O.K., so, briefly, if you think that the point of Zeno’s Paradoxes of motion is to prove that the arrow never reaches its target, or that Achilles never passes the tortoise, &c. (*) then I think you’re mistaken about the point of raising the paradox in the first place. Of course, it’s hard to be confident about the motives of dead philosophers with no surviving books. But Zeno was a student of Parmenides and Plato tells us that his books were written to defend Parmenides’s doctrines, by showing that the views of his opponents led to contradictions.
So the most charitable understanding of Zeno’s aims is not that he’s trying to show you that Achilles never passes the tortoise. Of course he does; just watch them race and you’ll see it happen. His point is to ask, *given* that Achilles passes the tortoise, how is that possible? And to argue (for good or for ill) that you can only make sense of Achilles passing the tortoise by rejecting presentism and accepting Parmenidean / eternalist conclusions about the nature of time and being.
(* See, for example, the fairly standard attempt to work out the “answer” to the paradoxes here: http://ift.tt/1fGQhIW )