How can you tell these examples aren’t simply referring to events that have passed? It doesn’t seem clear to me that these are referring to future events as if they had already passed.
Following the given example, you know it is 1800 and the Twin towers do not even exist. So context makes clear that it did not happen.
Re:Prophetic Perfect Tense
by carlosjobim on Thursday September 28, 2023 @11:19AM
(#37690851)
Because they are prophets, giving a prophecy, ie seeing into the future and retelling it.
The given examples are lacking context.
"I prayed this morning and received a vision. The Twin Towers have fallen, and America has gone to war in the Middle East."
Re:Prophetic Perfect Tense
by weatherlight on Thursday September 28, 2023 @01:44PM
(#37693052)
had gone
Re:Prophetic Perfect Tense
by roywiggins on Thursday September 28, 2023 @12:56PM
(#37692405)
The speaker has a ceremonial robe, hat, and is declaiming with a mystical expression on their face. Substitute as culturally appropriate.
Re:Prophetic Perfect Tense
by onlyrealcuzzo on Thursday September 28, 2023 @12:10PM
(#37691694)
It makes sense.
If you looked into the future and described what you saw, you would describe it in past tense, because the vision has already come to you.
> and two towers of New York City were hit by two large metal birds
I think that is simply the past tense (or "prophetic past" if you will). For it to be the prophetic perfect tense, it would be:
> and two towers of New York City are hit by two large metal birds
"are" instead of "were". The examples from the article are this way too. eg:
> my people are gone into captivity
Imagine someone in the late 1800s writing "and two towers of New York City were hit by two large metal birds, one to one tower and another to the other tower, and both towers collapsed". They are writing about future events as if they had already happened.