Gemara

(Reish Lakish): The verse does not say 'she'Pash'u', rather, "ha'Posh'im Bi." Sinners [continue to] sin even in Gehinom!

Objection (Rav Kahana): If so, we should say that also "ha'Motzi [Eschem me'Eretz Mitzrayim]" and "ha'Ma'aleh [Eschem...]" are still happening!

Rather, it means that He was Motzi. Likewise, "ha'Posh'im" means people who sinned [while alive]!

Berachos 38a (Beraisa): One says ha'Motzi Lechem Min ha'Aretz;

R. Nechemyah says, one says Motzi Lechem Min ha'Aretz.

(Rava): All agree that "Motzi" means "He took out" -- "Kel Motzi'am mi'Mitzrayim." They argue about "ha'Motzi";

Chachamim say that it also means took out -- "ha'Motzi Lecha Mayim mi'Tzur ha'Chalamish";

R. Nechemyah says that it means "He will take out" -- "ha'Motzi Eschem mi'Tachas Sivlos Mitzrayim." (This was said before Yetzi'as Mitzrayim.)

The Halachah follows Chachamim. One says ha'Motzi. It means "took out."

52b (Mishnah - Beis Shamai): We bless on light "she'Bara Me'or ha'Esh."

(Rava): All agree that "Bara" connotes "created". They argue about "Borei." Beis Shamai says that it connotes "will be created." Beis Hillel says that it connotes also "created."

Objection (Rav Yosef): All agree that also "Borei" refers to things that were created! (It says "Yotzer Or v'Borei Choshech," "Yotzer Harim v'Borei Ru'ach," "Borei ha'Shamayim v'Noteihem"!)

Rishonim

Rashba (52b DH Ki): The Yerushalmi asks that Beis Shamai should say to bless Bara Peri ha'Gafen! It answers that wine is renewed [new grapes grow] every year, but fire is not.

Shiltei ha'Giborim (32b:2): All Berachos must connote the past, e.g. sheha'Kol Nihyah (with a Kamatz under the Yud) bi'Dvaro. Also Borei and ha'Motzi connote the past.

Poskim

Shulchan Aruch (OC 167:2): One blesses ha'Motzi Lechem Min ha'Aretz.

Beis Yosef (DH va'Yevarech): Rashi says that it is proper to bless in the past, for one is about to benefit from bread that Hash-m already brought from the ground! Tosfos (38b DH v'Hilchesa) says that all agree that Motzi connotes the past. The Yerushalmi says that [we should bless Motzi, but] we add the Hei (ha'Motzi) lest one slur together "ha'Olam Motzi" (since the latter begins with the last letter of the former). We say "Lechem Min ha'Aretz" [even though these could be slurred] based on the verse "Lehotzi Lechem Min ha'Aretz." The Tur says that all agree that [Motzi] connotes the future, for one must bless in the future. This is a printing mistake, for the Gemara says that all agree that it connotes the past! A precise text of the Tur says 'all agree that [Motzi] connotes the past, like Rashi says, and so says Ba'al ha'Itur.

Beis Yosef (DH v'Efshar): Perhaps the Tur's text of the Gemara said that all agree that Motzi connotes the future. "Kel Motzi'am mi'Mitzrayim", i.e. when Hash-m wanted to take Yisrael from Mitzrayim, He had great strength. (Note: perhaps Motzi'am mi'Mitzrayim is present, for He is still bringing them from Mitzrayim to Eretz Yisrael. It would have been more relevant to Balak to say "Hash-m is bringing them to Eretz Yisrael", but Hash-m wanted to refute Balak's statement that Yisrael left Mitzrayim by themselves - PF.) Sefer Ma'areches Elokus has this text, and it seems that also Tosfos had this text. Tosfos wrote that we say ha'Motzi, even though all agree that Motzi connotes the present, like the Yerushalmi says [lest one slur].

Magen Avraham (8): The Beis Yosef says that there are different texts. This is difficult. The Gemara explicitly says that one must bless on the past (52b, 19a)! He suggested that the text (in 38a) says Mafik (will take out), and not Afik (took out). Therefore, one should bless sheha'Kol Nihyah bi'Dvaro, with a Kamatz under the Yud in Nihyah. Chachmas Mano'ach (38) says to bless with a Segol under the Yud, for all Berachos are in the present, e.g. Borei. However, the Gemara explicitly says that Borei is past tense. In any case we say Borei [even though it is ambiguous, and could refer to the present - Machatzis ha'Shekel], like the verse. Also Shiltei ha'Giborim and Keneses ha'Gedolah says to say Nihyah, the past. The Rashba brings from the Yerushalmi that even Beis Shamai argue only about fire, but they agree that we bless Borei on things that come new every year.

Eshel Avraham: Rashi (38a DH d'Afik) says that it is proper to bless in the past for benefit from something already created [as opposed to Mitzvos, for which we bless in the future or present]. The Yerushalmi that the Rashba brought connotes like this. It holds like Rava. It is better to bless on Hana'ah in the present, for in Hash-m's goodness, He constantly creates. If so, we should bless Nihyeh with a Segol. However, in the Bavli, Rav Yosef says that all agree that Borei connotes also the past, but Bara does not connote also the present. I.e. it is proper to bless in the past, but not in the present, for the present connotes also the future. This is unlike the Yerushalmi. One should bless in a way that leaves no doubt. However, Borei in the verse means the past. We bless Borei due to the verse. If so, one says Nihyah with a Kamatz.

Kaf ha'Chayim (22): The Bach says that it was enacted to bless ha'Motzi so that one will think about the past and future, that Eretz Yisrael will give forth buns.

Magen Avraham (204:14): Chachmas Mano'ach says to bless with a Segol, for most Berachos are in the present, and we follow the majority.

Sha'arei Teshuvah (204:20): Meil Tzedakah (42) concluded to say it with a Segol. He heard that also Nihyah with a Kamatz is present, and it is better, for with a Segol is a request, like "v'Nihyeh Anachnu v'Tze'etza'eino"; but said that one can distinguish. The Birkei Yosef says that some say with a Segol, like the Magen Avraham says. They err. The Magen Avraham cited Chachmas Mano'ach, but not did not conclude like him. The custom [to say it with a Kamatz] is correct.

She'alas Ya'avetz (1:94, 95): Chachmas Mano'ach says to bless with a Segol under the Yud, but the Halachah follows the earlier Ge'onim and Poskim, i.e. Keneses ha'Gedolah and Shiltei ha'Giborim. The Magen Avraham favors their opinion. He questioned how the Beis Yosef could say that there are different texts, for Berachos 52b clearly obligates the past. I answer that perhaps the Gemara requires a text that connotes the past and present. It is reasonable that this is preferable. This explains why we bless Borei and ha'Motzi. Both texts are reasonable, whether it says that they argue about whether it connotes the future, or that they argue about whether it connotes the past. Rabanan hold that it connotes both, and R. Nechemyah holds that it connotes only one of them. The Gemara would never err to think that Borei connotes only the past! Shulchan Aruch ha'Rav was astonished that the Magen Avraham says to say Nihyeh with a Segol because all Berachos are in the present. This is not a general rule. Many Berachos are in the past, e.g. Asher Bara Sason v'Simchah, Asher Yatzar, Asher Yatzar Es ha'Adam b'Tzalmo, Ga'al Yisrael and many others. This is like Shiltei ha'Giborim and Keneses ha'Gedolah. Surely they are correct. Sheha'Kol includes everything created. We cannot say that it came into existence now through Hash-m's word! Hash-m created the world in six days, and not now! (We say "He renews every day the matters of creation" (Birkas Yotzer Ohr), but we do not say that He creates it each day. Hash-m's constant renewal is another reason to prefer a text that connotes past and present.) Rather, Nihyah has a Kamatz, the past tense. Also, one must say so lest it be confused with the future (we will be). Grammatically, Nihyah can be the passive present for a female, but we do not find so in Tanach. Berachos are based on the way words are used in Tanach. Also, the Ibn Ezra said that "ha'Kol" can be feminine. In Tanach, we find Nihyeh with a Segol only regarding the future. My father (the Chacham Tzvi) ridiculed those who say it with a Segol.

Yad Efrayim (DH Borei): Also Borei is past tense. We say Borei like the verse. Really, one must bless in the past tense.

Gra (Ma'ase Rav 77): One blesses with a Segol.

Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (52): There is a Kamatz under the Yud.