Featured The Voice of One Crying in the Wilderness

No kidding!

 

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.

If you do know Greek grammar, you have yet to prove it. If you don't know Greek grammar, I'm not disparaging you, just giving an honest asessment based on many years of teaching Greek and translating it. :smilewinkgrin:

Remember now, a simple yes or no: do you know Greek grammar?

 

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.

The burden of proof that the grammar precludes the Wuest interpretation is wrong is yours not mine. (1) You said "I am the voice" demonstrates John the Baptist is the voice. While true, this point is non-germane. (2) You said "of crying one" means John is crying, and Wuest says it could mean John is the forerunner, the herald, of the One crying. (3) You said "I" and "voice" were masculine which was wrong, but latter said they must be assumed to be masculine.

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.

 

Thanks for the laugh. :laugh:

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??

I promised I would take back my "disparaging" remark if you answered my question, and I will do so--as soon as I learn how I disparaged you.

 

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.

Note that I pointed out the "I" did not have a gender and that "voice" was female. JOJ claimed initially they were male. So it would seem being able to read about how Greek words carry inflection and read the parsing notes which make plain what the inflection says demonstrates that I have some knowledge based on English explanations, of how the grammar in Greek impacts how the words and sentences should be understood.

 

Sigh. I'll play along a little longer here, though it is against my better judgement.

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?

 

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.

 

I think I finally figured out what you don't think is grammar.

I wrote in post #36:

Syntax is that part of grammar which deals with how a sentence is constructed. The understood copula which I discussed here is Greek grammar, it is not simply "context" as you appear to think. This particular rule of Greek syntax means that Wuest is wrong.

If you refuse to acknowledge this, you are claiming a knowledge of Greek grammar that you openly admit you do not have.

 

JOJ, when you are wrong, you just keep digging. The issue is not that the correct view of the start of the sentence is I [am] a voice, which I have told you is non-germane, but how the verb participle modifies the noun "voice.

You say it means they are the same, and Wuest says it means John is the forerunner of the One crying. You have not shown that you even grasp the issue, let alone explain it.