Robin: I think you’re being overly judgmental about people’s abilities and intentions when they happen not to translatie terms super-precisely, considering that one of your criticisms required that {de} cannot mean “and” but only means “yet”. {de] and {kai} are both general purpose conjunctions, although {kai} tends to be a bit stronger about the connection between ideas being made. While I agree {de} can represent the meaning of a soft contrast “yet” (and even a harder contrast “but” on occasion, although {kai} and of course {alla} work better for that), the vast majority of situations I see it in, it functions as continuing connective, like “and” or the English non-temporal sense of “now”.
Now, you might be perennially annoyed at Young’s capabilities for some other reason, and maybe that’s why you insisted {de} must inherently mean “yet” instead of “and”, but that’s a sign you’re letting your own predispositions radically color your work.
Whereas, I really haven’t seen evidence that anyone in this thread yet, is insisting on “first-fruits” as the proper translation for {aparch_e} there (I’m at a keyboard with no way to put a hat or other signifier over the long vowels, so an underscore will have to do) due to some ideological presumption.
That being said, since I did point out that the metaphor is evidently one of a military triumph (via the technical word for marching rank combined with the idea of a returning ruler), I’m fine with a more literal translation – especially since the term is both singular and fronted ahead of Christ, which to me is strong evidence that it refers to Christ.
(This was something I meant to get back to, after discussing the mere option set for possible groupings, for which purpose I stuck with the normal translation, but got distracted by other things. Sorry.)
While I’m mitigating in your favor there, I think Paidion, you would be sympathetic to Robin’s methodology concerning that word, since you routinely use the same method when talking about the adjective eonian: it doesn’t and can’t possibly mean “eternal” and so we should never ever ever translate it that way, ever! Any feasible argument about cultural usage of the term {aparch_e} for first-fruit(s), as a translation rationale, would apply just as well to people translating the adjective for eon as “eternal” or “everlasting” since culturally people did use it that way at the time, even if not always strongly with that meaning.
That being said, I understand why translating it as first-fruits is not an unreasonable guess: there is an agricultural metaphor (maybe) later about treading down the grapes, and the term usually applies to Christians (those belonging to Christ) not to Christ elsewhere in the NT – I haven’t checked whether that’s true even if the term is singular, but I suspect it is, since the cultural use for the harvest situation would be about a single concept of pre-eminance in the first sacrificial harvest even though multiple sheaves are being brought in. And the term has after all been borrowed in Paul’s culture for expressing that idea. Nor is it impossible that Paul is combining metaphors.
But I doubt it’s actually first-fruits in this case, or even Christ as the first-fruit metaphor. The term works just fine with the initial metaphorical setup of a military triumph, and while I tend to use the term anyway for convenience of discussion I’m actually willing to accept Robin’s complaint (not that he was addressing me, but acknowledging that I’m culpable anyway) that I shouldn’t be doing so.
On the other hand, if there are good arguments for translating the term for a priority of the first-fruit metaphor, I’d be okay with those, too.
It’s not that I’m unsympathetic; I am just trying to understand why he’s so adamant against “first-fruits” when nearly all translations render every instance of the word in the New Testament as “first-fruits” or “first fruits” or “firstfruits.” So that’s why I was asking Robin how he would translate the word—in order to understand his thinking. And he still hasn’t said how he would translate it (although he has hinted around that it has something to do with “origin” or “beginning”).
I did find that the ESV and the RSV render the word as “first converts” in Rom 16:5, but “first fruits” in all the other instances.
I found that the NASB also renders it as “first converts” in Rom 16:5 and “first piece of dough” in Rom 11:16, and “first fruits” in all other instances.
But Robin insists that the word has nothing to do with “first” simply because “first” is not part of its etymology.
I also found that in Williams translation it is rendered as “first fruits” only in James 1:18 and Rev 14:4. Also, it is translated as “first fruits” in Philips paraphrase only in Rev 14:4.
If it is first fruits or first converts or whatever, it is set in the concept of a sequential “order”.
So as paidon set forth early, I think, the four possibilities he listed are appropriate. So if the purpose of the OP has anything to do with approaching what the verse says, rather than simply establishing what it does not say…
It is a word set in a sequence, “each in its own order”. If it is not first fruits, it is still either attached to Christ, as His being first in the order or…
It stands alone as the next part in the sequence of the order.
So the simple question is reasonable
If it does not mean first fruits, or first at all, what does it mean and why is it there in a very short specific list?
aparche, from apo and arche, and arche being beginning or ruling
In Hebrews 6:1 arche if the elementary oracles, or “first principles”(kjv)
about everywhere else it is “beginnings” or “rule/rulers” which both also go to “first in a sequence”- so what is the alternative understanding? To me the application of “first”, is reasonably visible in aparche. That which begins is first. That which rules is first.
(robin)
Good morning Paidion … “nearly all translations” … it’s that “nearly,” which first drove me to attempt my own reading of the Greek scriptures;
that is, “How could they be saying different things, how does that happen?” And so, off I jumped, into deep waters; indeed, shallow waters would
have had me in over my head, but No, I jump in, at rip tide, off rocks, near the mouth of the Columbia … that’s to say, it’s been an extreamly steep learning curve, just to keep my head above water …at times … above water, that is.
You wondered why I’m so adamant … mostly, because I’m just a simple layman at this, but more so, in this case,
becasue the word, itself, contains no “fruit,” which is yet another Greek word. But yes, there may well have been
…some… thoughs of “first fruits” in Pauls mind when he phrased this verse the way he did, but then, he didn’t subsequently
say harvest or fruit, nor did he even allude to such; that is, he phrased the verse in a manner that clearly talks to sequence
And, Yes, I did get around to suggesting my own reading of the verse; did so, in response to the request from “qaz” …
"Take a close look at the context of this verse … there’s that other word, just prior to the word “aparchE” (τάγματι· ἀπαρχὴ),
it’s the word “tagmati” {5001 N-DSN} … it means an “order” of things … that’s the context, the mental picture one should be
envisioning the very next word to be painted with … and it’s not, NOT, a picture of some “harvest time,” but rather, the idea of sequence.
“Yet each [one] in the[ir] own order: [the] Anointed, [the] From-beginning;
on-thereafter the [ones] of the Anointed, in the presence of Same” (~Robin)
Good morning Jason, I was wondering … hoping that you and Paidion would finally get back into this conversation;
interesting, don’t you think, how things have evolved from towstt’s …“instead of” …
(jason)
…being overly judgmental about people’s abilities and intentions when they happen not to translatie terms super-precisely
(robin)
it’s hard, at times, for me to elicit any responses, so one resorts to retorts and snorts … but it’s almost(?) never aimed at a fellow forum participant;
hance my poking at Robert … Young’s Literal is, and always will be, one of my go-to translations, as are the Dabbar, Rotherham, and CLNT, and lately I’ve also been consulting Jonathan Mitchell’s Expanded and Amplified New Testament …poking at Robert, because there are, indeed, places where his literal translations could have, should have been more precise …but mostly, just to see if I could elicit someone to come to his defense … as you did do … 8>
And Yes, I must admit, I inherently do think that “de” must mean “yet” instead of “and” … however, I do think that “kai” can and does functions as “also” and “even” on many an occasion, so my conservative layman’s approach; that is, my predispositions don’t always radically color my work, my readings …
(jason)
Whereas, I really haven’t seen evidence that anyone in this thread …yet …
is insisting on “first-fruits” as the proper translation for aparch_e
(robin)
Ummmm … yet … that was, indeed, my impression, until just recently,
and it is, as Paidion says, “how nearly all translatons render it” …
I loved his use of “render” … I’m currently helping to restore a hundred year old home in Portland, and we’re “rendering”
some of the old brick; that is, we’re covering it over with a coat of plaster … hence, my apt snort of glee, when Paidion
taked about how almost all translations “render” the word, here, in this verse; that is, hide it’s true meaning, by covering
it over with plaster, or “mud” (as it’s sometimes called) …
(jason)
That being said, I understand why translating it as first-fruits is not an unreasonable guess: there is an agricultural metaphor (maybe) later about treading down the grapes, and the term usually applies to Christians (those belonging to Christ) not to Christ elsewhere in the NT
(robin)
Now that’s an interesting observation … that is, agricultural metaphors not being applied to Christ, Himself,
but more so reserved for, or being applied to those belonging to Him …
Perhaps Paidion is right, perhaps I am being somewhat adamant … long winded … about the use of the word, in this verse,
because there is, indeed, something else about it, that is nagging away at the back of my mind, something more wrong about
it being misread, than just a poor choice of words …
And perhaps Eaglesway’s posts, especially that last one, sort of touchs, too, on this … that is, it seems that some readers (and translators?)
might be thinking that “first fruits” might pertain to Christ’s followers, rather than to Christ, Himself … I for one, have never tumbled in that
direction, so it’s never been something on my radar, but apparently that may well be how some others are reading or perceiving this …
I did, in an earlier post, worder out loud, as to why some were so insistent it be “first-fruits,” why it should be construed as pertaining to
some harvest … salvation harvest … and I’d protested that the verse should be seen as Christ-centered, rather than as a maturing harvest,
but I’d really not put two and two together, being that I was more focused on an idea of sequence over fruit …
But now that you mention it, this insistence (translator’s bent) upon it being some sort of agricultural metaphor; this does sort of mis-direct
one’s thinking toward the many maturing fruits … the faithful converts … than on Christ.
So then, just might there be some underlying doctrinal bias involved here?
Would it be too far afield (harvest field) to suspect that maturing fruits, are those converts who are coming to fruitation by their DOING something?
(jason)
But I doubt it’s actually first-fruits in this case, or even Christ as the first-fruit metaphor. The term works just fine with the initial metaphorical setup of a military triumph, and while I tend to use the term anyway for convenience of discussion I’m actually willing to accept Robin’s complaint …
On the other hand, if there are good arguments for translating the term for a priority of the first-fruit metaphor, I’d be okay with those, too
(robin)
Words of pure silver, seven times refined … perhaps a convenience of discussion … would be the wrong row to hoe! 8>
Having a hard time understanding your posts… Can you use the quote system as it is designed? I feel you probably have some important things to say, but due to the way you are structuring the posts, I pretty much skip over it. If I do that, I imagine others might do that as well.
Ironically, when it comes to “kai”, it is I who am adamant. I agree that it can be correctly translated ( to me"rendered" is but a synonym for “translated”) as “and” and “also”. But I claim that the translation “even” is incorrect. It is an interpretation. In each instance that some translations render the word as “even”, the translation “also” fits just as well.
…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
(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.
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?
{de] and {kai} are both general purpose conjunctions, although {kai} tends to be a bit stronger about the connection between ideas being made. While I agree {de} can represent the meaning of a soft contrast “yet” (and even a harder contrast “but” on occasion, although {kai} and of course {alla} work better for that), the vast majority of situations I see it in, it functions as continuing connective, like “and” or the English non-temporal sense of “now”.
