Hell; are you sure?

[Heidi]

Hell and the Grave
"For You will not leave my SOUL IN SHEOL (Hell in the Authorised Version), nor will You allow Your Holy One to see CORRUPTION." Psalm 16:10
"If I ascend up into heaven, You are there; if I make my BED IN HELL behold, You are there." Psalm 139:8

'Hell' is not a translation. It is a word that has been inserted by translators into the Bible because of their preconceived ideas about a place of eternal torment. This idea is fast losing ground today as modern translators realise that Hebrew words like 'sheol', simply meant the grave to the original inspired writers of the Scriptures. The translators are still very shy though, and in many instances have left the word 'sheol' untranslated in modern Bible versions. This is because they can see that this word obviously means 'the grave' and not the traditional meaning. Rather than admit this though, and the folly of using the inserted word 'hell' in the past, they have just left the Hebrew word 'sheol' untranslated many times, and left the readers to make up their own minds.
Comparing old and new translations
The following are two interesting examples of how translating has changed by comparing the King James Version (A.V.)and the New King James Version (N.K.J.V.) of Jonah 2:2, and Isaiah 4:14:
• Jonah 2:2 A.V. - "out of the belly of HELL cried I" N.K.J.V. - "out of the belly of SHEOL I cried"
• Isaiah 4:14 A.V. - "Therefore HELL hath enlarged herself" N.K.J.V. - "Therefore SHEOL has enlarged itself"
You will notice the same situation with Psalm 16:10 quoted as a key verse above.
'Gehenna' the rubbish tip
'Gehenna' or 'The valley of the son of Hinnom' which is what the Greek word means, was the rubbish tip outside of Jerusalem in the time of Jesus which was also used to burn the bodies of criminals who had suffered capital punishment. Most of the occurrences of the word 'hell' in the New Testament refer to this 'place of burning' outside of Jerusalem.
'Hades' the unseen
The word Hades comes from two words: 'A', which is 'Alpha', the first letter of the Greek alphabet and is a negative letter which simply means 'without'. The equivalent in English would be the word 'un'. The other word is 'eido' which means 'to see'. So 'Hades' simply means, 'unseen'. Is the 'hades' of the Bible the same place as that described in Greek Mythology? Websters Dictionary describes Hades as, "the grim god of the lower world dwelling in the abode of the dead conceived as either a dark and gloomy subterranean realm or a remote island beyond the western sea."
Consistent Bible teaching
If we can accept the words quoted from Psalm 16 which prophetically teach that Jesus went to 'sheol' (ie. the grave) when He died, then to be consistent with Bible teaching, we must accept that Peter meant the grave as well when He said that Jesus went to hades when he quotes Psalm 16 in Acts 2:27. Any other explanation would have Old Testament teaching contradicting the New Testament. The fact that the New Testament was written in Greek does not mean that we have to use Greek mythology to interpret Scripture. Today we use words like "lunatic", but this does not mean that we accept that somebody's mental health depends on the phases of the Moon.
Extra info and Bible references
'Hell' is a word that was added (interpolated) to our Bibles and is not a translation of the original language. When we see this word in scripture its true meaning is 'the grave' or 'the pit' in the Old Testament. In the New Testament this word is used with reference to the burning 'rubbish tip' that was outside of Jerusalem, known as 'the valley of the son of Hinnom' or 'gehenna'.
• 'sheol' in the Hebrew is interpolated 'hell' or translated 'grave' or 'pit' in the Old Testament. Psalm 6:5, 9:17, 30:3; Numbers 16:30,33
• 'hades' in the Greek is translated 'grave' or interpolated 'hell' in the New Testament. 1Corinthians 15:55, Matthew11:21, 16:18
• 'gehenna' in the Greek is interpolated 'hell' in the New Testament. Matthew 5:22, 23:15; Luke 12:5
All Scripture quoted is from the N.K.J.V.

http://www.bibleed.com/bibleteachings/o ... dgrave.asp

Sorry but Revelations 20:10 doesn't use the word "hell" It just talks about a place of eternal torment. So sorry, friend, but your attmept to make Christ's words about eternal torment go away is a losing battle. It actually perpetuates the first and biggest lie of Satan; "You will not surely die."

 

[thessalonian]

How did Christ use the words "eternal torment" if he didn't speak the english language? The Bible wasn't written in english. :-?

 

[Drew]

Sorry but Revelations 20:10 doesn't use the word "hell" It just talks about a place of eternal torment. So sorry, friend, but your attmept to make Christ's words about eternal torment go away is a losing battle. It actually perpetuates the first and biggest lie of Satan; "You will not surely die."

I think the irony here is that it is those who believe in eternal torment who appear to believe this lie - they believe that the lost do not in fact die, but rather enter into a state of eternal life - an unpleasant one, mind you, but life all the same. We who believe in annihilation take God at his word - the wages of sin is indeed death. Not an unpleasant neverending state of life, but death.

And the "death means physical death only" argument is very weak. Why? Because it involves a belief that when a lost person dies physically, they remain fully conscious and aware, experiencing, communicating, and interacting (e.g. as per how the "eternal torment" position sees the tale of Lazarus and the rich man). This sounds very much like simply "getting undressed" - the shell of the body is gone but all the functionality and complexity of life remains. It seems rather unlikely that when God said to Adam:

"but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die"

He really meant:

"....for when you eat of it, you will surely have your phyiscal "shell" of a body stop working and decompose, yet retain all your consciousness, function, and communication capabilities"

Why would God issue the warning in Genesis 2:17 if the only thing that dies is an outer shell, leaving the person otherwise fully intact and functional?

Does that sound like "death" to you?

 

[Solo]

I think the irony here is that it is those who believe in eternal torment who appear to believe this lie - they believe that the lost do not in fact die, but rather enter into a state of eternal life - an unpleasant one, mind you, but life all the same. We who believe in annihilation take God at his word - the wages of sin is indeed death. Not an unpleasant neverending state of life, but death.

And the "death means physical death only" argument is very weak. Why? Because it involves a belief that when a lost person dies physically, they remain fully conscious and aware, experiencing, communicating, and interacting (e.g. as per how the "eternal torment" position sees the tale of Lazarus and the rich man). This sounds very much like simply "getting undressed" - the shell of the body is gone but all the functionality and complexity of life remains. It seems rather unlikely that when God said to Adam:

"but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die"

He really meant:

"....for when you eat of it, you will surely have your phyiscal "shell" of a body stop working and decompose, yet retain all your consciousness, function, and communication capabilities"

Why would God issue the warning in Genesis 2:17 if the only thing that dies is an outer shell, leaving the person otherwise fully intact and functional?

Does that sound like "death" to you?

You really need to show that death refers to spiritual death and not physical death. Also you need to show where the resurrected body dies again and what the circumstances are in the description of that death, if in fact it does die.

Otherwise, your theory of death is unscriptural.

 

[Drew]

You really need to show that death refers to spiritual death and not physical death. Also you need to show where the resurrected body dies again and what the circumstances are in the description of that death, if in fact it does die.

Otherwise, your theory of death is unscriptural.

A case should indeed be made in respect to your questions above. I believe that this case has been made repeatedly in some recent threads, so I will not not repeat it unless some newcomer to this debate is interested.

However, this issue cuts both ways. Those who believe that the human person can be decomposed into a body and an immortal soul / spirit need to also make that case scripturally.

Both positions on this issue need to be defended scripturally from the ground up.

In my previous post, I did indeed provide part (only a small part) of the argument. In summary form it is this:

1. God warns Adam that he will die if he eats the fruit (Genesis 2:17)

2. The eternal torment supporter who believes in an immortal soul that can exist independent of the body believes that the consequences of sin are really these:

a. death of the body
b: eternal conscious existence in torment in Hell.

3. The eternal torment supporter argues that Gen 2:17 is referring to the death of the body. And this is a wise move on his part, since by his belief in item 2b, he cannot believe that reference is being made to death of the soul / spirit, which he asserts to be immortal and not capable of dying.

4. Since common sense suggest that 2b is a far more serious consequence that 2a, one is left to wonder why God only warns Adam about 2a - the death of his body - if indeed item 2b is also true. This is a very serious challenge to those who assert that Gen 2:17 is only about the death of the body.

 

[Solo]

A case should indeed be made in respect to your questions above. I believe that this case has been made repeatedly in some recent threads, so I will not not repeat it unless some newcomer to this debate is interested.

However, this issue cuts both ways. Those who believe that the human person can be decomposed into a body and an immortal soul / spirit need to also make that case scripturally.

Both positions on this issue need to be defended scripturally from the ground up.

In my previous post, I did indeed provide part (only a small part) of the argument. In summary form it is this:

1. God warns Adam that he will die if he eats the fruit (Genesis 2:17)

2. The eternal torment supporter who believes in an immortal soul that can exist independent of the body believes that the consequences of sin are really these:

a. death of the body
b: eternal conscious existence in torment in Hell.

3. The eternal torment supporter argues that Gen 2:17 is referring to the death of the body. And this is a wise move on his part, since by his belief in item 2b, he cannot believe that reference is being made to death of the soul / spirit, which he asserts to be immortal and not capable of dying.

4. Since common sense suggest that 2b is a far more serious consequence that 2a, one is left to wonder why God only warns Adam about 2a - the death of his body - if indeed item 2b is also true. This is a very serious challenge to those who assert that Gen 2:17 is only about the death of the body.

You make many assumptions, and have not given a Scriptural backing for your claims. Assumptions can be made all day long, but the truth can remain far from Assumptions.

 

[Drew]

You make many assumptions, and have not given a Scriptural backing for your claims. Assumptions can be made all day long, but the truth can remain far from Assumptions.

What do you mean here speciifically - what assumptions have I made?

I have provided an argument re Gen 2:17. I have explained how the "you shall surely die" statement, if it refers to physical death only, seems to leave out the most important thing that Adam should be warned about - eternal torment on top of physical death.

Now what is wrong with this argument? Presumably if the wages of sin really is eternal torment in addition to physical death, you will at least have some kind of explanation as to why God failed to mention the "eternal torment" bit in his warning to Adam.

 

[Solo]

What do you mean here speciifically - what assumptions have I made?

I have provided an argument re Gen 2:17. I have explained how the "you shall surely die" statement, if it refers to physical death only, seems to leave out the most important thing that Adam should be warned about - eternal torment on top of physical death.

Now what is wrong with this argument? Presumably if the wages of sin really is eternal torment in addition to physical death, you will at least have some kind of explanation as to why God failed to mention the "eternal torment" bit in his warning to Adam.

Nevermind. You will not understand until God reveals the truth to you. I have spent numerous hours going over this false teaching of Annihilationism.

 

[Drew]

Nevermind. You will not understand until God reveals the truth to you. I have spent numerous hours going over this false teaching of Annihilationism.

Code for: I do not have a reponse to the argument.

Fair enough.

 

[Solo]

Code for: I do not have a reponse to the argument.

Fair enough.

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=28893

 

[Drew]

For those interested in both sides of the debate, please consult

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=27702

 

[jgredline]

Drew
Thanks for the link...There people can read how Hell is a real place of eternal torment and how annihilation is false... :D

 

[sisterchristian]

How did Christ use the words "eternal torment" if he didn't speak the english language? The Bible wasn't written in english. :-?

the Lord used the word Gehenna to describe the place of eternal punishment, because it was a place of filth and stench, of smoke and pain, and of fire and death (Matt.5:22; 18:8-9; 23:33; john 3:36)

 

[Heidi]

Maybe because the pagan doctrine of eternal hell fire was adopted by the false church for the express purpose of soaking it to the unwashed masses?

I wonder why God is always seen as a pillar of flame or is described as an all consuming fire? I wonder why Satan is seen being kicked out amoungst the firery stones?

Talk about your word tricks!

The bible uses the same word for eternal when talking about heaven as it does when talking about hell. So if you're going to change the meaning of "eternal" when it concerns hell, then you have to change the meaning when it concerns heaven also. So do you claim there is no eternal life and glory in heaven? :o That's what happens when people start quibbling about words as Paul tells us not to do. They end up changing the whole bible to suit their own desires. :wink:

 

[Drew]

So if you're going to change the meaning of "eternal" when it concerns hell, then you have to change the meaning when it concerns heaven also.

Please answer precisely: how does your "you cannot change the meaning of 'eternal' argument" also not apply in respect to the word "death" in Biblical texts like:

"The soul that sinneth shall die"

"The waes of sin is death"

How, and I would like as precise an answer as possible, do you justifiy making death mean "eternal conscious existence" when its normal meaning is "cessation of life functions"?

I think your argument about modifying the meanings of words cuts both ways.

 

[Heidi]

Please answer precisely: how does your "you cannot change the meaning of 'eternal' argument" also not apply in respect to the word "death" in Biblical texts like:

"The soul that sinneth shall die"

"The waes of sin is death"

How, and I would like as precise an answer as possible, do you justifiy making death mean "eternal conscious existence" when its normal meaning is "cessation of life functions"?

I think your argument about modifying the meanings of words cuts both ways.

Because death is not life. It is the antithesis of life. Death is also forever. It cannot be altered. Life through the Spirit is also forever and cannot be altered. So both are eternal.

 

[sisterchristian]

Hell, Are you sure?

YES I'M SURE, BECAUSE THE BIBLE TELLS ME SO! :D

 

[Radlad72]

Re:

How did Christ use the words "eternal torment" if he didn't speak the english language? The Bible wasn't written in english. :-?

the Lord used the word Gehenna to describe the place of eternal punishment, because it was a place of filth and stench, of smoke and pain, and of fire and death (Matt.5:22; 18:8-9; 23:33; john 3:36)

Yes, it is a place of stench and death!!! Notice the word DEATH?

Gehenna was a place that all kinds of rubbish was thrown. This included the carcasses of dead animals and also the bodies of dead criminals. In fact, had Jesus' body not been paid for by Joseph of Arimathea, His body would have been dumped in there also.

I find it very interesting that Jesus used the word gehenna to describe the Lake of Fire (not hell - this was hades) since a lot of people believe that you will be cast into the Lake of Fire, there to burn forever and a day. Criminals were already dead when they were thrown into gehenna dump and maybe, just maybe, people of the times would have known this. This means that, I believe, the wicked will already be dead (after they are judged that way) and then thrown in to cleanse the whole world of sin.

I am still formulating my ideas on this one, so please bear witrh me.

Rad.

 

[Drew]

Re: Re:

I find it very interesting that Jesus used the word gehenna to describe the Lake of Fire (not hell - this was hades) since a lot of people believe that you will be cast into the Lake of Fire, there to burn forever and a day.

I find it equally interesting that people seem to distort the metaphor of fire just as they distort the metaphor of sleep. We should be taking these metaphors more seriously.

Fire consumes. It does not preserve. In day to day life - at least in those times when fire was part of everyday life - I think the clear message behind the use of a metaphor of fire is destruction, not preservation. You put something into a raging fire and it is reduced to nothing. I believe that the lost are annihilated in the lake of fire.

God is redeeming creation. Does it make sense that God's remade universe (see Romans 8:18-26), reflecting the final solution to the "Adam problem", will have it perfection marred by a lake of fire in which people are eternally suffering? Methinks not. God is out to destroy sin and wipe its memory from the world, not keep that memory lingering forever.

 

[Radlad72]

Re: Re:

I find it very interesting that Jesus used the word gehenna to describe the Lake of Fire (not hell - this was hades) since a lot of people believe that you will be cast into the Lake of Fire, there to burn forever and a day.

I find it equally interesting that people seem to distort the metaphor of fire just as they distort the metaphor of sleep. We should be taking these metaphors more seriously.

Fire consumes. It does not preserve. In day to day life - at least in those times when fire was part of everyday life - I think the clear message behind the use of a metaphor of fire is destruction, not preservation. You put something into a raging fire and it is reduced to nothing. I believe that the lost are annihilated in the lake of fire.

God is redeeming creation. Does it make sense that God's remade universe (see Romans 8:18-26), reflecting the final solution to the "Adam problem", will have it perfection marred by a lake of fire in which people are eternally suffering? Methinks not. God is out to destroy sin and wipe its memory from the world, not keep that memory lingering forever.

Drew,

I actually agree with you. I believe the fire will go out after all sin has been destroyed (which may or may not take too long). I was just throwing another angle in in that people were already dead when thrown into the burning garbage dump that is Gehenna. I was just thinking that it could be that it will be the same at the end of time after the judgement. People may already be dead when thrown into the Lake of Fire.

Rad.