David Bentley Hart on Hell

[Jeff Saunders]

Then you deal with what you mentioned here not the absurd argument that the Bible writers didn't have lexicons. In fact you have given us a good reason to use lexicons.
I am fairly certain that many of the errors of people like Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa etc., if they exist, have been dealt with. And if they haven't that is why lexicons are a good idea. And just FYI there are about 800 words in good ol' king jimmy that have changed significantly or dropped out of use altogether.
My first Greek professor was Dr. Roger Omanson, now deceased, who was on the original NIV translation committee. He told us the struggles the committee had convincing the old school members to give up their often incorrect assumptions/presuppositions.
Here is a definition I looked up this afternoon. You may note the blue highlights. Those are the historical, lexical etc. sources the scholars consulted in determining the correct meaning. Honest scholars don't make up definitions which fit their assumptions/presuppositions.

μονογενής, ές (μόνος, γένος; Hes.; LXX; PsSol 18, 4; TestSol 20:2; TestBenj 9:2; ParJer 7:26; ApcEsdr 6:16; ApcSed 9:2; Joseph., Just.; loanw. in rabb.) acc. μονογενῆ (-ῆν J 3:16 v.l.; Hb 11:17 D; also ApcEsdr 6:16)
① pert. to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only (so mostly, incl. Judg 11:34; Tob 3:15; 8:17) of children: of Isaac, Abraham’s only son (Jos., Ant. 1, 222) Hb 11:17. Of an only son (PsSol 18:4; TestSol 20:2; ParJer 7:26; Plut., Lycurgus 59 [31, 8]; Jos., Ant. 20, 20) Lk 7:12; 9:38. Of a daughter (Diod S 4, 73, 2) of Jairus 8:42. (On the motif of a child’s death before that of a parent s. EpigrAnat 13, ’89, 128f, no. 2; 18, ’91, 94 no. 4 [244/45 A.D.]; GVI nos. 1663–69.)
② pert. to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind) of someth. that is the only example of its category (Cornutus 27 p, 49, 13 εἷς κ. μονογενὴς ὁ κόσμος ἐστί. μονογενῆ κ. μόνα ἐστίν=‘unique and alone’; Pla., Timaeus 92c; Theosophien 181, §56, 27). Of a mysterious bird, the Phoenix 1 Cl 25:2.—In the Johannine lit. (s. also ApcEsdr and ApcSed: ὁ μονογενής υἱός; Hippol., Ref. 8, 10, 3; Did., Gen. 89, 18; ὑμνοῦμέν γε θεὸν καὶ τὸν μ. αὐτοῦ Orig., C. Cels. 8, 67, 14; cp. ἡ δύναμις ἐκείνη ἡ μ. Hippol., Ref. 10, 16, 6) μονογενὴς υἱός is used only of Jesus. The renderings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here (so M-M., NRSV et al.; DMoody, JBL 72, ’53, 213–19; FGrant, ATR 36, ’54, 284–87; GPendrick, NTS 41, ’95, 587–600). τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μ. ἔδωκεν J 3:16 (Philo Bybl. [100 A.D.]: 790 Fgm. 2 ch. 10, 33 Jac. [in Eus., PE 1, 10, 33]: Cronus offers up his μονογενὴς υἱός). ὁ μ. υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ vs. 18; τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μ. ἀπέσταλκεν ὁ θεός 1J 4:9; cp. Dg 10:2. On the expr. δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός J 1:14 s. Hdb. ad loc. and PWinter, Zeitschrift für Rel. u. Geistesgeschichte 5, ’53, 335–65 (Engl.). See also Hdb. on vs. 18 where, beside the rdg. μονογενὴς θεός (considered by many the orig.) an only-begotten one, God (acc. to his real being; i.e. uniquely divine as God’s son and transcending all others alleged to be gods) or a uniquely begotten deity (for the perspective s. J 10:33–36), another rdg. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός is found. MPol 20:2 in the doxology διὰ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ τοῦ μονογενοῦς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Some (e.g. WBauer, Hdb.; JBulman, Calvin Theological Journal 16, ’81, 56–79; JDahms, NTS 29, ’83, 222–32) prefer to regard μ. as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One, in view of the emphasis on γεννᾶσθαι ἐκ θεοῦ (J 1:13 al.); in this case it would be analogous to πρωτότοκος (Ro 8:29; Col 1:15 al.).—On the mng. of μονογενής in history of religion s. the material in Hdb.3 25f on J 1:14 (also Plut., Mor. 423a Πλάτων … αὐτῷ δή φησι δοκεῖν ἕνα τοῦτον [sc. τὸν κόσμον] εἶναι μονογενῆ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἀγαπητόν; Wsd 7:22 of σοφία: ἔστι ἐν αὐτῇ πνεῦμα νοερὸν ἅγιον μονογενές.—Vett. Val. 11, 32) as well as the lit. given there, also HLeisegang, Der Bruder des Erlösers: Αγγελος I 1925, 24–33; RBultmann J (comm., KEK) ’50, 47 n. 2; 55f.—DELG s.v. μένω. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.
William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 658.​

The whole point of the mention of Enoch is because most people in the western tradition think the only way you can know God is by reading the Bible and that is not true. I don’t understand why people think that God is bound by a book, He can do anything He wants and the Holy Spirit can teach us also. That was my point.

 

[JulieB67]

The whole point of the mention of Enoch is because most people in the western tradition think the only way you can know God is by reading the Bible and that is not true

If one is in the last generation that will face Satan/Antichrist, the word of God is part of the gospel armour that one needs so they can stand in that "evil day"

Christ gave us the signs and seasons and we have to have that in our minds so we can know exactly how everything is going down.


Ephesians 6:11 "Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil."

This isn't some spirit. Satan and his will be here sometime in the future before Christ returns. Christ states if they say, Christ is here or there, believe it not. And Paul is a second witness to this in 2nd Thess chapter 2. This was first prophesized in Isaiah 14. We need to know these truths that the God has laid out through Christ, the prophets and the apostles.

Ephesians 6:12 "For we wrestle not against flesh ad blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

Ephesians 6:13 "Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God that ye may be able to with stand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand."

That "evil day" is again when Satan and his angels are here and he will be playing savior to the whole world. Paul states Satan is disguised as an angel of light. And we have to be prepared for that.

Ephesians 6:14 "Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;"

God has given us his letter which has that truth we need.

Ephesians 6:15 "And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;"

Ephesians 6:16 "Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked."

Where do we get that faith? From hearing the word of God.

Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God."

Ephesians 6:17 "And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:"

If one has the word and the tools, there is no reason to not try and read and study his word. We increase in our faith and we are able to know the truth, his plan, etc.

Sadly Satan knows the word better than many Christians. Why do you think Paul says that must be part of our gospel armour? We have to have the truth planted in our minds. The "wiles" of the devil is all about the trickery and deception that will come across the whole world at that time.

 

[Andrewn]

And it is even likely St. John of Patmos wasn't the Apostle John, there are as many as three early Johns: John the Apostle, John the Presbyter (or Elder), and John the Revelator. These may all be the same person, these may be two persons, or these may be three persons. It's really not all that clear.

Let's not forget John Mark, who also lived in Asia Minor at certain points.