For example, note three uses of the present tense of EIMI. All of them have
duration indicators in the immediate context that affect their English
TOSOUTWi CRONWi MEQ hUMWN EIMI KAI OUK EGNWKA ME, FILIPPE;
"HAVE I BEEN with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip?
hOTI AP ARCHS MET EMOU ESTE
"because YOU HAVE BEEN with me from the beginning."
Psalms 90:2 (89:2 LXX)
APW TOU AIWNOS hEWS TOU AIWNOS SU EI
"from everlasting to everlasting you ARE God."
All are EIMI present tense and yet are translated into different "tenses" in
English. Why? Because the context in each case dictates the beginning and ending
limits of the duration of the present tense verb.
In John 14:9, would not the duration of EIMI only be for the time which Phillip
knew Jesus until the time Jesus spoke the words (i.e. Present Tense with
Extension from Past Time idiom)? Also John 15:27.
Whereas in Psalms 90:2, the context clearly indicates no bounds to the beginning
and ending of EI, therefore translated "are."
In Parmenides, he indicates from the context an unbounded meaning, so we would
naturally understand it as such. However, I do not think that we can say that
unbounded time is inherent in the present tense of EIMI if the immediate context
reveals a time boundary (a starting point or an ending point or both), can we?
Fanning and Porter differ on time and aspect. But the debate aside, I would
humbly point out that context bears on the duration of a present tense verb.