AORIST VS PRESENT INFINITIVE

George Goolde goolde at mtnempire.net
Thu May 27 00:44:54 EDT 1999


At 06:11 AM 5/28/1999 -0700,  Ward wrote:

>

>
>
>Now here is the question: a specific and decisive act is called for in
>response to the imperative: "flee", "travel"; why then the present tense
>. So, what is the
>significance of the Gospel writer's choice of a present imperative in each
>case?
>
>Yes, I replied, I too would have expected an aorist.
>
>I think you may be confusing terminology - these are imperatives rathern
than infinitives.  In the case of negative imperatives the  tense makes a
major difference.  In the case of positive imperatives the tense is not too
important, but may  reflect the same idea as the tense otherwise would
about the KIND of action.  A present iomperative, I believe, would
emphasize a durative, ongoing process, while the aorist would emphasize the
action thought of as a simple event.  Burton's Moods and Tenses lays it out
simply.

Regards,

George

Dr. George A. Goolde
Professor of Bible and Theology
Southern California Bible College & Seminary

>
>
>                                http://www.eagles.bbs.net.au/~bwpowers
>
>---
>B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek
>You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: goolde at mtnempire.net
>To unsubscribe, forward this message to
>$subst('Email.Unsub')
>To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek at franklin.oit.unc.edu
>
>

George

George A. Goolde
Professor, Bible & Theology
Southern California Bible College & Seminary




More information about the B-Greek mailing list