Hell, what is it?

[OzSpen]

But wait, Adam and Eve did not die when they ate of the forbidden fruit

Stove,

That's a very limited view of death. Adam and Eve DID die when they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

What kind of death was it?

Interpreters typically answer this question in one of two ways. First, many note that Adam and Eve did die, though not immediately. The Hebrew phrase translated “in the day” in Genesis 2:17 is sometimes used to mean “for certain” (e.g., Exodus 10:28; 1 Kings 2:37, 42). So, Adam and Eve “certainly” died; it’s just that their death took place much later (Genesis 5:5). This view is also supported by Genesis 3:22, in which God determines to bar man from the tree of life to prevent him from living forever. Adam and Eve lost eternal life, were expelled from the Garden of Eden, and eventually experienced physical death.

The second way to view the warning of Genesis 2:17 is that “death” refers to spiritual death. When Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, they experienced a separation from God, a loss of relationship due to their sin. Their first actions after sinning were to cover themselves up and hide from God (Genesis 3:7-8). This alienation from the Source of Life can be viewed as spiritual death.

A third approach understands that both physical and spiritual death were with the result of original sin. The moment Adam and Eve sinned against God, their souls were separated from God, and their bodies began to die. Their spiritual deadness and susceptibility to physical death have been passed on to all humanity (Romans 5:12) ['Why didn’t Adam and Eve immediately die for their sin (Genesis 3)?' Got Questions]
​

So Adam & Eve did die physically - eventually - and that was passed on to the rest of the human race. They died spiritually in their separation from God, which also has been passed on to all people.

Romans 5:12 (NIRV) confirms this: 'Sin entered the world because one man sinned. And death came because of sin. Everyone sinned, so death came to all people'.

We cannot come to God without God's drawing us (John 6:44). Thanks to Jesus' death on the cross, all people are drawn (John 12:32) but not all respond (Acts 7:51).

Oz

 

[stovebolts]

Stove,

That's a very limited view of death. Adam and Eve DID die when they ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

What kind of death was it?

Interpreters typically answer this question in one of two ways. First, many note that Adam and Eve did die, though not immediately. The Hebrew phrase translated “in the day” in Genesis 2:17 is sometimes used to mean “for certain” (e.g., Exodus 10:28; 1 Kings 2:37, 42). So, Adam and Eve “certainly” died; it’s just that their death took place much later (Genesis 5:5). This view is also supported by Genesis 3:22, in which God determines to bar man from the tree of life to prevent him from living forever. Adam and Eve lost eternal life, were expelled from the Garden of Eden, and eventually experienced physical death.

The second way to view the warning of Genesis 2:17 is that “death” refers to spiritual death. When Adam and Eve ate of the forbidden fruit, they experienced a separation from God, a loss of relationship due to their sin. Their first actions after sinning were to cover themselves up and hide from God (Genesis 3:7-8). This alienation from the Source of Life can be viewed as spiritual death.

A third approach understands that both physical and spiritual death were with the result of original sin. The moment Adam and Eve sinned against God, their souls were separated from God, and their bodies began to die. Their spiritual deadness and susceptibility to physical death have been passed on to all humanity (Romans 5:12) ['Why didn’t Adam and Eve immediately die for their sin (Genesis 3)?' Got Questions]
​

So Adam & Eve did die physically - eventually - and that was passed on to the rest of the human race. They died spiritually in their separation from God, which also has been passed on to all people.

Romans 5:12 (NIRV) confirms this: 'Sin entered the world because one man sinned. And death came because of sin. Everyone sinned, so death came to all people'.

We cannot come to God without God's drawing us (John 6:44). Thanks to Jesus' death on the cross, all people are drawn (John 12:32) but not all respond (Acts 7:51).

Oz

Lol, you obviously didn't read what I wrote in its entirety lol.
It was an obscene post with tongue in cheek to make a point....

 

[stovebolts]

Hades is the English of the Greek word ᾅδης, just as Gehenna is the English for the Greek word γέεννα and Tartaros is the English word for the Greek word ταρταρόω

The English word hell, back in 1611, meant about the same as Hades, that being covered or unseen as in grave/pit. We do not see those in the grave as they are unseen to the eye as they are covered with dirt, or some placed in a tomb. The word hell is derived from the Saxon helan, to cover, and signifying merely the covered, or invisible place. The habitation of those who have gone from the visible terrestrial region to the world of spirits.

Jude 1:7 clearly states an example of eternal fire. This is the same Greek word that is used for everlasting fire and everlasting punishment as used in Matthew 18:8 and Matthew 25:41,46 (Notice: The place, as no real name is given, where the unsaved go is everlasting punishment, and not everlasting punishing. The punishment is eternal in its results, not in its duration. Unquenchable fire is a fire that cannot be quenched or put out until everything in its path is burned up.

Gehenna - Valley of Hinnom, Old Testament as Gai Ben-Hinnom, Tophet, in the Talmud as Gehinnam

The oldest historical reference to the valley is found in Joshua 15:8, 18:16 which describe tribal boundaries. The next chronological reference to the valley is at the time of King Ahaz of Judah who sacrificed his sons there according to 2 Chron. 28:3. Isaiah does not mention Gehenna by name, but the burning place, Isaiah 30:33 in which the Assyrian army are to be destroyed, may be read Topheth, and the final verse of Isaiah which concerns the corpses of the same or a similar battle, Isaiah 66:24 , where their worm does not die. Also read Jeremiah 19:6-8 as a reference to the dead bodies that are thrown over the wall of Jerusalem into Gehenna/Tophet.

Matthew 5:29, 30; Mark 9:43-48 Jesus uses the prophetic symbolic of Gehenna as calling it hell or fires of hell meaning the grave/pit where many were burned to death there as the worm did not die there, meaning that there were always new maggots going through their life-cycles, feeding on the dead corpse. Also note Isaiah 66:24.

That's a pretty decent piece. Two things to note though.

First, in 1611 doctrines on hell were based more on the Norse word Hell and its ideologies than an understanding or ideology of Hades. Its purely a cultural thing that happens with translation and it happened with the 1611 as well.

Go back to the first century and study... better yet, read the stories about Hades that were common knowledge in the first century and then you will start to form a deeper picture to what Jesus, John and Peter were originally trying to convey.

Secondly, step back to Solomon in 1 Kings and if you read between the lines, he had his children offered in the flames, drums a beating to drown out the screaming children as they were rolled down the red hot arms of the beast into the I ferno.. This is the place that later is called Gehenna and it started with Solomon, son of David.

As a side bar, this is one reason Jesus was called the son of David. Would he be like Solomon? Or greater.

Be careful what you call great. This is why we start the study with Deut 17. It tells what a King is NOT to do, and Solomon does each one.... and collects 666 talents of silver... yet another echo of Revelation.

Read the story in 1Kings 9 -11 and make note of the places, and study them through to the 1st century. You will be amazed, I promise.

 

[OzSpen]

The word Hell is actually an old Norse word and comes directly out of Norse mythology.

Funny, because the images of Hell that are propagated resemble that of Norse mythology than the Greek mythology of Hades, and it looks nothing like the Hebrew idea of Gehenna.

Stove,

That's only one view of its etymology. This stack exchange on hell provides other alternatives.

The Online Etymology Dictionary (2017) gives the meaning of 'hell' as:

hell (n.)
also Hell, Old English hel, helle, "nether world, abode of the dead, infernal regions, place of torment for the wicked after death," from Proto-Germanic *haljo "the underworld" (source also of Old Frisian helle, Old Saxon hellia, Dutch hel, Old Norse hel, German Hölle, Gothic halja "hell"). Literally "concealed place" (compare Old Norse hellir "cave, cavern"), from PIE root *kel- (1) "to cover, conceal, save."

The English word may be in part from Old Norse mythological Hel (from Proto-Germanic *halija "one who covers up or hides something"), in Norse mythology the name of Loki's daughter who rules over the evil dead in Niflheim, the lowest of all worlds (nifl "mist"). A pagan concept and word fitted to a Christian idiom. In Middle English, also of the Limbus Patrum, place where the Patriarchs, Prophets, etc. awaited the Atonement. Used in the KJV for Old Testament Hebrew Sheol and New Testament Greek Hades, Gehenna. Used figuratively for "state of misery, any bad experience" since at least late 14c. As an expression of disgust, etc., first recorded 1670s (Online Etymology Dictionary 2017. s v hell).
Oz
​

 

[stovebolts]

Stove,

That's only one view of its etymology. This stack exchange on hell provides other alternatives.

The Online Etymology Dictionary (2017) gives the meaning of 'hell' as:

hell (n.)
also Hell, Old English hel, helle, "nether world, abode of the dead, infernal regions, place of torment for the wicked after death," from Proto-Germanic *haljo "the underworld" (source also of Old Frisian helle, Old Saxon hellia, Dutch hel, Old Norse hel, German Hölle, Gothic halja "hell"). Literally "concealed place" (compare Old Norse hellir "cave, cavern"), from PIE root *kel- (1) "to cover, conceal, save."

The English word may be in part from Old Norse mythological Hel (from Proto-Germanic *halija "one who covers up or hides something"), in Norse mythology the name of Loki's daughter who rules over the evil dead in Niflheim, the lowest of all worlds (nifl "mist"). A pagan concept and word fitted to a Christian idiom. In Middle English, also of the Limbus Patrum, place where the Patriarchs, Prophets, etc. awaited the Atonement. Used in the KJV for Old Testament Hebrew Sheol and New Testament Greek Hades, Gehenna. Used figuratively for "state of misery, any bad experience" since at least late 14c. As an expression of disgust, etc., first recorded 1670s (Online Etymology Dictionary 2017. s v hell).
Oz
​

Thank you for posting this. Papa Zoom had posted this earlier as well. Its all good information.

But it's not the story.....

What if I told you my interpretation of the bible in just a few paragraphs? Do you think I could do that and cover every nuance? And don't you think my dissertation would be biased? I certainly do.

It's the same with Hades and Gehenna. While we can outline them, it's not the same as reading them. In short, you'll never know the riches of a story when all you read is cliff notes.

Get my point?

 

[Nathan]

You talk in circles.

What is it you don't understand? You say I talk in circles, yet you do not show how?

Why talk down on someone if your not going to give them a reason why?

 

[Nathan]

Why not just study what the Bible says about hell? Why is there a need for extra-biblical sources?

I think there is enough information contained in the NT gospels/letters to let us know what we need to about it.

To me, bringing in false religions ideas/myths about what they deemed as 'hell' seems to muddy the waters.

 

[OzSpen]

Thank you for posting this. Papa Zoom had posted this earlier as well. Its all good information.

But it's not the story.....

What if I told you my interpretation of the bible in just a few paragraphs? Do you think I could do that and cover every nuance? And don't you think my dissertation would be biased? I certainly do.

It's the same with Hades and Gehenna. While we can outline them, it's not the same as reading them. In short, you'll never know the riches of a story when all you read is cliff notes.

Get my point?

Please answer what I wrote about the etymology of hell.

 

[OzSpen]

Thank you for posting this. Papa Zoom had posted this earlier as well. Its all good information.

But it's not the story.....

What if I told you my interpretation of the bible in just a few paragraphs? Do you think I could do that and cover every nuance? And don't you think my dissertation would be biased? I certainly do.

It's the same with Hades and Gehenna. While we can outline them, it's not the same as reading them. In short, you'll never know the riches of a story when all you read is cliff notes.

Get my point?

Stove,

I don't consider your point is valid for at least 2 reasons:

1. As one who has been a Christian for over 50 years and has been a Bible student for most of that time, I have studied the issues of heaven and hell carefully and at length. I've written 21 articles on my homepage, dealing with hell and eternal punishment. Here are a couple starters: (1)Are there degrees of punishment in hell? (2)
   Is there literal fire in hell?

2. On a forum such as this, it is not the place to go into extensive details on the nature of hell and eternal punishment. A series of sermons by a Bible teacher or an academic dissertation would be places for such an exposition.

Oz

 

[stovebolts]

Why not just study what the Bible says about hell? Why is there a need for extra-biblical sources?

I think there is enough information contained in the NT gospels/letters to let us know what we need to about it.

To me, bringing in false religions ideas/myths about what they deemed as 'hell' seems to muddy the waters.

I understand your point of view and I think I have a grasp on how you've come to your conclusion.

We're talking theology here, not just a simple reading of the text. One can simply read the text and get a general idea what's going on. However, we all read the scriptures through our own cultural lens and bias. Its simply unavoidable.

When you read your own cultural and bias into the text, it's easy to walk away from the text with the jist of the message and completely miss the intent of the message. I can give examples if needed.

I always try to enter the text from a historical perspective first when doing theology. That means a decent study of their culture. Why? Because I want to know the original intent.

There is a specific reason Jesus used both Gehenna and Hades. When Jesus was in Cessera and says, the gates of Hades will not prevail, he was standing in the physical location where the gates of Hades were claimed to be. Knowing this, it brings a whole new demention to the story.

You say studying Greek mythology muddles the water, but really it puts us at par with the culture Jesus was surrounded by. By understanding their culture we bring ourselves into their conversations instead of bringing our conversations into theirs.

Understand?

 

[Nathan]

I understand your point of view and I think I have a grasp on how you've come to your conclusion.

We're talking theology here, not just a simple reading of the text. One can simply read the text and get a general idea what's going on. However, we all read the scriptures through our own cultural lens and bias. Its simply unavoidable.

When you read your own cultural and bias into the text, it's easy to walk away from the text with the jist of the message and completely miss the intent of the message. I can give examples if needed.

I always try to enter the text from a historical perspective first when doing theology. That means a decent study of their culture. Why? Because I want to know the original intent.

There is a specific reason Jesus used both Gehenna and Hades. When Jesus was in Cessera and says, the gates of Hades will not prevail, he was standing in the physical location where the gates of Hades were claimed to be. Knowing this, it brings a whole new demention to the story.

You say studying Greek mythology muddles the water, but really it puts us at par with the culture Jesus was surrounded by. By understanding their culture we bring ourselves into their conversations instead of bringing our conversations into theirs.

Understand?

I do understand your point of view. I just disagree with it.

Jesus is not a historical person, He is the living Son of God - and His Spirit lives in me. I do not need to study other religions to understand what the Spirit teaches. Sure, it may mean I do not have an understanding of what they believed back then - but I honestly do not care what the Greeks believed.

Sometimes we have to watch what we eat. Some things do not seem harmful when in reality they are a deadly poison.

 

[stovebolts]

Please answer what I wrote about the etymology of hell.

Hi,
I especially enjoyed the stack exchange and find myself agreeing mostly with the second to last poster who takes a historical approach.
He makes the point I had brought up earlier on the misguided notion of Hell based on Norse mythology.

 

[stovebolts]

I do understand your point of view. I just disagree with it.

Jesus is not a historical person, He is the living Son of God - and His Spirit lives in me. I do not need to study other religions to understand what the Spirit teaches. Sure, it may mean I do not have an understanding of what they believed back then - but I honestly do not care what the Greeks believed.

Sometimes we have to watch what we eat. Some things do not seem harmful when in reality they are a deadly poison.

Wait a second... did you seriously just say Jesus was NOT a historical person?
Do you know what you just said? If He was not a historical person, then that means he NEVER existed. He NEVER "dwelt among us".....
Jesus was most certainly a Historical person who lived and died about 2000 years ago.

Furthermore, he spoke with real historical people, who lived in historical places that do NOT resemble our current culture.

And honestly, if you don't care about the discussion, then you shouldn't be in it. Your allowed to hide in your own little bubble if you want.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Wait a second... did you seriously just say Jesus was NOT a historical person?
Do you know what you just said? If He was not a historical person, then that means he NEVER existed. He NEVER "dwelt among us".....
Jesus was most certainly a Historical person who lived and died about 2000 years ago.

Furthermore, he spoke with real historical people, who lived in historical places that do NOT resemble our current culture.

And honestly, if you don't care about the discussion, then you shouldn't be in it. Your allowed to hide in your own little bubble if you want.

Perhaps he mean that Jesus was not just a historical person.....

 

[Papa Zoom]

I understand your point of view and I think I have a grasp on how you've come to your conclusion.

We're talking theology here, not just a simple reading of the text. One can simply read the text and get a general idea what's going on. However, we all read the scriptures through our own cultural lens and bias. Its simply unavoidable.

When you read your own cultural and bias into the text, it's easy to walk away from the text with the jist of the message and completely miss the intent of the message. I can give examples if needed.

I always try to enter the text from a historical perspective first when doing theology. That means a decent study of their culture. Why? Because I want to know the original intent.

There is a specific reason Jesus used both Gehenna and Hades. When Jesus was in Cessera and says, the gates of Hades will not prevail, he was standing in the physical location where the gates of Hades were claimed to be. Knowing this, it brings a whole new demention to the story.

You say studying Greek mythology muddles the water, but really it puts us at par with the culture Jesus was surrounded by. By understanding their culture we bring ourselves into their conversations instead of bringing our conversations into theirs.

Understand?

Wasn't Paul well versed in Greek mythology? I know he was knowledgeable of Greek philosophy.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Wait a second... did you seriously just say Jesus was NOT a historical person?
Do you know what you just said? If He was not a historical person, then that means he NEVER existed. He NEVER "dwelt among us".....
Jesus was most certainly a Historical person who lived and died about 2000 years ago.

Furthermore, he spoke with real historical people, who lived in historical places that do NOT resemble our current culture.

And honestly, if you don't care about the discussion, then you shouldn't be in it. Your allowed to hide in your own little bubble if you want.

 

[Nathan]

Wait a second... did you seriously just say Jesus was NOT a historical person?
Do you know what you just said? If He was not a historical person, then that means he NEVER existed. He NEVER "dwelt among us".....
Jesus was most certainly a Historical person who lived and died about 2000 years ago.

Furthermore, he spoke with real historical people, who lived in historical places that do NOT resemble our current culture.

And honestly, if you don't care about the discussion, then you shouldn't be in it. Your allowed to hide in your own little bubble if you want.

Are you a "historical person"? Am I a "historical person"?

"Historical" - belonging to the past, not the present.

Does Jesus belong to the past, not the present?

Come on Stove. No need for insults. I am being as serious as I can about all of this. Jesus is not a historical person - He IS - NOT was.

 

[Papa Zoom]

Are you a "historical person"? Am I a "historical person"?

"Historical" - belonging to the past, not the present.

Does Jesus belong to the past, not the present?

Come on Stove. No need for insults. I am being as serious as I can about all of this. Jesus is not a historical person - He IS - NOT was.

Jesus was a historical person. Learn what that actually means. Don't quibble over a word. Is and was are both used.

 

[stovebolts]

Are you a "historical person"? Am I a "historical person"?

"Historical" - belonging to the past, not the present.

Does Jesus belong to the past, not the present?

Come on Stove. No need for insults. I am being as serious as I can about all of this. Jesus is not a historical person - He IS - NOT was.

Thanks for clarifying, you had me confused for a moment.

Jesus IS, WAS, and WILL be if we want to be correct.

But the idea that Jesus IS ( as in currently 2017) helps to make my point. Jesus used the word Hades over 2000 years ago to a culture that understood the stories of Hades. For some, Hades was a part of the cultural fabric of the day.

Here is a modern day example. If I say 9-11, what's the first thought that comes to your mind? What images pop up in your mind? Does it stir any feelings in your bones? What do you associate 9-11 with?

Now imagine somebody in the year 4017 talking about 9-11 saying that terrorism is evil, so we should not learn anything about It? It's simply an absurd notion.

Going back to Greek mythology, Jesus was trying to make a specific point to a specific set of people. Because Greek mythology was real in their world (minds), the words Jesus spoke took on specific nuances that those immersed in that culture at that specific time on history would have grabbed hold of, just like 9-11 stirs us today.

This being the case, I think bringing in historical facts into the equation helps us better understand the original intent.

If we loose the proper context of a passage, the passage takes on new meanings to accommodate the current culture. This is dangerous for many reasons. What I propose, is getting as close to the original intent, and then make a practical application for the current day. If we make the practical application the main intent, we loose the Main intent.

I hope this better explains myself.

 

[Nathan]

his·tor·i·cal
hiˈstôrək(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: historical

1. of or concerning history; concerning past events.
   "the historical background to such studies"
   • belonging to the past, not the present.
     "famous historical figures"
     synonyms: past, bygone, ancient, old, former;
     literaryof yore
     "historical figures"
     antonyms: contemporary
   • (especially of a novel or movie) set in the past.
   • (of the study of a subject) based on an analysis of its development over a period.
     "for the Darwinians, biogeography became a historical science"
     synonyms: documented, recorded, chronicled, archival; More
     
     antonyms: mythical, legendary

Jesus is alive, therefore He cannot be historical. There is a truth to be learned here. Some view Jesus as a historical person, and not someone who is actually their Lord. They see Him as Savior, who came in the past and died for their sins - a historical event is what they see it as.

Jesus is alive today, and making intercession before the Father for us AS WE SPEAK(or type).

Now, you can say that the events that surrounded His time on earth are 'historical' - but you can not truthfully say that He is historical, because He is alive.

Heb 7:22-25
This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant. The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

He is alive! Praise God! Stop trying to search for Him in the words written on paper, God wants you to see Him for who He is.

Jhn 4:23-24
But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.