Yes, if you want to take a very strict reading of the OP you could say that. If you read the INTENT of OP as NOW (absolutely exclusive of future) then you have a point. But I didn't understand it that that way. If exclusive NOW is the point of the question then I misunderstood the question. Thats why I waited to respond. The intent (focus) of the question didn't seem perfectly clear. I read it several times and wasn't sure exactly what the issue was about.What you say is confusing, at least to me. The OP talks about "present participle", but the only present participle in the sentence has nothing to do with time of the testing. And you say "second temporal sphere..." What second temporal sphere? Then you say "It could be NOW or at any time in the future". Does that refer to the same temporal sphere than what the OP refers to, to the time of testing? In that case what you say and how the OP interprets it contradict each other, because he thinks it's NOW (but apparently not at any time in the future).
In the text under consideration the testing of the recipients isn't explicit. So it is a discussion about the time frame of something that isn't there. I don't think the author was restricting the time frame of the application. The testing in the participle is obviously history, but καθ᾿ ὁμοιότητα has no temporal significance. The context implies both present and future relevance.
Statistics: Posted by Stirling Bartholomew — October 21st, 2022, 3:22 pm