YES… I’m NOT disputing that simplistic fact, that’s a given. I’m looking at HOW such is applied in Scripture apart from its “plain” sense reading; which even you yourself would have to acknowledge.
What are you talking about, you already suggest such further back up the page, where you intimate strongly that I “spiritualize away his meaning” – when what I said actually made perfect sense.
Yes and?? That the Greek text not having the “my” means zip, zero and zilch… it does NOT change the meaning, i.e., that David, by virtue of God’s ownership, thus the “my” of English texts, was made, THAT IS… to “appoint” or “establish” or “ordain” <θήσομαι> thēsomai as “firstborn”.
THIS in no way negates any literal meaning of “firstborn”; it does however show the TYPE/ANTI-TYPE relationship… you don’t have an antitype without the type – which LOGIC dictates that there can be MORE than JUST the base literal (type) meaning to a term.
Again and??… that’s not the point of Psa 89:27 – God established David as his “firstborn”, period, i.e., the one in whom His blessing was promised… just keep reading the following verses. In time David’s greater son would come in whom said promises found fulfilment.
“Stone the crows” Paidion… after all your brouhaha here you are now of convenience agreeing with me – I’ll take what I can get!