The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Corithians 15:22-24, correct punctuation

(robin)
Skipping on … [/unquote]

…using the designed function, my sop offering to Gabe …

(robin)
…“Ironically” … did I just hear you chuckle!

Agreed, the “even” option for “kia” is a little weak, but I have found it sometimes makes my ever so awkward literal reading flow a bit more smoothly …
as in when there’s a listing of alternate things …“and this, and that, and that, even this” …

I’d give you an example, but then we’d tangent even further afield … and topic threads are hard enough for me to get people involved with me in, so let’s not go there, just now, while this topic still seems to be drawing some participants …

(Sophie)
Well you certainly didn’t worry about that with Gabe, Robin …

(robin)
You mean Skip …

(Sophie)
Robin …

(robin)
Ya, the quote system as designed guy …
You know, as well as I, Hon,
that I’ve actually been banned from a forum or two for not using their “designed quote system” …
And if that’s the critieria they’re using to judge their fellows in Christ by, then let’s find this out, quickly …

(Sophie)
And skip on, Robin …

(robin)
Right, Hon … and you can quote me on that!

Herein lies the issue with this whole circular saga… the inability to accept the Greek construction of a particular word BASED ON such being restricted to and retranslated by a modern English mind-set of said GREEK word… little wonder it has generated such fruitless (pun) confusion.

Just because the specific Gk. word “fruit” is not present in “firstfruit/s” <ἀπαρχὴ> aparchē in no way means that THIS isn’t its proper meaning, it IS… hence as it is accordingly translated.

Robin… your method or approach to this would be like somebody from ancient times quibbling over finding our word/s “someone” “some-one” “some one” in our text and then disputing its meaning because 1) it’s somewhat oxymoronic, i.e., “some” is plural and non-specific and yet “one” is singular and definitive… and then as a result of this conclusion suggesting some other alternative reading or rendering way beyond and from its intended and common understanding or use.

<ἀπαρχὴ> aparchē was the FIRST or PRIMARY or CHIEF or LEADING portion set aside in obeisance to and worship of YHWH, and as such this OFFERING sanctified the whole harvest.

There are 3 parts to your notion here and you’re missing 2 of them and consequently messing the 3rd. Again just because Paul doesn’t use such specifics as “harvest” nor “fruit” IN NO WAY means “firstfruits” isn’t somehow what he’s saying or referring to with his commonly understood term “<ἀπαρχὴ> aparchē” (refer to my example above)… he IS; as it is justly translated across both Testaments where it is used. As to alluding to such harvest… THAT’S EXACTLY what <ἀπαρχὴ> aparchē does! And as a consequence by its very nature oozes “sequence”… initially the firstfruits and then follows the full or whole harvest.

(robin)
That’s a rather well thought out critique, davo … you’ve got me thinking more about my line of thought, thank you …

I especially appreciate your summary of my complaint (as Jason referred to it) as a “circular saga” … it does, indeed, have some resemblance to that,
but from my perspective, not so much because I tend to keep bringing up the same points, but more so because there’s yet to be a good, logical counter argument, about how our topic word can say something compleatly different that what it actually does say …

Now if I were to have come from the opposite corner, and said every time Paul wrote about “karpos” (11 times), or “karpophorEsai” (1), “karpophorEsOmen” (1), “karpophorountes” (1), and “karpophoroumenon” (1), that because a number of these instances were metaphorically talking about spirtual maturity, or maturing spiritually, that we thus had to read it as the Englishg the word “mature” every time “karpos” appeared …I do believe that you would have said that this was ridiculous, that I was to some extent being postmodern, and skeptical of objective reality, and that perhaps I really didn’t understand how figures of speech worked …

The “circular saga” is that I’ve taken the time and effort to look at every verse, both in the NT and in the OT (LXX), where our topic word is used, and there is not a one of them that has to be read as “first fruit” in order for the verse to communicate clearly; that is, in each and ever one of these verses,
one can read some other word (take your pick) having to do with sequence/order/rank, and come away with exactly what the verse is all about …
That is, I’ve put the effort into seeing if your argument holds water, and it doesn’t … one does NOT have to read “first fruit” into a word that actually says no such thing …

Now is this where you say, “There you go again, with that circular saga” … or is it where you actually come up with a researched response, involving all the pertinent verses …

(davo)
Just because the specific Gk. word “fruit” is not present in “firstfruit/s” <ἀπαρχὴ> aparchē in no way means that THIS isn’t its proper meaning, it IS… hence as it is accordingly translated …

(robin)
Ya, I know … you’ve said that before, but can you give us something that specifically shows this to be true? That is, say that it is a figure of speech, and metaphorically does, indeed, mean exactly what you say it means (that would be hard to do, seeing as how the context, all the other words in direct contact, all specifically have to do with timing) …but say that you do, somehow, prove that it’s the figure that you insist it is, yet surely, this isn’t how you treat other figures of speech is it? That is, just because a figure makes allusions to something other that what it actually says, you don’t then … do you? … insist that the words have to be changed to make the figure more literal … please tell me you dont do this elsewhere … and if you don’t, why are you insisting that we do something like that here?

(davo)
Robin… your method or approach to this would be like somebody from ancient times quibbling over finding our word/s “someone” “some-one” “some one” in our text and then disputing its meaning because 1) it’s somewhat oxymoronic, i.e., “some” is plural and non-specific and yet “one” is singular and definitive… and then as a result of this conclusion suggesting some other alternative reading or rendering way beyond and from its intended and common understanding or use.

(robin)
My method is nothing like that … that’s some sort of strawman, you’ve set up there. knoch it down, and therefore prove(?) me to be illogical …it was never an argument about the meaning of “is” … depends upon what you mean by “is” … there’s nothing oxymoronic about simply acknowledging the word elements, which are actually present in a Greek combination-word, and there is certainly NO wild alternative conclusions about a reading or rendering that goes way beyond the intended or common understanding of use of out topic word. RATHER, both the word, itself, and it’s immediate context, very clearly deals with time, sequence, and order, whereas, your insistance upon our totally ignoring the actual Greek, involved, and coming to some unusual alternative rendering of “fruit” is the very wild conclusion, that you are suggesting is my I’m doing … i’s your strawman, not mine, and you’ve done a fine job of knocking your own argument down … 8>

(davo)
<ἀπαρχὴ> aparchē was the FIRST or PRIMARY or CHIEF or LEADING portion set aside in obeisance to and worship of YHWH, and as such this OFFERING sanctified the whole harvest …

(robin)
No one said differently … fact of the matter, it was I who specifically related it to the first sheaf offering after Passover. That is, what you are saying is, indeed, valid …it was the first, primary, chief, beginning,leading portion … but do you see the word “fruit” anywhere in these words? And if not, if you are realistic and practical enough in your thoughts and arguments, then, why not, at least, consider foregoing the use of the word “fruit” …and then try
plugging into this verse, any one of those above optional words, that you, yourself, have suggested that “aparchE” actually says …Ummmm?

By the way, I had to ponder a bit over your “someone”… “some-one” …“some one”
and Yes, I have had a few difficulties with the Greek for that particular word family …
That is, I finally had to work out my own reasoned word chart of the 24 different forms
(case, number, and gender combinations) that this pesty little word …
and I’m still not sure about how one can determine when to use “any” instead of “some”
that is, surely, there’s …some … rule of language that governs this, but I’ve not found it yet.
Remember, I’m just a simple layman at all this, having to work it out, for myself, as I go along …

5100 GK5516 tis any [one] X-NSM.01
5100 GK5516 tinos of any [one] X-GSM.02
5100 GK5516 tini unto any [one] X-DSM.03
5100 GK5516 tina to any [one] X-ASM.04
5100 GK5516 tines any/ some [ones] X-NPM.05
5100 GK5516 tinOn of any/ some [ones] X-GPM.06
5100 GK5516 tisin unto any/ some [ones] X-DPM.07
5100 GK5516 tinas to any/ some [ones] X-APM.08
5100 GK5516 tis any [one] X-NSF.09
5100 GK5516 tini unto any [one] X-DSF.11
5100 GK5516 tina to any [one] X-ASF.12
5100 GK5516 ti any [thing] X-NSN.17
5100 GK5516 tinos of any [thing] X-GSN.18
5100 GK5516 tini unto any [thing] X-DSN.19
5100 GK5516 ti to any [thing] X-ASN.20

Can’t also and even be the same in some cases. Something that is sick and also dying would be sick and even dying also, even. :laughing:

~

~

(robin)
Ummmmm … exactly! conjunctions are all difficult at times, but I do agree with Paidion about “even” (for “kai”);
that is it sort of stands out as the one word determined more by interpretation, than by any factual rule or function …

Ummmm? Ok then, let me put this forward… in the LXX another word that can RIGHTLY be rendered “firstfruits” is the word protogennēma <πρωτογέννημα> made up of “proto” <πρωτο> meaning “first” and <γέννημα> gennēma meaning “produce” or “progeny” as per for example, the ‘fruit’ of one’s loins etc.

Now… according to your (IMO fraught) logic “firstfruits” is flatly ruled out as an appropriate translation simplistically BECAUSE it does not contain any trace of the word “fruit” therein – and I’m left thinking “ARE YOU SERIOUS?” and yet the answer is apparently, yes. And so I can only conclude that in these matters what you say about yourself as being “just a simple layman at all this” to be true…. excuse my bluntness.

Hard to do?? well try these for size; and there are oodles more…

Notice this is “wheat” NOT fruit.

Notice this is “grain” NOT fruit.

Notice this is “bread” NOT fruit… unless of course you insist such bread must be a “fruit loaf”.

Notice this is “oil” and “wine” and “grain” NOT fruit.

As above, and notice the first i.e., firstfruits aka first portion of sheep’s fleece, NOT fruit.

firstfruits of grain and wine, oil and honey, and of all the produce of the field” NOT fruit. As always, the first parts thereof dedicated and offered to the Lord.

Yay… apart from just “the firstfruits of our ground” here we also do have “FRUIT of all trees.

The word “firstfruit/s” be it aparchē <ἀπαρχὴ> or protogennēma <πρωτογέννημα> is a TITLE… a descriptive, a distinguishing name which gets denuded of any proper significance when held to such crass literalism, that you for position’s sake, you seem not to be able to see past.

(robin)
Couldn’t readily find your πρωτογέννημα in the LXX … did you have a particular verse?

Nevertheless, what we WERE talking about was where (those specific verses) our topic word
“aparchE”
appears in the LXX, and NOT where your …first + progeny … may or may not fit. That is,
the discussion was not about how to read “protogennēma” but rather how to read “aparchE” …
Two differnet words, DIFFERENT words … Why are you purposfully confusing the issue?

(robin)
Insults aside … there’s no need …you’re welcome to read your “protogennēma” however it suits you;
however, that still puts no “fruit” in the topic word “aparchE” … I fail to understand why you dont get it?

(davo)
Hard to do?? well try these for size; and there are oodles more…

(robin)
I’d earlier given you the specific OT (LXX) verses where our “aparchE” (#0536) is used, but you apparently overlooked that,
and only two of your above verses …might… be applicable (Num 18:12 and DT 18:4, and only becasue they are text source variants).

But what’s sort of funny-sad is that the word, you’re pointing to (as reading “first fruit”), in your above verses is NOT #0536, but rather
“archE” (#0746, in Ex 34:22), which very specifically denotes a cause, a beginning, an extremity, or outermost point, rule, dominion …

And I love it that you clarified that this verse is talking about …“Notice this is wheat NOT fruit” …
To which, any logical person would explain, “EXACTLY!” That is, it’s not "first fruit, it the “BEGINNING of the wheat harvest” …

In Lev 2:14 the word is #4409.4 (used twice), and read as “first produce” …Now with this Greek word, it wouldn’t take much to convince me
that a suitalbe English reading just might be your “first fruit” … despite the fact that “fruit” isn’t contained therein; however, this does fall in line
with your argument that we could well equate “fruit = produce” … the only problem I’d have with that is that, again, we already have a Greek word that very specificaly says “fruit,” which then means that we’d have two differnt Greek words … different Greek words, saying the same thing. And that’s not very good translation, so what in the hell is wrong with just reading this one as …“first-produce” … and avoide the conflict, the confusion?

Leve 23:20 is #4409.4 again …And again I love it when you clarify that this is "bread not fruit, and that I might insist that it be a “fruit loaf” …
Actually, it’s all very odd, how you are arguing for my side of the question; that is, indeed, it is NOT a “fruit loaf” becasue there is NO fruit involved,
here, only a …“first produce” …“and the priest shall place them with the bread loaves of the FIRST PRODUCE increace offerings before the Lord”

Num 18:12 …interesting, where your translation reads “best of the oil” and “best of the wine” is actually where the topic word #0536 is used in the LXX; it’s only the thrid use of #0536 where your translation finally reads it as “first fruits” …like I said, there are some text variants involved here, but nevertheless, this is one of the verses that I’d originally suggested that we look to see if we are compelled to use “first-fruit” … and granted, the word works here, but that’s not to say that a more accurate word of sequence doesn’t also work, so the question is, since we’re not compelled to use a mistranlsated word, why not use a better, more accurate word?

Dt 18:4 is also interesting, the word here is again #0536, as appled to your grain, your wine, your olive oil and … the XXX of the shearing of your sheep.
Did you notice … I did … how your translation (and you, apparently) want to not confuse the issue,
by NOT saying the silly sounding …“first fruti of the shearing of your sheep” … For crying out loud, davo, what in the hell is ??? !first fruit fleece! ???

2Chron 31:5 uses the word #0536, and again, there is no compulsion for us to have to read this as “first fruit” … remember that was the point of this exercise; that is must it be read “first fruit” or could it be read with another, more accurate word …a sequence word, like “firstlings” … and Yes, it cold definitly be read with a “beginning-from” word, there being absolutly nothing that forces us to read it with the mistranslated “first fruit” …

Neh 10:35 … I’m assuming that you think you save the best verse for last, hence I’m looking, here, for your most pointed example (seeing as how you’ve failed miserably with the other verses) …

Ummmm, allow me to read this verse for you …

“and to bring the first-produce #4409.4] of the land, and the first-produce #4409.4] of the … FRUIT …#2590] of every tree”

And again, your concluding comment, “Yay, apart from just the first fruit of our ground, we also have fruit of all trees” …
I’ve just got to ask, davo, do you even listen to what you’re saying … you’re confused, right, you dont know which side of the argument you’re one?

Here, let me explain the disconnect for you … it says, the “first-produce of the fruit of every tree” … that is, there’s a word for “first-produce”
which has to do with sequencing, and then there’s the word for the actual produce of fruit … notice, it does not say “first-fruit of the fruit” …
notice, too, that the word for “first-produce” actually has a Greek combination word for “first,” but it does NOT contain any Greek word for “fruit”
which is VERY noticeable, here, since the actual word for “fruit” comes immediately afterwords …

(davo)
The word “firstfruit/s” be it aparchē <ἀπαρχὴ> or protogennēma <πρωτογέννημα> is a TITLE…

(robin)
Yes, I can go with that … wasn’t it I who first suggested this, in fact …that is, I’d suggested that in our topic verse,
when it referes to Christ, that just maybe we should be reading the “archEs” part of our topic word as the metonymy of person;
that is, not just as the noun “a beginning,” but when applied to Christ, then as “pre-eminence”
or better yet as the capitalized …"[the] Christ, [the] From-pre-eminence" …

“Yet each [one] in the own ORDER:
[the] From-beginning / [the] From-Pre-Eminence,
[the] Anointed;
ON-THERAFTER the [ones] of the Anointed …”

(davo)
…a descriptive, a distinguishing name
which gets denuded of any proper significance when held to such crass literalism

(robin)
…[the] First-fruit, [the] Christ …

Dont you find this title a bid odd …
and how is it that you think … The From-beginning / The From-Pre-Eminence …is being crass?
Do you not perceive any significance in the more accurate “From Beginning” …
That is, Christ, surely, wasn’t alway a fruit, but He has certainly, always been from the beginning!

(davo)
…crass literalism, that you, for position’s sake, seem not to be able to see past.

(robin)
Guess it just a matter of perspective, then … I’m unable to purposfully misread a Greek word,
because I dearly want to hear what God is whispering to us in His most carefully selected words …
Others, already knowing what they want to hear,
force the scriptures to say what they already know, what they should be saying …
And the still small whisper gets lost in the loud voices of often mean-spirited discussions.

(God)
Can you hear ME now?

Robin, even though you disagree with the use of term “firstfruits”… by way of clarification, what is your understanding as to the common biblical use of that term? IOW… in biblical parlance as you understand it, how is this term (regardless of your disapproval) being used?

~

(robin)
Ahhhh … Well good morning to you, too, davo … and a nice day it promises to be.

As to your, new way of engaging … I like this, I could be comfotable with this …
As to your specific question, I’m sorry, I dont clearly understand just what your are asking … really, I’m sorry, but it’s unclear to me …

Like I’ve said, I only have one driving desire, and that’s to hear God’s whisper …anything, all things, which hamper this, I work against …
I’m a literalist … I’m set in this …

“By way of clarification” … honestly, dear davo, I dont know what else I might add … really … all I want to do is to grasp what God has actually
whispered to us … He whispers, so that we have to, be quiet, and listen … and isn’t that a hard, first thing to do!

Note: I dont know what “IOW” means?

And, dear friend from afar … you never acknowledged the referenced story … my daughter’s story about these so-called hunter spiders …
are they as common a pest, there, as she alludes to?

As for “first fruits” … WTF … in the long run, our individual readings, our independent understandings of a particular word … does this, really, matter,
as long as we, of the Body of Christ, strive to work together, together … together … now aint that a novel idea!!

Quite simply… this was the first portion of fleeces shorn from the sheep being dedicated and offered up to God.

Ok… I didn’t mean to confound you, I shan’t trouble you further with this.

Indeed you are… this has become abundantly clear.

No, they’re just crazy fast zigzag moving spiders that look worse than they are.

FYI = for your information
IOW = in other words
FWIW = for what it’s worth
BTW = by the way
It seems you already have a handle on “WTF” :astonished: :laughing:

(davo)
…even though you disagree with the use of term “firstfruits”… by way of clarification,
what is your understanding as to the common biblical use of that term? IOW… in biblical parlance as you understand it,
how is this term (regardless of your disapproval) being used?

(robin)
Good question … glad you ask, the reason being, I’ve never seen such a word used in the Greek scriptures!
That is, it would have to be some combination of …“photos” if the “karpos” was singular and masculine …
Again, I’ve never seen such a word used in the scriptures … there might be one, but I cant find it.

And the odd thing is, another curious matter, the word “aparchE” (or even “apparition”), which you are, still(?)
reading as “a firstfruit” (and I, as “a from-beginning”) is singular-feminine, so my example word above, that
combination-word, that isn’t used/found in the scriptures, would have to be adjusted accordingly to read feminine …
but that word, too, isn’t used in the scriptures … wish that it were, as that would have resolved this question, many posts ago …

And yes, I’m very literal … to a fault, I’ve been told, but this, at least, keeps me somewhat honest in my grasp of scriptures;
that is, I have to deal with it’s words, for just exactly what they say, which tends to keeps me from adding my own thoughts,
my own doctrinal bent to the book; keeps me quick on my feet, having to explain and account for why my readings are sometimes
so very differnet from the more common translations … for instance, all the zigs and zags you’ve had me doing, just to explain.

So think of me, davo, as your very own hunter spider, here on this forum … I may not be all that likable, but I’m relitively harmless,
unless it comes down to someone pushing an agenda, which equates to being an enemy of the cross (stake in the better word, but that’s another topic)

~

(robin)
… please clarify the question?

(dave)
Ok… I didn’t mean to confound you, I shan’t trouble you further with this.

(robin)
No, really, I wasn’t trying to be difficult … so pondering upon your question, I’m thinking that by “biblical parlance,” you were asking me what, then, this term (either “from-beginning” or “first fruits”) might be attempting to communicate …

I believe I, now, understand the point of your question, and why you might be so insistent for your reading … that is, your intent, and idea is, indeed, most correct … all I was arguing for was an accuracy in terminology … so with your intentions acknowledged, might I suggest that you just look at another verse, another pair of words …" archE prOtotokos" … talked to in Colossians. That is, “He be, a beginning, firstborn [One]” …

"And Same be, the Head of the body, of the ecclesia;
Which, He be, a beginning, firstborn [One] out of the dead [ones],
so-that Same afore-being, He should become among all [things].

That in Same, He [God] had delighted, the every fulfillment to down-dwell;

and through Same, for’ Same,
to the all [things] to away-down-change,
having made-peace through the blood of the stake of Same; through Same,
if-besides to the [things] on the earth, if-besides to the [things] on the heavens." (~Robin)

If that’s where you were headed, davo … if that’s the intent behind your insistence for thinking “first fruit,”
(when that’s really not what the actual Greek word says), then I concede to your thought, your intentions … you are, indeed, correct
in this, the direction your mind, the spirit is leading you … I’m just the pedantry scribe, being excessively focued upon the details …

God’s peace,
robin


1:18 And Same be, the Head of the body, of the ecclesia; Which, He be, a beginning, firstborn [One] out of the dead [ones], so-that Same afore-being, He should become among all [things].

Καὶ αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ κεφαλὴ τοῦ σώματος, τῆς ἐκκλησίας· ὅς ἐστιν ἀρχή, πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν, ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων·

kai autos estin hE kephalE tou sOmatos tEs ekklEsias hos estin archE prOtotokos ek tOn nekrOn hina genEtai en pasin autos prOteuOn

and {2532 CONJ} same [One] {0846 P-NSM} He be {1510 V-PAI-3S} the [one] {3588 T-NSF} Head {2776 N-NSF} of the [thing] {3588 T-GSN} of a body {4983 N-GSN} of the [one] {3588 T-GSF} of an ecclesia {1577 N-GSF} which [One] {3739 R-NSM} He be {1510 V-PAI-3S} a beginning {0746 N-NSF} a firstborn [one] {4416 A-NSM-S} out {1537 PREP} of the [ones] {3588 T-GPM} of dead [ones] {3498 A-GPM} so-that {2443 CONJ} He should become {1096 V-2ADS-3S} among/ in {1722 PREP} unto all [things] {3956 A-DPN} same [One] {0846 P-NSM} afore-being {4409 V-PAP-NSM}

1:19 That in Same, He had delighted, the every fulfillment to down-dwell;

ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι,

hoti en autO eudokEsen pan to plErOma katoikEsai

that {3754 CONJ} in {1722 PREP} unto same [One] {0846 P-DSM} He had delighted {2106 V-AAI-3S} every [thing] {3956 A-NSN} the [thing] {3588 T-NSN} a fulfillment {4138 N-NSN} to down-dwell {2730 V-AAN}

1:20* and through Same, for’ Same, to the all [things] to away-down-change, having made-peace through the blood of the stake of Same; through Same, if-besides to the [things] on the earth, if-besides to the [things] on the heavens.

καὶ διʼ αὐτοῦ ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάντα εἰς αὐτόν, εἰρηνοποιήσας διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ σταυροῦ αὐτοῦ, διʼ αὐτοῦ, εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, εἴτε τὰ ἐπὶ τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

kai di autou apokatallaxai ta panta eis auton eirEnopoiEsas dia tou haimatos tou staurou autou di autou
eite ta epi tEs gEs eite ta epi tois ouranois

and {2532 CONJ} through {1223 PREP} of same [One] {0846 P-GSM} to away-down-change {0604 V-AAN} to the [things] {3588 T-APN} to all [things] {3956 A-APN} for’/ into {1519 PREP} to same [One] {0846 P-ASM} having made-peace {1517 V-AAP-NSM} through {1223 PREP} of the [thing] {3588 T-GSN} of a blood {0129 N-GSN} of the [one] {3588 T-GSM} of a stake {4716 N-GSM} of same [One] {0846 P-GSM} through {1223 {PREP} of same [One] {0846 P-GSM} if-besides {1535 CONJ} to the [things] {3588 T-APN} on {1909 PREP} of the [one] {3588 T-GSF} of an earth {1093 N-GSF} if-besides {1535 CONJ} to the [things] {3588 T-APN} on {1909 PREP} unto the [ones] {3588 T-DPM} unto heavens {3772 N-DPM}

All good… :mrgreen: