>I argued that Wallace failed to mention John 14:9 in the NT, and >passages like Genesis 31:38, 41 in the LXX, which from all references >I've seen are indisputable uses of "eimi" as a historical present. Sorry to everyone else if I'm dredging up old news, but I don't see how you can think that John 14:9 is a historical present unless you redefine "historical present" to be something completely different than the normal definition. Have you read Turner's Syntax, page 62? I'm sure all of Wallace's students have. Turner lists this passage as a present which indicates the continuance of an action during the past and up to the moment of speaking. How could it be read otherwise? >I would think that a scholar like Wallace would know these passages >far better than an amateur such as myself. Somehow, I think he does. I'd also like to add my comments about Dan Wallace as a person. Is he opinionated? Good grief yes! Does he lack integrity? Absolutely not. In fact, when I think of all the people I have met on my life's journey, Dan rates very high on my list of people with integrity. John Baima Silver Mountain Software 1029 Tanglewood Dr, Cedar Hill TX 75104-3019 jbaima@silvermnt.com http://www.silvermnt.com Fax *972* 293-6641 Voice *972* 293-2920