The definite article theory proposed originally by Bullinger is that the LACK of an article changes the meaning of the noun. However, this was simply not the case in First Century Koine Greek. In Luke 2:14 for instance, the word God does not have an article. Should the verse be translated "Glory in the highest to a God?" But let us look at a few scriptures in which the word "spirit" is used. The presence or absence of an article does not necessarily make any difference in the meaning of the word:
At Christ’s baptism the word Spirit has a definite article in Matthew 3:16 but lacks an article in Luke 3:22 In both instances the reference is to the Holy Spirit of God. Likewise, when referring to the coming of the Spirit at Pentecost the definite article is used in John 7:39 but omitted in Acts 1:5. The inclusion or omission of the definite article makes no difference in the meaning. Bullinger made that principle up against the consensus of all the translators in order to support his particular doctrines.
Some thoughts, shasta...
What I have found over the years is that...
Where any one passage affirming, or based on a particular doctrine, contains additional words as additional information...
...including, but not limited to, a definite article...
...but another passage does not contain the additional wording, definite article, etc....
...one of the two determines the sense intended by the other.
My own experience with that over the years is that the former of those two sheds further light on the intended sense or meaning of the latter one, and is therefore the preferred intended sense of the two.
And there are many issues; not just those two.
As when you find the issue, for example, of two different definite articles found being used for a similar word and or expression.
As in wording such as "a dispensation" and "the dispensation."
In which case, which of the two is found used more often, is what determines which of the two is the intended sense of both, despite their different definite article.
And there is also the issue of synonyms - of two different words used within a similar context.
Though the two words might differ - even in their normal use, nevertheless, where they are found being used, and in light of what is being talked about when they are then brought up, gives them their intended sense, both in that particular context, and any similar one.
Case in point, 1 Cor. 12's "dividing to every man severally as he will" and 2 Tim. 2's "of these things put them in remembrance...rightly dividing the word of truth..."
In both places, the context is similar - it is the issue of dispensing or doling out a thing to others.
As a result, in the Early Modern English of the KJV, the same word "dividing" was used as a translation for two different words in the original language (the Greek) of both those passages.
Though the words in the original language differed, the intended sense or meaning, had been the same in both passages, being that the context of both - giving, dispensing, or doling out a thing to others - is the same.
When things like all the above, run smack into the "what makes sense to me" of far too many, such have problems with it.
Due to their ignorance of these kinds of principles.
And due their arriving at their own "makes sense to me" based ideas, given their ignorance of these kinds of principles.
The over reliance on the ever endless books "about" by men, that I am ever giving, say, IP, a hard time about, is in light of my awareness of the above kinds of issues.
A lot of your posts on THIS THREAD, shasta, and Nang's and Lon's on THIS THREAD also, are sound.
Not surprisingly; in their conclusions having been based on their having obviously followed the above kinds of principles, whether consciously aware of such principles, or not.
