When is the definite article important?

Precisely. I was going to post the same thing.

That is my primary point of debate when confronted with JW people at my door. I ask them about John 1, then ask them who do they say Jesus is? When they respond I ask them if there is but ONE God (which they are quite adamant about), followed by something along the lines of, "How then do you reconcile the fact that you are calling Jesus "A" god, but say there is only One God -- Jehovah. Would Jesus not then be a competing god against the One True God, Jehovah? And, how is it that Jehovah so used this competing god, Jesus, whom you call "A" god, to do so much good for humanity that he is called "savior?"

They are often very confused at that point, and like some here on the board attempt to deflect the conversation elsewhere.

For the record, Jesus is God. Christ is Lord. Praise God I can say that and believe that!

 

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!"

 

glfredrick,

To take the issue one step further, the English indefinate article "a" (or an) generally means one among many, or at least "two of" a simular supported noun (or pro-noun). For example, if I tell you to go to the parking lot and pick out "a car", it is assumed that there are at least two and probably more cars, which are not to be confused with bicycles or boats. So in a strict monotheistic environment, the JWs referring to Jesus as "a god" implies that there are other "gods" of the type they classify Jesus as, totally distinct from the type of God they classify Jehovah as.

Which begs the question, who are the other "a gods"?

 

If any JW were to use Bruce Metzger or Julius Manty as proof that their miserable translation is correct, I would then ask them to lend me their copy of any of their published works so that I can verify the claim. Of course this arguement will go no-where for two reasons, 1. JWs only read watchtower materials and 2. JWs consider both of these men to be apostates anyway.

This is one of the reasons why I only quote theologians from works that I have access to or better yet have their books in my personal library. If I quote someone to make my case, you can be sure that I can produce the source and give the context.

 

here is the link to that web site!
www.newreformationpress.com/freebies/Bruce

 

This link doesn't work.

 

try this link instead!

www.bible-researcher.com/metzger.jw.html

 

Thank you.

 

I'm not sure, in context, that it does. Perhaps you can post a few of the times it does so so that we can examine the context.

 

is this similiar to when KJV says God is "a" Spirit, while modern versions says God is Spirit?

 

Both of those verses are in the third person -- a natural expression and use of the definite article.

But you cannot find a verse that says "a god" in reference to God when found in the first person.

 

It is all rather simple in English grammar. If someone, God perhaps, says something about themselves the sentence works like this:

God says, "I am a God that loves and cares." (Not a direct quote from Scripture, but rather an example of language.) The sentence is structured in that fashion for readability. If you wish to see it structured otherwise, pick up an ASV and go to reading. Have fun. It is weird and almost un-readable, but follows the Greek syntax and word order almost perfectly. In short order you would come to realize why English grammar inserts the article for readability -- it is a gramatical convention tied to THAT language just like in Greek the article is tied to every noun, pronoun, and adjective, yet is often not translated into English. Gramatical rules not trying to hide or change something.

 

Something along the lines like when the NAS 1977 version would show in italics "additions" to make the passage read smoother?

 

Yup...

And, I've heard SERMONS from those "inserted" words. :BangHead:

 

IF a bible version was to drop/add to those "inserted' words, would some scream "changing word of God, satanic influence?"

 

They have...

Of course, those sort of folks operate from a position of ignorance where their (THEIR) interpretation of the rules seems to make all the difference, never mind that each language has its own grammatical structure or that EVERY TRANSLATION (no matter the era, the scholars who worked on it, or the languages involved) has this issue. It is a simple matter of fact when translating that there is not often a one-for-one perfect equivalence between words and grammar.

Just the fact that the Greek has many more verb forms than English or that it uses the definite article in ways alien to English ought to tip people off to some of the issues at hand but if they don't know that then they see someone "fiddling about" with the text and they call those someones under satanic influence for tampering with the Word of God.

 

To see how difficult this concept of tranferring word for word exactly Greek into the English for us to be able to understand it...
Just see how difference versions have handled:

1 Corinthians 7:35-37
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

35 This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but [a]to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.
36 But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let her marry. 37 But he who stands firm in his heart, [c]being under no constraint, but has authority [d]over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well.

not that Easy, eh?