(ב) על הלחם מברך:
בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְ‑יָ אֱ‑לֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם הַמּוֹצִיא לֶחֶם מִן הָאָרֶץ:
On bread he blesses as follows:
(2) Barukh attah Adon-ai, Elo-heinu melekh Ha’Olam, Ha’Motzi lekhem min ha’aretz.
Praised are you, Lord our G-d, Ruler of the universe, who brings forth bread from the earth.
(ו)… בפרק כיצד מברכין (ברכות דף לח) ת"ר מהו אומר המוציא לחם מן הארץ ר' נחמיה אומר מוציא לחם מן הארץ אמר רבא במוציא כ"ע לא פליגי דאפיק משמע… כי פליגי בהמוציא רבנן סברי מוציא דאפיק משמע… ור' נחמיה סבר המוציא דמפיק משמע…
ואפשר שגירסת רבינו בגמרא היא זאת במוציא כ"ע לא פליגי דמפיק משמע… כי פליגי בהמוציא רבנן סברי המוציא דמפיק משמע… ורבי נחמיה סבר המוציא דאפיק משמע…
פי' במוציא כ"ע ל"פ דמפיק משמע ירצה להבא… ולהבא מברכים.
... the following is taught: “what is the correct Bracha on bread? ‘Ha’Motzi Lekhem Min Ha’Aretz’. R’ Nehemia holds it is, ‘Motzi..”.” Rava explained this debate and said, everyone agrees that the word ‘Motzi’ implies past tense… they only debate regarding “Ha’motzi”, Rabanan say it implies past tense, whereas R’ Nehemia says it is present-future tense…
It is possible, though, that the Tur’s text (from the word “everyone” and on) read as follows:
“Everyone agrees that the word ‘Motzi’ implies present-future tense… they only debate regarding ‘Hamotzi’, Rabanan say it implies present-future and R’ Nehemia says it is past tense...”
The meaning of this different version is that with the Ha, everyone agrees the word is in the present-future tense… and in this version it is preferable to bless in this tense.
There is no final decision in terms of which text is historically correct. They both hold true in and of themselves. The question is, though, what is the meaning of the two? What is the fundamental difference between a blessing that is about something in the past versus a blessing that is about something that can be done in the future? Are these two texts expressing an entirely different defintion of what a Bracha is meant to be? Are they describing an entirely different eating experience?