What is the difference between "pieces of information" and "the pieces of information"
e.g.:
Is there any method to overcome these kind of problems?
Try to explain instead of pulling leg ....
'The pieces of information' is specific, possibly addressing something which has previously been mentioned.
'Pieces of information' is general, not specified.
The use of the definite article "the" means that a specific object (or set of objects) is being referred to. In the singular, when the definite article is not needed (that is, when a specific instance of an object is not being referred to), then the indefinite article (a or an) is used. There is no plural indefinite article, so when the definite article is not needed ("the" is both singular and plural), no article is used.
Some context would help to say which of your constructions is appropriate, but to give some examples: "I received a piece of information" means that the speaker received one piece of information, but nothing about that information is specified. "I received the piece of information" would be used if it is assumed (from prior knowledge or context) that the listener knows what piece of information the speaker is referring to. Likewise, "I received pieces of information" is completely generic with regards to the nature of the information, whereas "I received the pieces of information" is in reference to specific pieces.
In "The wages of sin is death", a specific instance is being referred to. As a rule of thumb, if the thing in question is being described in particular, then the definite article will probably be used. "There are pieces of information in the document." v/s "The pieces of information describe what happened." In context, the quote isn't meant to imply that death is only one of many results of sin, but the only one, hence the definite article.
As MatthewW says, "the" indicates that you are referring to a specific thing or set of things, while "a" in the singular, or no article in the plural, indicates a non-specific thing. He gave a good discussion of "pieces of information".
Let me see if I can help out with "wages of sin".
First, note that this quote is 500 years old. The language has changed since then. And it is a translation from another language -- Greek -- so it's liable to be awkward. So while in modern English "wages" is normally understood to be a plural verb, here it is being used as a singular, as can be seen from the singular verb "is". Most modern speakers would say, for example, "My wages ARE paid in cash", not "My wages IS paid in cash."
So that said, the choice of article is therefore between "the" and "a", and not "the" and no article, as it would be if the noun was plural.
So to the point, Ask yourself, Are the "wages" being discussed here specific or general?
If the writer had said, "A wage of sin is death", then the wage would be general. This would be a much weaker statement. It implies that there might be many just outcomes from sin, only one of which is death. Maybe sometimes sin deserves death and sometimes it doesn't. But "The wages of sin is death" says there is only one just outcome, and this is it. It is a much stronger statement. If you sin, you deserve to die. Period, end of story. Very different from, "well, maybe sometimes, depending on the circumstances" etc.
It is not clear what specific problem(s) you are asking about.
If you are asking about the grammar of The wages of sin is death, then the answer is that this sentence is a fixed sentence in English. It is used in many translations of the Bible into English.
If you are asking about articles and the difference between the definite article (the) and the zero-article, you should probably choose another sentence than the wages of sin is death, since this sentence is unigue. However, its use of the can still be explained.
For common nouns in English, we need to make either a definite or indefinite reference to them.
Both pieces and wages are count nouns in the plural.
For plural count nouns, we use the zero-article to make an indefinite reference. When we do this, we are not talking about any specific pieces or wages; we are also being indefinite as to the number of pieces or wages.
For example,
Pieces of information were discovered over time.
This refers to some indefinite number of pieces. We just mean some number greater than 1. As such, this is an indefinite reference. We are also not referring to any specific pieces of information.
When we want to make a definite reference, we can use the definite article the; we can also use the demonstrative pronouns (this, that, these, those); we can also use possessive pronouns (such as my and your).
The pieces of information were discovered over time.
Thid is a definite reference. As definite reference is also specific. So we are talking about specific pieces. We are also talking about all the pieces unless we specify otherwise.
Now, what is a definite reference? A definite reference is one that the speaker or author makes when be assumes his hearer or reader can uniquely identify which 'pieces' he is taking about.
So, again with wages (with the zero-article) we are not talking about specific wages. They could be any wages.
With the wages we are talking about definite (the reader knows which wages) and specific wages (not just any wages).
Why not 'Wages of sin'? Well you can say that, but no one would know which 'wages' you were talking about. Are they your wages my wages, the Jews' wages, the Gentiles' wages, some wages, all wages, wages from yesterday, wages from today, unfair wages, leftover wages,...
With The wages, the author assumes you know exactly which wages he is talking about. He has either mentioned them before; he is about to mention them; or he thinks you can identify them from context, from shared information, or from general knowledge about the universe.
