When is the definite article important?

[thomas15]

How then do you explain the two dozen or more times the English Bible (KJV) refers to the one true God as "a God"?

The OP is in regard to the article. I could offer up a possible reason or explanation that will make my case but this is not what I'm trying to do here. I believe that I'm correctly defining in article and giving a valid example.

To back up my case with respect to the article, I quote from Essentials of English 5th ed. Hopper, Gale, Foote, Griffith 2000 Barron's Educational Series pg. 24:

The most used adjectivals are the articles a, an and the. A and an are called indefinate articles because they single out any one unspecified member of a class. The is called a definate article because it specifies a particular member or a particular group of members in a class.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... The most used adjectivals are the articles a, an and the. A and an are called indefinate articles because they single out any one unspecified member of a class. The is called a definate article because it specifies a particular member or a particular group of members in a class.

Then by this rule (which says nothing about 'first person'), "a God" should indicate that this particular God is merely one unspecified member out of a entire class (of Gods). Is that the OT idea being conveyed below and then repeated in the NT? God here is speaking about Himself --

Exodus 6:7
And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I [am] the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

Hebrews 8:10
For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:​

 

[thomas15]

Then by this rule (which says nothing about 'first person'), "a God" should indicate that this particular God is merely one unspecified member out of a entire class (of Gods). Is that the OT idea being conveyed below and then repeated in the NT? God here is speaking about Himself --

Exodus 6:7
And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I [am] the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

Hebrews 8:10
For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:​

I really don't want to get into this because as far as I'm concerned the issue brought up in the OP is strictly one of English rules of grammar. However, rules of English grammar work with a conviction (as far as I'm concerned) that the best commentary of the Bible is the Bible, or to put it another way our doctrine must be in agreement with the entire Bible, not just a possible intrepretation of one verse or passage. The Bible makes it very clear that there is only one (true) God. The writer of the book of Hebrews is quoting the OT(Jer ch 31), many in that audience believe(d) in other "gods", as do the JWs (and others) due today.

 

[glfredrick]

Then by this rule (which says nothing about 'first person'), "a God" should indicate that this particular God is merely one unspecified member out of a entire class (of Gods). Is that the OT idea being conveyed below and then repeated in the NT? God here is speaking about Himself --

Exodus 6:7
And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I [am] the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.

Hebrews 8:10
For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:​

Perhaps the KJV translators mistranslated those verses... Ah, probably not. They were the only inspired translators... :BangHead:

 

[Logos1560]

Instead of "be to you a God" at Exodus 6:7 as in the KJV, the earlier 1560 Geneva Bible has "be your God." That is also the rendering of the NKJV.

Instead of "be to them a God" at Hebrews 8:10 as in the KJV, the 1560 Geneva Bible has "be their God." Thati is again the rendering of the NKJV at that verse.

 

[Jerome]

I Samuel 2:3

GEN a God of knowledge
KJB a God of knowledge

NKJ the God of knowledge



Isaiah 30:18

GEN the God of iudgement

KJB a God of judgment
NKJ a God of justice

 

[franklinmonroe]

I really don't want to get into this because as far as I'm concerned the issue brought up in the OP is strictly one of English rules of grammar. ...

Actually, my OP was intended to discuss when it may or/may not be appropriate to translate the (Greek) article as the definite article "the" in English. It has since shifted (which is fine by me) to an emphasis on the indefinite article (mostly as a result of discussing the JW rendering of John 1:1).

I agree (and knew) that the Greek article (in whatever form) does not necessarily have to take the same definite meaning as "the" in English, and many times it is not translated at all. It has been my limited observation that the Greek article is rarely ever translated as "a" in English, but rather "a" is most often inserted into English when a Greek article is absent (again, thus the opening for the JW translation at John 1:1).

The Bible makes it very clear that there is only one (true) God. ...

Yes, but it seems that our translations sometimes tend to mislead the reader by use of the English indefinite article. I also concur that our doctrine must be in agreement with the entire Bible, not just a possible intrepretation of one verse or passage. However, I have already shown several verses (as have others now) that read "a God"; and these are not readily misinterpreted passages. Our God is "a God"! [The capital 'G' is of great significance.] The One True God is in a class unto Himself.

The NWT rendering would not offend me if it were displayed as "a God" (the passage would still logically be equating God-the-Word with God-the-Father); the heresy is the JW insistence of the small 'g' ["a god"] for the Word.

 

[thomas15]

Actually, my OP was intended to discuss when it may or/may not be appropriate to translate the (Greek) article as the definite article "the" in English. It has since shifted (which is fine by me) to an emphasis on the indefinite article (mostly as a result of discussing the JW rendering of John 1:1).

I agree (and knew) that the Greek article (in whatever form) does not necessarily have to take the same definite meaning as "the" in English, and many times it is not translated at all. It has been my limited observation that the Greek article is rarely ever translated as "a" in English, but rather "a" is most often inserted into English when a Greek article is absent (again, thus the opening for the JW translation at John 1:1).

Yes, but it seems that our translations sometimes tend to mislead the reader by use of the English indefinite article. I also concur that our doctrine must be in agreement with the entire Bible, not just a possible intrepretation of one verse or passage. However, I have already shown several verses (as have others now) that read "a God"; and these are not readily misinterpreted passages. Our God is "a God"! [The capital 'G' is of great significance.] The One True God is in a class unto Himself.

The NWT rendering would not offend me if it were displayed as "a God" (the passage would still logically be equating God-the-Word with God-the-Father); the heresy is the JW insistence of the small 'g' ["a god"] for the Word.

I agree with everything you say

 

[DaChaser1]

Actually, my OP was intended to discuss when it may or/may not be appropriate to translate the (Greek) article as the definite article "the" in English. It has since shifted (which is fine by me) to an emphasis on the indefinite article (mostly as a result of discussing the JW rendering of John 1:1).

I agree (and knew) that the Greek article (in whatever form) does not necessarily have to take the same definite meaning as "the" in English, and many times it is not translated at all. It has been my limited observation that the Greek article is rarely ever translated as "a" in English, but rather "a" is most often inserted into English when a Greek article is absent (again, thus the opening for the JW translation at John 1:1).

Yes, but it seems that our translations sometimes tend to mislead the reader by use of the English indefinite article. I also concur that our doctrine must be in agreement with the entire Bible, not just a possible intrepretation of one verse or passage. However, I have already shown several verses (as have others now) that read "a God"; and these are not readily misinterpreted passages. Our God is "a God"! [The capital 'G' is of great significance.] The One True God is in a class unto Himself.

The NWT rendering would not offend me if it were displayed as "a God" (the passage would still logically be equating God-the-Word with God-the-Father); the heresy is the JW insistence of the small 'g' ["a god"] for the Word.

If you read some of the JW literature regarding jesus as a god though...

they sometimes use the translation 'A God" used in some bible versions to make their 'Ignorant of the Greek" translation of the word being "a god" seem passable!

 

[robycop3]

My favorite story about the JW and their "alleged" scholars in Greek, was that they had quoted and cited Bruce metzger as an expert who supported their view that John meant that "the word was with God, and was a god"
he sent back a reply to the watchtower that in no certain terms let them know they had misunderstood him, to NOT cite him as a source, and that their translation was " horrible!"

Let us remember that the JW "translation" was made in 1950 by Freddie Franz(who later became the big kahoona of the Botchtower) and his buddy George Gangas, a greek Cypriot, and they made their NWT by revising the Revised Version of 1881(Revision Revised) to fit JW doctrine, I. E. "a" god in John 1.

 

[robycop3]

Here's another one to consider-"the love of money is *THE* root of *ALL* evil" in 1 Tim. 6:10 The Greek article is ABSENT between "love of silver" and "root". But there must be an article in English for the verse to make sense. The lack if the article in the Greek calls for the English "a", which reality shows is the CORRECT English rendering. (The correct rendering of "pas kakos, "all sorts of wickedness", is a subject for another thread.)

 

[DaChaser1]

Let us remember that the JW "translation" was made in 1950 by Freddie Franz(who later became the big kahoona of the Botchtower) and his buddy George Gangas, a greek Cypriot, and they made their NWT by revising the Revised Version of 1881(Revision Revised) to fit JW doctrine, I. E. "a" god in John 1.

Are they part of the scholars that translated theor bible, who admitted in court could not read either Greek/hebrew Alphabets?

Must have their own version of the Mormon eyeglasses!

 

[robycop3]

Are they part of the scholars that translated theor bible, who admitted in court could not read either Greek/hebrew Alphabets?

Must have their own version of the Mormon eyeglasses!

Yes, Franz was, in a court in Scotland. They didn't have Rosetta Stone in the 1950s.

 

[DaChaser1]

Yes, Franz was, in a court in Scotland. They didn't have Rosetta Stone in the 1950s.

Think they had an interlinear version of their Bible, but was pulled out due to parts of the Greek not agreeing with thei rown version!

 

[robycop3]

Think they had an interlinear version of their Bible, but was pulled out due to parts of the Greek not agreeing with thei rown version!

Yeah, it's known as the Kingdom Interlinear Translation.(KIT) There are still lotsa copies around.

 

[DaChaser1]

Yeah, it's known as the Kingdom Interlinear Translation.(KIT) There are still lotsa copies around.

You know something not quite right if your own english bible goes against the Greek text!

 

[franklinmonroe]

You know something not quite right if your own english bible goes against the Greek text!

Happens more than you might think.

 

[DaChaser1]

Happens more than you might think.

Any examples come to mind?

 

[glfredrick]

Any examples come to mind?

First and most often one that comes to my mind is when certain words were translitterated instead of translated (brought over into a new language in essentially the same form as the original language). When we read "baptize" what we should be reading is "immerse." That is how the term -- for the most part -- was used during the 1st century. We would not be having as many of these doctrinal discussions over the issue it the word was translated instead of translitterated.

When we read "Jesus" we should be reading "Joshua" ("Jesus" is the English translitteration of the translitterated Latin version of the translitterated Greek version of the Hebrew "Yeshua" or as correctly spoken in English, "Joshua"). It would be ironic if the object of our love and devotion -- to whom we worship and adore by name, "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, there is something about that name..." -- made as His first act among men the realization that we have had His name wrong for centuries.

There are other issues, obviously, and all well-documented by those who keep track of such things for profit.

 

[DaChaser1]

First and most often one that comes to my mind is when certain words were translitterated instead of translated (brought over into a new language in essentially the same form as the original language). When we read "baptize" what we should be reading is "immerse." That is how the term -- for the most part -- was used during the 1st century. We would not be having as many of these doctrinal discussions over the issue it the word was translated instead of translitterated.

yes, think that it would had been interesting to see how some of the bethren would have handled the Bible word being properily translated as immersed/immersing/immersed instead! Hard to see sprinking/dipping modes there!

When we read "Jesus" we should be reading "Joshua" ("Jesus" is the English translitteration of the translitterated Latin version of the translitterated Greek version of the Hebrew "Yeshua" or as correctly spoken in English, "Joshua"). It would be ironic if the object of our love and devotion -- to whom we worship and adore by name, "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, there is something about that name..." -- made as His first act among men the realization that we have had His name wrong for centuries.

Could it also be that Jesus will be getting a new name as in the Book of revelation?

Will there be a "God language" in heaven, and we will call Him something else anyways?

There are other issues, obviously, and all well-documented by those who keep track of such things for profit.

Just curious as to how Immanuel became Joshus/yeshua unto jesus?