivotal in the understanding of Jesus because Jesus will be God’s representative par excellence, and Jesus will speak on behalf of God. To illustrate the point of God giving His authority to His representatives, take note of the following:
"Behold, I send an angel before thee, to keep thee by the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Take ye heed before him, and hearken unto his voice; provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgression: for my name is in him. ["He is my representative" NLT; "My power is around him" Fenton; "My authority rests in him" REB; "I am giving him complete authority" CEV] 
But if thou shalt indeed hearken unto his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries." (Exodus 23:20-22 ASV).
YHWH’s authority resides in this angel. The angel is God’s representative and thus has the authority of God, but the angel is not God. If we apply this concept to our understanding of Jesus, then this will provide some clarification. Jesus represents God on earth and will thus speak for God and have His authority to forgive sins and to judge.
"For I spake not from myself; but the Father that sent me, he hath given me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." (John 12:49).

"and he gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man." (John 5:27).

"And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth." (Matthew 28:18)

"Now is come the salvation, and the power, and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ" (Revelation 12:10).

" But that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins...when the multitudes saw it, they were afraid, and glorified God, who had given such authority unto men."(Matthew 9:6-8).

Jesus is representing God to the people. He is speaking on behalf of God. He is God's Word. 
This is not a new concept, Moses said exactly this about the future Messiah in Deuteronomy 18:18:

"I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."
He is God's word, like others were before him. Under "word" in the Harper Collins Bible Dictionary:
"Prophets hear and speak what the Lord has spoken to them (Isa. 1:2; 6:8-10), for they are primarily recipients and transmitters of the word of the Lord (Jer. 1:2). The NT...usage can be seen as a development of the OT.
Under Word in McKenzie's Bible Dictionary:
"The word of God in the OT refers most frequently to the word of the prophet."
Interestingly, Metzger's comments above make mention of 1 Kings 8, which states,
"But will God in very deed dwell on the earth? behold, heaven and the heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded!" ASV
Jehovah far transcends containment by anything he has created. The destructive power that results from gazing at God (Ex 33:20) is echoed at 3 Enoch 3 22B:5, 6:
"What does YHWH, the God of Israel, the glorious king, do? The great God, mighty in power, covers his face...otherwise the heaven of Arabot would burst open in the middle, because of the glorious brilliance, beautiful brightness, lovely splendor, and radiant praises of the appearance of the Holy One, blessed be he."
We cannot see God, and as a loving result, he is invisible to us. (1 Tim 1:17; John 1:18; Col 1:15) 
So he sends a lesser Jehovah, Jesus Christ, whom we can see, just as he has sent his angels in the past. 
When we again, through the view of angelic agency, consider the Wisdom literature and the Pseudepigrapha, we are given an insight long ignored:
Wisdom 10:18 "She brought them over the Red Sea, and led them through deep waters" RSV
Compare:
Exodus 14:19 "Then the angel of God who went before the host of Israel moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them." See also Num 20:16 RSV 
Ex 23:20,21 "Behold, I send an angel before you, to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place which I have prepared. Give heed to him and hearken to his voice, do not rebel against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; for my name is in him. [Compare 3 Enoch 12:5]
Wisdom 10:19 "but she [Wisdom] drowned their enemies,and cast them up from the depth of the sea." 
Compare: 
Rev 7:1 "After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth, that no wind might blow on earth or sea or against any tree."
Wisdom 10:13 "When a righteous man was sold, wisdom did not desert him, but delivered him from sin. She descended with him into the dungeon."
Compare:
Daniel 3:25 "He answered, "But I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods...Nebuchadnez'zar said, 'Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed'nego, who has sent his angel and delivered his servants, who trusted in him, and set at nought the king's command, and yielded up their bodies rather than serve and worship any god except their own God.'" 
Dan 6:22 "Then Daniel said to the king, 'O king, live for ever! My God sent his angel and shut the lions' mouths, and they have not hurt me, because I was found blameless before him; and also before you, O king, I have done no wrong.'"
“Then wisdom went out to dwell with the children of the people, but she found no dwelling-place. So wisdom returned to her place and she settled permanently among the angels.” 1 Enoch 42:1, 2
Compare:

"So the Logos (Word) became flesh and dwelt among us." (John 1:14)

Even when discussing Philo, many have realized that his writings on Wisdom/Logos can be best understood with an angelology in view. 
In her "Logos and Its Function in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria: Greek Interpretation of Hebrew Thought and Foundations of Christianity: Part One," Marian Hillar writes:

"The Angel of the Lord, Revealer of God: 
Philo describes the Logos as the revealer of God symbolized in the Scripture (Gen. 31:13; 16:8; etc) by an angel of the Lord (Somn. 1.228-239; Cher. 1-3). The Logos is the first-born and the eldest and chief of the angels. 
Intermediary Power: 
The fundamental doctrine propounded by Philo is that of Logos as an intermediary power, a messenger and mediator between God and the world. 
And the father who created the universe has given to his archangel and most ancient Logos a pre-eminent gift, to stand on the confines of both, and separate that which had been created from the Creator. And this same Logos is continually a suppliant to the immortal God on behalf of the mortal race, which is exposed to affliction and misery; and is also the ambassador, sent by the Ruler of all, to the subject race. And the Logos rejoices.... saying "And I stood in the midst, between the Lord and you" (Num. 16:48); neither being uncreated as God, nor yet created as you, but being in the midst between these two extremities, like a hostage, as it were, to both parties (Her. 205-206)."
From the Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman:
"Philo, as far as I know, ascribed no 'condescension' to his Logos, for he considered him a creature, or, at least, an emanation, as well as his companion Angel. He speaks of him as a second God (vid. Euseb. Præp. Ev. vii. 13, p. 323, ed. 1688); as an Archangel between God and man, neither increate nor a creature, an intercessor with God, a messenger from Him (Quis hæres, p. 509), as the first-born Son, His Viceroy (de Agricult. p. 195), the created idea or plan, the [kosmos noetos] on which the visible world was made (de Opif. mund. p. 5, Quis hæres, p. 512). There is nothing then in him which needs explanation when he speaks of the Almighty and His two ministering attendants; but if a writer such as Irenæus uses language of a like character, he must be interpreted, not by Philo, but by other statements of his own and by the doctrine of his brother theologians. Indeed, when closely inspected, the doubtful language of this great Father explains itself." 
http://www.newmanreader.org/works/tracts/arianism/section10.html
From A Dictionary of Angels, by Gustav Davidson:
"In Enoch II, 33, wisdom is hypostasized. God orders wisdom, on the 6th day of Creation, 'to make man of seven substances.' In Reider, The Book Of Wisdom, wisdom is the 'assessor on God's throne,' the instrument or divine agent (i.e. angel) 'by which all things were created.' [Cf. the Logos of Philo.] According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, 'Angel,' the term 'angel of the Lord' finds a 'counterpart in the personification of wisdom in the Sapiential books, and in at least one passage (Zachariah 3:1) it seems to stand for that Son of Man whom Daniel (Daniel 7:13) saw brought before the Ancient of Days." p. 312,
The belief that Michael the Archangel was the same as the Word/Wisdom, was carried over by Philo of Judea who, ‘identified the Logos with the archangel Michael.’ (Formation of Christian Dogma, Professor Martin Werner, page 133)
"The counterpart of this is afforded by an identification of Christ with the archangel Michael, an identification which is made in the Shepherd of Hermas. ... According to the early Christian writing Of The Threefold Fruits, Christ, as one of the seven archangels of God, was created ‘from fire’ and exalted to the status of ‘Son.’" (Formation of Christian Dogma, 
Professor Martin Werner, page 135)

FIRST OXFORD LECTURE ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHRISTOLOGY 
by Crispin H. T. Fletcher-Louis:

"1. Most discussion of the LOGOS has, understandably focused on Philo. I don't want to get embroiled in the highly sophisticated world of Philo, except to say that there is a steadily increasing body of opinion that, in actual fact his ideas are very Jewish in origin if not in expression. His use of LOGOS/LOGOI language is best understood as an adaptation to a Hellenistic idiom of the peculiarly Jewish language of angels. 
Long before Philo, Greek speaking Jews had used Logos language as an alternative to Angel of LORD. As Jarl Fossum has pointed out, a key passage in this respect in Ezekiel the Tragedian's Exagoge 96-99. In this passage Moses' encounter with the burning bush is retold and where the biblical account (Exodus 3) has the Angel of the LORD in the bush, Ezekiel has a divine Logos. Logos language, then, is Angel of the Lord language, (cf. also Wisdom of Solomon 18:15f, reworking 1Chron 21:16. 
2. Similarly, though Wisdom has had her own independent history within Israelite culture, she has already been identified with the Angel of the LORD long before early Christianity. This is clear from Sirach 24:4 where Wisdom takes up the position of the Angel of the LORD in the cloud of Exodus 14:19 and Wisdom of Solomon 9:1-2, 18:15-16 where Wisdom, Logos and Angel of the Lord are equated. 
Wisdom and Logos, then, both point to the importance of angelic categories as the common denominator in Jewish mediatorial speculation."
"In the 19th century the Berlin Old Testament student, who was also editor of a church newspaper and an ecclesiastical politician, Ernest Wilhelm Hengstenberg, in his many-volumed work on the Christology of the Old Testament, concentrated upon the Early Christian identification of Christ with the angelic figures of the Old Testament, particularly the archangel Michael." (Formation of Christian Dogma, Professor Martin Werner, page 137)
"In the Primitive Christian era there was no sign of any kind of Trinitarian problem or controversy, such as later produced violent conflicts in the Church. The reason for this undoubtedly lay in the fact that, for Primitive Christianity, Christ was . . . a being of the high celestial angel-world, who was created and chosen by God for the task of bringing in, at the end of the ages, . . . the Kingdom of God." The Formation of Christian Dogma, pages 122, 125. "Finally, we bring back for our readers a brief note on Col. 1:15.

JPH concludes:

Our friend "Heinz" declared to a reader that Col. 1:15 was in a partitive genitive which made Christ the "firstborn" of creation out to be a part of that creation. This would in no sense eliminate an idea of Christ as an eternal creation of the Father, but even so, as Helyer points out ("Arius Revisited," JETS Mar. 1998)there are actually four possible interpretations of the genitive here: 1) partitive (preferred by the Arians and the JWs); 2)comparitive (which would exclude Christ from the creation; 3) place (defines the sphere of Christ's rule over creation) or 4) objective (relates to the action of the "firstborn" upon the creation). Helyer notes that option 1) is excluded by virtue of a) the hoti clause of v. 16 and the pro panta of v. 17, which clearly exclude Christ from the realm of created things; b) the language of eikon in v. 15 and pleroma in v. 19, which includes Christ in the full deity; c) the parallels to the Wisdom tradition, in which Wisdom is not a creation as the rest of creation, but is eternally begotten; d) that the partitive would emphasize the -tokos aspect of prototokos (firstborn), something paralleled in the NT only in Luke 2:7. Helyer therefore opts for the objective genitive as the intent of the passage."
Reply: Does the "hoti clause of v. 16 and the pro panta of v. 17" "clearly exclude Christ from the realm of created things"? 
The clause at verse 16 says, hOTI EN AUTWi EKTISQH TA PANTA, which Barclay's NT renders, "For he is the agent by whom all things were created." 
The 21st Century NT has "It was he that formed all other things in heaven...all came into existence as a result of him and by means of him." 
The reason the above Bibles have a different view of this is because Helyer has ignored the passivity of the verbs involved. 
The verb EKTISQH ("were created") is passive, hence the subject and object are reversed from the active voice. The "him" of AUTWi cannot be the subject because it is part of an adverbial phrase headed by the preposition EN ["by means of']. Thus, the TA PANTA ["all things"] was created by an unnamed EN, the PRWTOTOKOS. Who created all things EN ["by means of"] Christ? 
In verses 12 and 13 the Father is the subject, and in v. 13, it is the Father who has delivered us. In v. 14, the Father is still the subject while the Son is the intermediate agent identified by the EN clause (EN hWi). Verse 15 concentrates on the indirect agent of v. 14, that the indirect agent is EIKWN ["image"] and PRWTOTOKOS ["firstborn"], and in verse 16, the Son is indirect agent again because of the EN AUTWi ["for he is the agent by whom" Barclay]. 
stop 
The conclusion is that the Father is creator and he creates "EN", or "by means of" the Son. Passive verbs and prepositions are used in those verses also in Hebrews 1:2 and John 1:3, and describe Jesus as an intermediate agent. 
The concept of *time* is prominent in Col 1:15 - 18 with temporal words like PRWTOTOKOS ( a temporal word), ARXH (v. 18) and that he is PRO (before) TA PANTA (v.17). It was the Father's purpose (v.18) that the Son be prominent (PRWTEUWN) in all things because of being temporally first, as Paul's use of language shows. 
Also ignored is the use of EK, or lack of, in regards to Jesus.
E. Lohse, "A Commentary on the Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon", (The Hermeneia Series) p. 50, note 125 says: "It should be noted that EN (in), DIA (through), and EIS (for) are used, but not EK (from). 'From whom are all things' ( EX hOU TA PANTA) is said of God in 1 Corinthians 8:6. He is and remains the creator, but the pre-existent Christ is the mediator of creation."

The Son is never called "creator", but he is what Robertson calls "the intermediate agent" According to Robertson (Grammar p. 820) the source (direct agent) is most commonly expressed by the Greek preposition hUPO ("by"), and sometimes by APO ("from") and EK ("out of"). The intermediate agent is often identified by DIA ("through"). Matthew 1:22 points this out nicely: "All this took place because what was spoken [aorist passive participle] by [ hUPO] the Lord through [DIA] the prophet must be fulfilled [aorist passive subjunctive]." Here "the Lord" is the source and "the prophet" is the intermediate agent. In John 1:3 we read " Through (DIA) him all things were made." In Colossians 1:16 we read: "For by (EN) him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by (DIA) him and for (EIS) him. " Please note that the verbs are passive and note the use of prepositions. In the verse we find the preposition EN ("in," "by means of"). This preposition governs AUTW ("him," in the dative case). Most of the 74 occurrences in the NT of EN AUTWi in the dative case are locative, that is, they refer to something or someone being in some place. Only one of the examples points to a source. In the last part of verse 16 we find the preposition DIA which governs AUTOU in the genitive case. This is the typical marking of an intermediate agent, so this must be the proper way to view the Son in this context. God is the source of the passive verbs which speak about creation, and that the Son is the intermediate agent? In Colossians 1:12 "the Father" is mentioned, and he is active through verse 20. This is seen in verse 19 where God is the implied subject for the verb, and it is particularly evident in verse 20, because here both the source (God) and the intermediate agent (Jesus) are mentioned. It is said that the reconciliation is "through" (DIA) Jesus and "to" (EIS) God. The same thought is expressed in verse 22. The implied source (grammatical subject) of the active verb "reconciled" is "God." The intermediate agent is Jesus, for it is said that reconciliation occurred "by means of" (EN) his fleshly body and "through" (DIA) his death.

Even Robert H Countess, though no friend of the NWT, had the following interesting remarks:

"Even though Liddell-Scott state that the radical sense of DIA is 'through' there can be produced  instances where the genitive appears to be causal and the accusative to signify agency. In general this writer would observe that the so-called causal uses of DIA seem to be inextricably linked  with agency (i.e. 'by' or 'through'). 
For example, one lexicon cites as causal John 1:3-DI AUTOU EGENETO. [cf. Col. 1:16-TA PANTA DI AUTOU KAI EIS AUTON EKTISTAI.] God apparently worked *through* the Son in creating all things and, therefore, the Son Himself in some sense *caused* or created. Another example given is Acts 3:18- O DE QEOS A PROKATHGGEILEN DIA STOMATOS PANTWN TWN PROFHTWN. Here the mouth of all the prophets is the channel or medium *through which* God announced beforehand the sufferings of Christ. The prophets indeed *caused* the message to be proclaimed but only inasmuch as their mouths had been selected as channels or media for the divine communication." THANK GOD FOR THE GENITIVE, Robert H. Countess, p. 118, JETS, Spring 1969
It is interesting that even Countess has to concede that Christ is the agent of creation, and, as a parallel, uses Acts 3:18, denoting a separate body/being as agent. 
All of this works well with Proverbs 8:22-30, where we have the created angel Wisdom/Jesus, helping his creator in the creation of the earth, standing beside him as a "master workman." 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
*Ftn. 1: "The personal commitment and pattern of life of contemporary religious groups orthodox Christianity calls deeply heretical, such as Mormonism and the Jehovah's Witnesses, frequently shame the orthodox churches. The missionary zeal of both Mormons and Witnesses, for example, is precisely what one ought to be able to expect from orthodox Christians of they really believe in the truth of the doctrines to which their credal and confessional positions formally commit them."
*Ftn. 2 Being that it is such a brief book, it cannot anticipate nor deal with all the evidence thoroughly. 
As one reviewer puts it: 
"For example, given Bauckham's thesis, how does divine identity explain the subordination of the Son to the Father, a notion found throughout the New Testament? Also, how does divine identity account for the counter or ambiguous evidence? In particular, Bauckham admits the exaltation of the Son of Man in 1 Enoch runs counter to the way Jews distinguished God from all other created beings. Perhaps more problematic is the mysterious and allusive Angel of the Lord, a figure with whom Bauckham does not deal. Another question needing some clarification has to do with the reasons early Christians included Jesus within the unique identity of Israel's God. Obviously, creative scriptural exegesis played an important role in how these early theologians envisaged Jesus and expressed their faith. But what caused them to read the texts in such a way? Finally, Bauckham writes that the inclusion of Jesus within the identity of God was radically novel and "almost unprecedented in Jewish theology" (p. 4). Yet it remains unclear what Bauckham thinks the precedents are or the reason why there had to be precedents at all."