*Regnavit* is the 

> 
> third-person singular perfect active indicative of *rēgnō* 
> 
> 
> 

([Wiktionary](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/regnavit))

Now, many times this word translated as if present, *regnat*, which is puzzling. For example, consider [Psalm 93](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psalm_93#Hebrew_Bible_version), in the Hebrew bible. It seems the original text uses the active perfect of to reign. In effect, the Vulgata ([psalm 92](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Ps.html#x92_1)) uses that tense too, i.e. *regnavit*. Similar use of perfect is found, for instance, in the Hebrew psalm 97 ([psalm 96](http://vulsearch.sourceforge.net/html/Ps.html#x96_1) in Vulgata). 

However, many English translation use the present instead. Just take the above two psalms as example:

* [Psalm 93](https://biblehub.com/psalms/93-1.htm)
* [Psalm 97](https://biblehub.com/psalms/97-1.htm)

I imagine in English the present tense makes a bit more sense, in the theological sense that "the Lord still reigns". I.e. "his reign hasn't stopped". The perfect tense conveys however the meaning of a finished action. Or does it? Is there perhaps something special about the verb "to reign"? 

It seems clear Jerome remained faithful to the Hebrew. But why don't English translations? Is Latin helpful in understanding this discrepancy, or is this merely an issue with Hebrew?