I am wondering if there is a resolution to this most interesting view. Let
me present one further example and then I will be silent (maybe!). In the
LXX of Gen 31:38, Jacob says to Laban:
TAUTA MOI EIKOSI ETH EGO EIMI META SOU
These twenty years I have been with you, or to use your translation
principles:
These twenty years I am being with you
The LXX translators used EGO EIMI to translate )aNoQiY (I with an implied
am). This verse, too, has a temporal clause with EIMI used as a verb of
existence. As such, I introduce it as a parallel to John 14:9.
Let us apply your exegesis to the verse. I use your words exactly but
replace the characters:
The EIMI here has a dual focus, one temporal [Laban], and one spoken
from a possibly non-temporal [originative] 'time' frame. ... Yet the verb is
EIMI, which suggests that to Jacob, His ongoing present IS historical to
Laban!! Unless, of course, the EIMI is being used as an aorist present, for
which there is no form. My personal opinion? ~ EK ARCH!!!, but Laban would
not, imvho, be understanding it this way...
But the reader MAY...
George, from the point of view of grammar and not theology, is it not
putting a lot of stress on the present form EIMI with a temporal clause to
suggest something beyond a PPA construction?
Sincerely,
Wes Williams