From: Jonathan Robie (jwrobie@mindspring.com)
Date: Mon Apr 07 1997 - 19:47:35 EDT
JAMES C Wiersum <jcwiersum@juno.com> said:
> It is not true that BDF seems to indicate the aorist is always past
> tense. Check BDF paragraph 333, "The gnomic and futuristic aorist." In
> (2) of 333 BDF indicates that "An aorist after a future condition is, to
> a certain extent, futuristic" and John 15:8 is given as example.
Thanks - I think I skimmed over this too quickly. In my edition,
incidentally, which is Blass-Debrunner-Rehkopf, he even cites John 15:6 -
the very verse this all started with!
Jonathan
P.S. The reason I have BDR instead of BDF is that I started learning Greek
while I was living in Germany. A friend who taught at a local seminary said
BDR was simply the best grammar around, and recommended that I buy it and
only it - even though I was just starting to teach myself! It took me a
couple of years before I understood *anything* I read in BDR, but now I find
it quite useful.
***************************************************************************
Jonathan Robie
POET Software, 3207 Gibson Road, Durham, N.C., 27703
Ph: 919.598.5728 Fax: 919.598.6728
email: jwrobie@mindspring.com, jonathan@poet.com
http://www.poet.com <--- shockwave enabled!
***************************************************************************
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:11 EDT