These two positions don't even seem close
emory2002 at hotmail.com
Sun Aug 27 13:03:30 EDT 2000
How can this happen?
Wallace/Manning seem to see the Aorist Tense in a way radically different
It seems to me that Wallace sees the Aorist Tense as the Past Tense,
conceding that other intrusions can alter its fundamental, inherent past
But Porter does not seem to see the Aorist Tense as a past tense. He
seems to argue that it requires grammatical intrusions to indicate Past
tense, as if past tense is not its fundamental sense.
Do I understand this debate correctly?
If so, what can I state for sure about the Aorist Tense?
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
More information about the B-Greek