What these verses show is that the accusative marker את does not automatically make the following noun definite. Look at the contexts. The contexts show that we are dealing with indefinite objects.
You’re from the Midwest, so you recognize the phrase “That dawg don’t hunt”. In all languages, direct objects are not necessarily definite. The addition of the accusative marker doesn’t change that fact.
Furthermore, the addition of a possessive suffix doesn’t change what is in context an indefinite object into a definite object.
Of course not. That’s why translations are not evidence on this forum.
But definiteness is dependent on context.
How can it be definite when dealing with an indefinite subject?
David was “son of Jesse”, not “the son of Jesse” as he had seven brothers. Jonathan was “son of Saul” the king, not “the son of Saul” as he had three brothers. In both cases, and more, that the subject is in construct with a proper name does not make it definite.
In all of the examples above, the definite article ה prefix is missing.
The examples above again illustrate what I wrote earlier, that those who live in Israel, who speak, read and write modern Israeli Hebrew better than Biblical Hebrew, tend to be more formulaic in their understanding of Biblical Hebrew. The arguments with which I disaree concerning what is definite vs. indefinite are being determined by formula, and not by what is written in the text.
Karl W. Randolph.