Why are so many people trying to define the undefinable?
Isn't that what "aorist means"?.....undefined?
I have always considered that the aorist is used whenever a writer wants
to refer to a complete or entire event (as opposed to a *completed*
event) but doesn't intend to say anything more than that.
You can identify an aorist easily by looking at the morphology, but the
*Semantics* of that aorist can only be determined by examining the
context. It is only the context that provides the time and aspectual
information.
SO, all you aspect geeks (as Jonathan calls you), look at the words
ELEHSON, GENOMENOS and LALHSAS and tell us what kind of aorists they
are?
You can't...
I tend to think that talking about time and aspect without reference to
actual NT passages is all pretty pointless...
cheers,
Andrew
+---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Andrew S. Kulikovsky B.App.Sc(Hons) MACS
|
| Software Engineer (CelsiusTech Australia)
| & Theology Student (MA - Pacific College)
| Adelaide, Australia
| ph: +618 8281 0919 fax: +618 8281 6231
| email: killer@cryogen.com
|
| Check out my Biblical Hermeneutics web page:
| http://www.netforward.com/cryogen/?hermeneutics
|
| What's the point of gaining everything this world has
| to offer, if you lose your own life in the end?
|
| ...Look to Jesus Christ
|
| hO IESOUS KURIOS!
+---------------------------------------------------------------------