No kidding!You can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn. I have ceased to interact with certain posters on the BB due to that fact alone.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
No kidding!You can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn. I have ceased to interact with certain posters on the BB due to that fact alone.
Hey, I'll take it back if you'll honestly answer one simple question, yes or no--Do you know Greek grammar? Remember, yes or no.JOJ provides a parting shot, making charges calculated to disparage me.
Perhaps he is the one crying in the wilderness.
Thanks for the laugh. :laugh:JOJ, I have a movie for you. It is called "Finding Forester" and in it a professor who is actually insecure, likes to show how smart he is.
Thank you for being courageous enough to admit this. The question then is, if your knowledge of Greek is no-existent, what in the world makes you think you are qualified to even comment as to whether or not I've proven Wuest wrong? Furthermore, if your knowledge of Greek is non-existent, then how was I denigrating you when I pointed that out??So the issue is not my knowledge of Greek which is non-existent, but that of Wuest. All I am doing to saying you have not demonstrated he was wrong.
You said in post #37: "Well, the case is closed. The reason for your claim is not grammar but your understanding of the context. And your understanding may well be correct, but it is not driven by the grammar." but in Post #36 I dealt clearly with the grammar: word endings gender, case, etc. So how was I disparaging you when you said "your claim is not for grammar" and I said that meant you did not know what grammar was?JOJ, I can read and therefore can read what scholars say. You have not even addressed the issue and you do not seem to be aware the problem.
As far as your parting shot, here is what you said and I bolded the fictional charge:
And with this, folks, Van has exposed his ignorance of not only Greek grammar, but what grammar actually is. He is saying that word endings, gender, case and the like are not really grammar. I'm done here.
I think I finally figured out what you don't think is grammar.If we transliterate the Greek, we get boOntos, which is a verb participle being used as an adjective to tell us something about the "voice". JOJ says it is telling us he is the one crying. Wuest is saying the voice is heralding the One crying. So at the end of the day, the grammar does not drive the interpretation as claimed by JOJ in Wuest's opinion.
(4) To nail it down, there are two nouns in a row: "I" the pronoun, and "voice," the feminine noun. ("Voice" must always be feminine; it cannot be masculine or neuter. Another case where "voice" refers to a man is Acts 2:14, where the voice is Peter's.) When there are two nouns in a row but no indicative verb, in Greek grammar there must be an understood copula (a linking verb), which is this case must be the word "is." So the passage is exegeted, "I am a voice crying...."