The 'waw conversive' which switches tenses is losing favour among many
grammarians. It's an odd concept, the form of which grammarians are finding
other explanations for.
While it's clear that other explanations are offered, and that there
are problematic
readings in the Bible assuming the waw conversive, I think the above might
misrepresent the situation whereby most Hebraists accept the waw conversive
explanation, and that the grammarians who don't are proposing alternate
competing theories, of which none can be said to be widely accepted, at least
yet. That is my understanding of the situation, anyway :)