"The wages of sin is death" reinterpreted to be the wages of sin is an eternal life of torment for an immoral soul that is not subject to death.
INDEX AND CHAPTER ONE html -- INDEX AND ALL TEN CHAPTERS pdf
The word Hell in the King James Version is translated from four different words, three in the Greek New Testament [Gehenna, hades and Tartarus], and one in the Hebrew Old Testament [sheol].
Both sheol in the Old Testament, and hades in the New Testament mean grave, but are translated Hell in the King James Version, and Tartarus is translated Hell one time. Most other translations [American Standard Version, New American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, and others] translate only one word [Gehenna] into Hell, and only in the New Testament. Not four different words, which have different meanings. The word Hell is not in the Old Testament in any of the above translations or is not in most other translations. Although this valley is mentioned frequently in the Old Testament, not even the King James Version translated it "Hell" as they did in the New Testament. Gehenna was a well-known valley south of Jerusalem long before it was made into a dump. Josiah might have made this valley into a rubbish dump [2 Kings 23:10; 2 Chronicles 28:1-4]. This valley is in the Old Testament, called the valley of Hinnom, but is never translated Hell, even in the King James Version. In the time of Christ this valley was the city dump. Most newer translations, and most all Bible students, now admit sheol, hades, and Tartarus do not mean Hell; but some still believe Gehenna should be translated Hell, therefore, a detailed look at this valley and its use in both the Old and New Testament is necessary.
GEHENNA IS THE NAME OF A VALLEY SOUTH OF JERUSALEM. IT IS A REAL GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION, which was used in the time of Christ as the city dump of Jerusalem. In the fifties I did some work at the dump of a city about the size of Jerusalem in the time of Christ. The refuse would be put in large piles and set on fire. All day rains, even 4 inches in one hour, could not put it out. There would have been no way for the people of Jerusalem to quench it (put out). The remains of animals were put in pits to be covered and worms (Greek, Maggots-Young, Page 1074) would get into them, and even after we put many gallons of spray in a pit, you could see the remains moving from the working of the maggots. Back in the fifties and before, cities did not have landfills; but had garbage dumps where they would put the garbage in piles and burn them. Big city garbage dumps were always burning night and day, and the smoke could sometimes be seen for miles. They were the same as Gehenna was in the time of Jesus, and were literally used for the destruction of the unwanted city garbage. Brimstone (sulfur) was added to keep the garbage burning in Gehenna, and it was always burning night and day, and those near by could see the smoke always rising. On some of the four occasions Christ used Gehenna as a metaphor those He was speaking to might have been able to see the smoke of Gehenna in the background while He was speaking. The people of Jerusalem did not have a trash pickup as we do, and had to take their own trash to Gehenna, therefore, most of those Christ was speaking to would be very familiar with the never-ending fires and worms for many would have taken their trash to it. Albert Barnes in his commentary on Matthew 5:22 says, "The extreme loathsomeness of the place, and filth and putrefaction, the corruption of the atmosphere, and the lurid fires blazing by day and by night, made it one of the most appalling and terrific objects with which a Jew was ever acquainted." Alexander Campbell says, "In the time of our Savior, it [Gehenna] was the place to which all the filth, and the dead bodies of animals and criminals from the city of Jerusalem, were conveyed. Here worms were ever reveling on the carcasses of the dead, and fires were ever kept burning to consume the noxious matter and to purge the air from its pestilential stench...This appears to be the only term in the Scriptures which favors the notion of confining hell to a local habitation." "Five Discourses On Hell" 1848. In the time of Jesus, Gehenna was used as a place of destruction; but there was no torment in it. Those who heard Jesus would understand the use of Gehenna as a symbol of destruction, but would not have been able to look at Gehenna, their city dump, and understand how it could be used as a symbol of a place of torment for there was no torment in their city dump. When most who use the King James Version, read Hell they never understand that Christ was speaking of the city dump, for they cannot from the King James Version. It was mistranslated to make the readers understand Christ to be speaking of a place where God is forever tormenting immortal souls.
A PROPER NOUN IS THE NAME OF "A PARTICULAR PERSON, PLACE, OR THING." GEHENNA IS A PROPER NOUN, THE NAME OF A WELL-KNOWN PARTICULAR PLACE NEAR JERUSALEM. TO TRANSLATE IT INTO HELL, ANOTHER PROPER NOUN, THE NAME OF A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PARTICULAR PLACE, IS MORE THAN A BAD TRANSLATION. IT IS A DELIBERATE CHANGING. Bethlehem, Dead Sea, Gehenna, Rome, and Jericho are all proper nouns and should not be translated. Why is this the only name that is changed to another name? Proper nouns (names) are the same in most languages, and therefore, they are not translated; but Gehenna was changed, not translated, into Hell, another proper noun, the name of another particular place, just because the King James translators needed to. Hell is not a translation of Gehenna, in the same way that New York is not a translation of Jerusalem. Gehenna and Hell are two different proper names of two different places. From where did the King James translators get this name, and why did they want to deliberately mislead all who read their translation? This valley is used in the New Testament only when speaking to the Jews for it was not a locality that would be known to the Gentiles that did not live near Jerusalem. It was a local particular place and Gehenna would be a name known and used only to those who lived in or near Jerusalem. The names of the city dumps of most cities are not well known to any but those who live in or near that city, and those not from that city would not know or use it. Paul did not use it in any of his letters to those not at Jerusalem.
It was not translated into Hell in the Septuagint, a translation of the Old Testament form Hebrew to Greek that was used in the time of Christ. "Hell" is not a translation but a deliberate changing of one place for another completely different place. I believe it was deliberately changed to put "Hell" in the Bible. A place has been made up that is not in the Bible; and a name given to it that is not in the Bible. If this is not adding to, what would it take to add to the Bible? That Christ used the name of a valley, which was the city dump, is completely hid from the reader of the King James Version, whether intentional or not; and they are led to believe He spoke of a different place, which has been named "Hell." The teachings of Christ have been deliberately changed. It was a geographical location on this Earth. Not somewhere under the earth or out in space. IT WAS A REAL GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION THAT EXISTED IN THE TIME OF CHRIST WHERE THE FIRES WERE CONSTANTLY KEPT BURNING SINCE IT SERVED AS AN INCINERATOR FOR THE USELESS REFUSE OF THE CITY. CHRIST USED IT AS A SYMBOL [an illustration] OF DESTRUCTION [Like the burning of the useless chaff of Luke 3:17]. GEHENNA CANNOT BE TRANSLATED OR REINTERPRETED INTO HELL. To say Gehenna, as used by Christ, is Hell; is to say it has no reference to the Gehenna [the city dump] near Jerusalem.
The Jews might have made the valley of Gehenna a dump because of their hatred of its misuse in Old Testament times, but the figures or symbols used by Christ [fire and maggots] came from its use in New Testament times, not its use in Old Testament times. THEY ARE SYMBOLS OF DESTRUCTION, NOT OF TORMENT. IN THE TIME OF CHRIST THERE WAS NO TORMENT, AND NO IDOL WORSHIPPED IN GEHENNA [the city dump]. HE WAS NOT ALLUDING TO IDOL WORSHIP OR TORMENT BUT TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THOSE WHO REJECTED HIM. Worms [maggots] do not eat living being, but dead ones, NOT TO TORMENT THEM, BUT TO CONSUME [eat up for food]. As long as there was something to burn or eat, the maggots would never die out, and the fire would not go out; but be consuming, not tormenting what was being cast in. In the time of Christ it was a place used to dispose of useless things, not to torment them. Many misuse this to show that living being will be tormented forever, and make God be doing the tormenting. LIVING VICTIMS WAS NOT PRESERVED ALIVE AND TORMENTED IN GEHENNA, BUT FIRE OR WORMS DEVOURED DEAD VICTIMS. TO MAKE IT A PLACE OF ETERNAL TORMENT IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS WHATSOEVER.
Gehenna and the Lake of Fire are often thought to be the same metaphor by many. Gehenna is a place of destruction, and the lake of fire is a place where no life as we know it could exist; they are two different symbolic pictures [Revelation 20:14]. Neither one is a symbol of an eternal life of torment. Both picture the total destruction of whatever was thrown into them.
"UNQUENCHABLE FIRE" AND "THEIR WORM DIES NOT" AS THEY ARE USED IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS: UTTER DESTRUCTION.
John the Baptist used "Unquenchable fire" on one occasion. He says Christ "will gather his wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will BURN UP with unquenchable fire" [Matthew 3:12; Luke 3:17]. Will this unquenchable fire forever torment the chaff, which has been burned up? Adam Clarke says, "He will burn up the chaff that is, the disobedient and rebellious Jews, with unquenchable fire that cannot be extinguished by man." When firefighter cannot put out a burning building, they say it is an unquenchable fire. It will go out when there is nothing more to burn. An unquenchable fire is one that man cannot put out, but not one that will burn forever. Ask any fireman what an unquenchable fire is.
And on one occasion by Christ of the burning of trash in the city dump in Mark 9:43-48 where He repeats it a second time (verses 46 and 48) in the American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, New International Version. "Unquenchable fire" is repeated five times in verses 43, 44, 45, 46 and 48 in the King James Version in Mark 9:43-48. BOTH the chaff and trash are utterly destroyed by burning to get rid of something unwanted. The chaff or the trash was not tormented. Like Gehenna, unquenchable fire is not used in the rest of the New Testament. Never used by Paul, Peter, John, etc.
Christ used the "worm that dies not" only on one occasion [Mark 9:44-48; Repeated three times in verses 44, 46 and 48 in the King James Version but only in verse 48 in the American Standard Version]. He used both the maggots and the fire of Gehenna as a symbol of total destruction, not to show that God will forever torment most of mankind. If this is not figurative language, will there be immortal maggots in Hell? Can earthly maggots eat an immortal soul in "Hell?" Even most who believes in "Hell" make the maggots figurative, not real maggots in Hell, but make the "fire" be literal fire.
If Gehenna's "unquenchable fire" and "their worm dies not" are a description of the endless punishment of the wicked in "Hell," the silence of the New Testament writers would be unexplainable. (1) Acts, a history of the preaching and church for about thirty years does not mention Gehenna, unquenchable fire, or immortal maggots. (2) In none of Paul's fourteen letters, he never mentioned any of them. (3) Peter, John, James, and Jude are also as silent as Paul. (4) Neither can they be found in the Book of Revelation.
[1] The one time Christ used "unquenchable fire" in Mark 9:48, He was quoting from Isaiah 66:24. TO UNDERSTAND HIS WORDS, IT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD HOW THE OLD TESTAMENT USED THEM. THIS WAS A WELL-KNOWN EXPRESSION AND WOULD BE UNDERSTOOD BY THOSE HEARING CHRIST, just as much of Revelation is to be understood by the way the same symbols are used in the Old Testament. "And the strong man will become tinder, his work also a spark, thus, they shall both burn together, and there will be none to quench them" [Isaiah 1: 31]. Jeremiah warned Jerusalem of the consequence of their sins, "Then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem and it shall not be quenched" [Jeremiah 17:27]. His warning was fulfilled in 2 Chronicles 36:19-21. Jerusalem was destroyed with an "unquenchable fire." It consumed all, and was not quenched unto it went out when there was nothing more to consume; then the unquenchable fire went out. Jerusalem is not burning today. An unquenchable fire is not an eternal fire, but one that cannot be put out unto there is nothing to burn. Those who believe in Hell change "unquenchable" into "eternal" then move the unquenchable fire that destroyed Jerusalem from Jerusalem on this earth and put this "eternal fire" in their "Hell" which they say is not on this earth. First, they must change the fire and second; they must move it from Jerusalem to "Hell." Isaiah says, " For behold, the Lord will come in fire and His chariots like the whirlwind, to render His anger with fury, and His rebuke with the flames of fire. For the Lord will execute judgment by fire and by His sword on all flesh, and those slain by the Lord will be many...Then they shall go forth and look on the corpses [dead bodies in American Standard Version] of the men who have transgressed against me. For their [the corpses] worm shall not die, and their [the corpses] fire shall not be quenched; and they [the corpses] shall be an abhorrence to all mankind" [Isaiah 66:15-24]. The worms consumed the corpses, and the fires were not quenched, unto there was no more flesh to consume or burn. IT WAS CORPSES, DEAD BODIES WHICH WERE ON THE EARTH, NOT IMMORTAL SOULS IN HELL THAT WERE BEING CONSUMED BY THE UNQUENCHABLE FIRE AND UNDYING MAGGOTS AND SCREAMING IN ANGUISH AND PAIN. THOSE PEOPLE BACK IN THE TIME OF ISAIAH DID NOT LOOK FROM HEAVEN DOWN INTO HELL AND SEE LIVING SOULS BEING EATEN BY MAGGOTS. IT WAS THE LIVING PEOPLE ON THIS EARTH IN THE TIME OF ISAIAH THAT SAW REAL DEAD BODIES ON THIS EARTH BEING EATEN AND BURNED, NOT IMMORTAL SOULS IN HEAVEN THAT "SHALL GO FORTH AND LOOK ON THE CORPSES" AND SEE THE DEAD BODIES THAT ARE ON THIS EARTH AS WORMS AND FIRE CONSUMING THEM. HOW CAN FIRE OR WORMS ETERNALLY TORMENT A DEAD BODY? It is the fire that is unquenchable and the maggots that do not die, not the corpses that were being burnt up or eaten, there is nothing said about them being alive and in torment. There is not even a hint that the corpses were aware of anything. For this to prove the soul is immortal they would have to be viewing disembodied immortal souls that had been "slain by the Lord" [Isaiah 66:16] but were still living, not viewing dead bodies that were on this earth. It was living people viewing dead bodies that had been "slain by the Lord," not living people on this earth looking into Hell and seeing an immaterial, invisible part of a living person being tormented in Hell. WITHOUT DOUBT, THIS WAS A JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT ON THIS EARTH THAT HAS ENDED, NOT A PUNISHMENT IN HELL THAT WILL NEVER END. (1) The Lord will SLAY the ungodly ones; it says nothing about the Lord TORMENTING them. (2) The witness sees the RESULT OF THIS DESTRUCTION (slaying). They see the CORPSES, DEAD BODIES being consumed by fire and maggots, not a living immaterial, invisible part of a person. (3) They do not see them in pain and anguish, not in endless tortured for the corpses they see are dead.
[2] "Therefore thus says the Lord Jehovah: Behold, mine anger and my wrath shall be poured out upon this place, upon man and upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon the fruit of the ground; and it shall burn, and shall not be quenched" [Jeremiah 7:20].
[3] Ezekiel also speaks of the destruction of Judah using the imagery of a forest burning. "And the word of Jehovah came unto me, saying, son of man, set your face toward the south, and drop your word toward the south, and prophesy against the forest to the field in the South; and say to the forest of the South, Hear the word of Jehovah: Thus says the Lord Jehovah, Behold, I will kindle a fire in you, and it shall consume every green tree in you, and it shall devour ever green tree in you, and ever dry tree; the flaming flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from the south to the north shall be burnt thereby. And all flesh shall see that I, Jehovah, have kindled it; it shall not be quenched" [Ezekiel 20:47-48].
Adam Clarke: "The forest of the south field is the city of Jerusalem; which was as full of inhabitants as the forest is of trees. I will kindle a fire, i. e., I will send war; and it shall devour ever green tree,, i. e., the most eminent and substantial of the inhabitants; and every dry tree, i. e., the lowest and meanest also; it shall not be quenched, i. e., till the land be utterly ruined."
[4] Isaiah describes the desolation of Edom, "For my sword has drunk its fill in heaven; behold, it shall come down upon Edom, and upon the people of my curse, to judgment...For Jehovah has a day of vengeance, a year of recompense for the cause of Zion. And the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch, and the dust thereof into brimstone, and the land there of shall become burning pitch. It shall not be quenched night nor day; and the smoke thereof shall go up forever; from generation to generation it shall lay waste; none shall pass through it forever and ever. But the pelican and the porcupine shall possess it; and the owl and the raven shall dwell therein" [Isaiah 34:6-15]. If this fire that "shall not be quenched night nor day" is the Hell that is taught today, how is it that "none shall pass through it forever and ever"? Is their no one that shall be in Hell but pelican, porcupine, owl, and ravens? This is clearly an earthly judgment on Edom that has long passed, not an unquenchable fire in Hell after the judgment day.
[5] For more examples of God's judgments in this world being spoken of as an unquenchable fire see Isaiah 1:31; Jeremiah 17:27; 21:12; Amos 5:6; 2 Kings 22:26-17; 2 Chronicles 34:24-25.
THESE PASSAGES SHOW THAT THE WRITERS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT USED "UNQUENCHABLE FIRE" AS A FIGURE OF A JUDGMENT BY WAR AND FAMINE ON WICKED NATIONS. When Jesus was speaking of the fire and worms of Gehenna, he was giving a description of the finality of the destruction of Israel who rejected Him, which His audience would understand. Those hearing Christ would understand how unquenchable fire and undying worms were used in the Old Testament and therefore would understand His use of them. They would have known that Gehenna He was speaking of was a foul place of destruction where worthless things were disposed of, and would have known He was saying the destruction He was speaking of would be like the destruction of the garbage in Gehenna, like the destruction of Jerusalem by unquenchable fire and maggots in the Old Testament. They knew they were being threatened with complete destruction just as the trash in the city dump. Jerusalem was destroyed and burnt, and historian's say in AD 70 many dead bodies were burned and many were left unburied for the maggots. "And the strong man will become tinder, his work also a spark, thus, they shall both burn together, and there will be none to quench them" [Isaiah 1:31].
Summary: The worm that dies not, and the unquenchable fire, as used in the Old Testament and by Christ, proves UTTER DESTRUCTION, not everlasting torment. GEHENNA IS BELIEVED BY THOSE WHO TEACH EVERLASTING TORMENT TO BE THEIR STRONG HOLD, BUT THE SYMBOLS OF MAGGOTS EATING DEAD BODIES ON THIS EARTH, AND FIRE CONSUMING UNWANTED TRASH ["dead bodies" Isaiah 66:24] ARE SYMBOLS OF DESTRUCTION, NOT SYMBOLS OF TORMENT. MANY THINK THIS IS THE STRONGEST PROOF OF EVERLASTING TORMENT IN THE BIBLE, BUT IT IS THE OTHER WAY AROUND. IT IS A STRONG PROOF THAT THE LOST WILL BE EVERLASTING DESTROYED. IT DOES NOT PROVE THAT A SADISTIC GOD WILL FOREVER TORMENT ANYONE.
Gehenna was first mentioned in Joshua 15:8; 18:16, although it was never called "Gehenna" in the Old Testament. Ahaz "burnt incense in the valley of the son of Hinnom, and burnt his children in the fire" [2 Chronicles 28:3; 2 Kings 16:3]. Manasseh also burnt his children in the fire in this valley [2 Chronicles 33:6].
Jeremiah 7:31-32 Children of Judah burned their sons and daughters in the fire in this valley, and Jehovah said, "And they have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind. It shall no more be called Topheth, nor The valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter: for they shall bury in Topheth, till there be no place to bury. And the dead bodies of this people shall be food for the birds of the heavens, and for the beasts of the earth; and none shall frighten them away." [Note: Those who teach "Hell fire" are saying to God, "O yes it came into Your mind. You have said You are going to burn most of Your children in a fire much hotter than they burnt their children in"].
Jeremiah 19:1-15 "Thus says the Lord, Go and buy a potter's earthenware jar, and take some to the elders of the people and some of the senior priests. Then go out to the valley of Ben-hinnom, which is by the entrance of the potsherd gate; and proclaim there the words that I shall tell you, and say, Hear the word of the Lord, O kings of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem: thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Behold I am about to bring a calamity upon this place, at which the ears of everyone that hears of it will tingle. Because they have forsaken Me and have made this an alien place and have burned sacrifices in it to other gods that neither they nor their forefathers nor the kings of Judah had ever known, and because they have filled this place with the blood of the innocent and have built the high places of Baal to burn their sons in the fire as burnt offerings to Baal, a thing which I never commanded nor spoke of, nor did it enter My mind; therefore, behold, days are coming, declares the Lord, when this place will no longer be called Topheth or the valley of Ben-hinnom, but rather the valley of Slaughter. And I shall make void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place, and I shall cause them to fall by the sword before their enemies and by the hand of those who seek their life; and I shall give over their carcasses as food for the birds of the sky and the beast of the earth. I shall also make this city a desolation and an object of hissing; everyone who passes by it will be astonished and hiss because of the disasters. And I shall make them eat the flesh of their sons and the flesh of their daughters, and they will eat one another's flesh in the siege and in the distress with which their enemies and those who seek their life will distress them. Then you are to break the jar in the sight of the men who accompany you and say to them, Thus says the Lord of hosts, Just so shall I break this people and this city, even as one breaks a potter's vessel, which cannot again be repaired; and they will bury in Topheth because there is no other place for burial. This is how I shall treat this place and its inhabitants, declares the Lord so as to make this city like Topheth. And the houses of Jerusalem and the houses of the kings of Judah will be defiled like the place Topheth, because of all the houses on whose rooftops they burned sacrifices to all the heavenly host and poured out libations to other gods. Then Jeremiah came from Topheth, where the Lord has sent him to prophesy; and he stood in the court of the Lord's house and said to all the people; thus says the Lord of host, the God of Israel, Behold, I am about to bring on this city and all its towns the entire calamity that I have declared against it, because they have stiffened their necks so as not to heed My words." Jeremiah used the valley of Gehenna to warn Israel of their destruction as a nation. Christ also used the valley of Gehenna to warn Israel of their destruction as a nation.
Many believe the 185,000 Assyrians [Isaiah 37:36] were killed by the angel of the Lord in this valley when they were laying siege to Jerusalem. They were killed near Jerusalem and it could have been in this valley, but I can find no sure proof that it was. See Isaiah 30:31-33.
Josiah "defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the children of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter to pass through the fire to Molech" [2 Kings 23:10]. This may be when it became the trash dump that it is in the New Testament.
It is also mentioned in Nehemiah 11:30; Jeremiah 19:2. Because of their worshiping other gods in it, God made it a place of destruction and death, not torment. Topheth [Gehenna in the New Testament] literally means a place of burning, and a place of death, "The valley of slaughter" [Jeremiah 7:31].
EVERY REFERENCE TO GEHENNA IN THE OLD TESTAMENT WAS TO A PLACE ON THIS EARTH. NOT ONE OF THEM SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT ETERNAL TORMENT AFTER THE JUDGMENT. It is admitted by all that Gehenna in the Old Testament was not a place of eternal torment, and it was not changed to "Hell" in any Old Testament passage, not even in the King James Version which is sometimes called "Hell's Bible."
Henry Thayer: "Gehenna, the name of a valley on the S. and E. of Jerusalem...The Jews so abolished the place after these horrible sacrifices had been abolished by king Josiah (2 k.xxiii, 10) that they cast into it not only all manner of refuses, but even the dead bodies of animals and unburied criminals who had been executed. And since fires were always needed to consume the dead bodies, that the air might not become tainted by the putrefaction, it came to pass that the place was called (Gehenna)." "A Greek-English Lexicon Of the New Testament" Page 111. He also says in "Theology" "Our inquiry shows that it is employed in the Old Testament in its literal or geographical sense only, as the name of the valley lying on the south of Jerusalem-that the Septuagint proves it retained this meaning as late as B. C. 150-that it is not found at all in the Apocrypha; neither of Philo, nor in Josephus, whose writings cover the very times of the Savior and the New Testament, thus leaving us without a single example of contemporary usage to determine its meaning at this period-that from A. D. 150-159, we find in two Greek authors, Justin and Clement of Alexandria, the first resident in Italy and the last in Egypt that Gehenna began to be used to designate a place of punishment after death, but not endless punishment since Clement was a believer in universal restoration-that the first time we find Gehenna used in this sense in any Jewish writing is near the beginning of the third century, in the Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel, two hundred years too late to be of any service in the argument-and lastly, that the New Testament usage shows that while it had not wholly lost its literal sense, it was also employed in the time of Christ as a symbol of moral corruption and wickedness; BUT MORE ESPECIALLY AS A FIGURE OF THE TERRIBLE JUDGMENTS OF GOD ON THE REBELLIOUS AND SINFUL NATION OF THE JEWS" Henry Thayer, "Theology."
Canon Farrar: "In the Old Testament it is merely the pleasant valley of Hinnom (GeHinnom), subsequently desecrated by idolatry, and especially by Moloch worship, and defiled by Josiah on this account. (See 1 Kings 11:7; 2 Kings 23:10; Jer 7:31; 19:10-14; Isa. 30:33; Tophet). Used according to Jewish tradition, as the common sewage of the city, the corpses of the worst criminals were flung into it unburied, and fires were lit to purify the contaminated air. It then became a word which secondarily implied (1) the severest judgment which a Jewish court could pass upon a criminal-the casting forth of his unburied corpse amid the fire and worms of this polluted valley; and (2) a punishment-which to the Jews a body never meant an end-less punishment beyond the grave. WHATEVER MAY BE THE MEANING OF THE ENTIRE PASSAGES IN WHICH THE WORD OCCURS, 'HELL' MUST BE A COMPLETE MISTRANSLATION, SINCE IT ATTRIBUTES TO THE TERM USED BY CHRIST A SENSE ENTIRELY DIFFERENTLY FROM THAT IN WHICH IT WAS UNDERSTOOD BY OUR LORD'S HEARERS, AND THEREFORE, ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE SENSE IN WHICH HE COULD HAVE USED IT." From the preface to "Eternal Hope."
"Gehenna, the Greek word translated hell in the common version, occurs twelve times. It is the Grecian mode of spelling the Hebrew words, which are translated, 'The Valley of Hinnom.' This valley was also called Tophet, a detestation, an abomination. Into this place were cast all kinds of filth, with the carcasses of beasts and unburied bodies of criminals, who had been executed. Continual fires were kept to consume these. Sennacherib's army of 185,000 men was slain there in one night. Here, children were burnt to death in sacrifice to Moloch. GEHENNA, THEN, AS OCCURRING IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, SYMBOLIZES DEATH AND UTTER DESTRUCTION, BUT IN NO PLACE SYMBOLIZES A PLACE OF ETERNAL TORMENT." From the Emphatic Diaglot
George Lemasters says Gehenna is said to have been a receptacle of bones, bodies of beasts and criminals, and all unclean things. Page 265, Florida College Annual Lectures, 1975.
Ron Halbrook says Gehenna became a common refuse dump for the dead bodies of criminals, animal carcasses, and other kind of filth. Page 123, Florida College Annual Lectures 1986.
WHATEVER WAS CAST INTO GEHENNA [the city dump], IF IT WERE TRASH, OR THE BODIES OF CRIMINALS WERE CAST INTO THE TRASH DUMP TO BE DESTROYED, NOT TORMENTED. Trash or dead bodies cannot be tormented. Whatever was cast into Gehenna was soon consumed. God is a consuming fire [Hebrews 12:29].
Gehenna was used on four occasions by Christ, and was used one time by James, the brother of the Lord [James 3:6]. The name Gehenna is in the four gospels eleven times but as the four gospels repeat the same discourses, Jesus did not really use it more than six or seven times and these were all used in only four occasions
Both Christ and James used the name of the city dump [Gehenna]. Neither the English nor a Greek word for "Hell" did not exist then. Even in Old English, Hell did not have the meaning it has today. The name Gehenna is in the four gospels eleven times, but as the four gospels repeat the same discourses, Jesus did not really use it more than six or seven times and these were all used on only four occasions.
Gehenna is used 3 times in Matthew 5. Christ is teaching His disciples, who at that time were under the Law.
THE FIVE "YOU HAVE HEARD" Five things the disciples had heard that the Law said.
[1] THE FIRST "YOU HAVE HEARD" Matthew 5:21-26 "You have heard that the ancients were told, 'You shall not commit murder' and 'Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.' But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca,' shall be guilty before the Supreme Court; and whoever shall say, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell [Greek-Gehenna of fire]" New American Standard Bible. Gehenna, the city dump of Jerusalem was always burning, day and night, 24/7.
The three crimes that were judged by the courts: All three have to do with the way they felt toward their brother. "Murder shall be liable to the court: but I say to you everyone who is,"
Still a part of the first "you have heard" is this lesson on how to avoid the courts.
[2] THE SECOND "YOU HAVE HEARD" that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery'" Matthew 5:27-30 "And if your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from you: for it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish, and not your whole body be cast into hell [Greek - Gehenna]. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from you: for it is profitable for you that one of your members should perish, and not your whole body go into hell [Greek - Gehenna]."
Christ is teaching them that if there is a danger that they may look on a woman to lust after her, if their eye causes them to stumble, cut it out and cast it away. If taken literal this would have been unlawful by the Old Testament Law they were under. The lesson to them was that they were to remove anything from their lives, which would cause them to be judged unworthy to be buried, and their bodies to be cast into Gehenna. Under the Law adultery was death and could therefore cause their bodies to be cast to the fire and maggots in Gehenna [Leviticus 20:10-16]. The lesson to them and to us is that if something in our life that would cause us to be lost, even if it is as dear to us as our eye or hand, it needs to be cut off unless the whole body be destroyed, the removal of anything in our life that would cause us to be destroyed by God as worthless trash which was destroyed in Gehenna. Christ was saying to them anything in their life, adultery or any other sin that would cause them to perish needed to be removed. THOSE THAT USE THIS TO PROVE HELL DO NOT BELIEVE THAT TO "CUT OFF" ANY PART OF THE BODY OF A LIVING PERSON WILL KEEP THAT PERSON OUT OF HELL AFTER DEATH. TO MANY, THE HAND AND THE EYE ARE A LITERAL HAND OR EYE, BUT "THE WHOLE BODY" IS NOT A "BODY" AT ALL BUT A FORMLESS, NO SUBSTANCE, INVISIBLE PART OF A PERSON THAT HAS NO BODY.
The loss of a hand or eye is contrasted with the whole body [of which the hand was a part] being cast into Gehenna; not the loss of a hand being contrasted with the soul [of which the hand was NOT a part] being cast into Hell. The "eye" and the "right hand" are a part of the "whole body." No one can cut off the hand of a soul which they say has no substance and Christ does not change from parts of the earthly body to something that most who believe in "it" says "it" has no body. No one that I know of who believes "Hell" is an eternal place of torment believes the human body or any part of it will be eternally tormented in that eternal place. In the same sentence, did Christ change from a literal physical hand to a "soul"? IF THE "WHOLE BODY" IS A FORMLESS NO SUBSTANCE SOUL, THEN THE "HAND," WHICH WAS CUT OFF THIS BODY IS A PART OF THE "WHOLE BODY," AND WOULD ALSO BE A FORMLESS NO SUBSTANCE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD NOT CUT OFF AND IF WE COULD, THEN THE CUT OFF HAND OF AN IMMORTAL SOUL WOULD BE AS IMMORTAL AS THE REST OF THE NO SUBSTANCE FORMLESS SOUL. IN TODAY'S THEOLOGY NO ONE BELIEVES YOU CAN CUT OFF THE HAND OF A SPIRIT SO THAT THE REST OF THE SPIRIT WILL NOT GO TO HELL. The "whole body" is not a spirit that will go to Hell [Gehenna], but it may not go to Hell if the hand of the soul or spirit had been cut off. It is the hand that is a part of this earthly body that is to be cut off that the whole earthly body would not be cast into a real earthy valley. Today this has been changed to an invisible immortal hand that cannot die, but it is to be cut off an immortal soul that cannot die because if it is not cut off the soul that cannot die will be cast into a place of torment that is not on this earth. I have never heard anyone say what he or she thinks will happen to the cut off immortal hand that cannot die. No one that I know of believes the "soul" shall "enter into life," which he or she says is Heaven, with a cut off hand of that soul in Hell. The "soul" in Heaven but it's "hand" in Hell! They don't believe that a disfigurement of the body, whether it is a self inflicted disfigurement or any other disfigurement, will be passed onto the immaterial, invisible part of a person in Heaven. Neither do they believe any person has the power to cut of any part of his soul. Most that believe in "Hell" make this cutting off the hand be figurative language meaning to remove anything from our lives that will cause us to sin, but they want to make just one word in the sentence be literal. They must first mistranslate "Gehenna" into "Hell" and then make just this one word out of context and be literal. Gehenna must be changed to Hell and made literal, but the cutting off the hand not be literal.
"Destroy" must be made to mean, "preserve." God's word says He will destroy the soul, but many change this and make it say God will preserve the soul forever. There seems to be no end to the changes they are willing to make. "Destroy the body and soul" must be changed to "preserve the soul but destroy the body."
A dead body part or a whole dead body being cast into the city dump [Gehenna] to be destroyed by fire or worms is not a picture of a living immortal soul being tormented forever. There is no suggestion of eternal torment in this. THERE IS NOTHING, NOT ONE WORD ABOUT AN IMMORTAL SOUL OR AN IMMORTAL SPIRIT IN THIS PASSAGE. It was their "whole body" that would be cast into Gehenna, not just an immaterial, invisible part of a person that will be cast into "Hell." Nothing is said about an immaterial part of a person in Matthew 5:22, 29 or 30. "Soul" is not in Matthew 5. IT IS NOT PREACHED TODAY THAT THE BODY WILL BE CAST INTO GEHENNA BUT THAT THE "SOUL" WILL BE CAST INTO "HELL." THIS PASSAGE IS ONE OF THE MOST USED PASSAGE TO PROVE A PERSON HAS IN IMMATERIAL PART THAT WILL BE IN AN ETERNAL PLACE OF TORMENT, BUT NEITHER THE IMMATERIAL PART OF A PERSON OR THE PLACE OF TORMENT IS IN IT. EVERYTHING THAT CHRIST SAID IS CHANGED AND THAT BY THOSE THAT SAY THEY DO NOT CHANGE THE BIBLE.
[3] The third "You have heard" "You shall not forswear yourself" [Matthew 5:33].
[4] The fourth "You have heard" An eye for an eye [Matthew 5:38].
[5] The fifth "You have heard" Love your neighbor [Matthew 5:43].
All five of the "you have heard" are about things in the Old Testament Law, not about things in the life after the judgment.
"FEAR HIM, WHO AFTER HE HAS KILLED HAS POWER TO CAST INTO GEHENNA" Luke 12:4-5. GOD IS ABLE TO DESTROY BOTH SOUL AND BODY IN GEHENNA Matthew 10:28. This was spoken to the twelve apostles when they were sent forth to preach "The kingdom of heaven is at hand" [Matthew 10:1-28]. He was persecuted, and they would be, but they were to "Fear them not." "But I will warn you whom you shall fear: fear him, who AFTER HE HAS KILLED has power to cast into Gehenna" [Luke 12:4-5]. "AFTER HE HAS KILLED" must be changed to "ALIVE BUT SEPARATED FROM GOD" to fit today's teaching for an immortal soul cannot be killed and this passage must be made to teach an immortal soul that cannot be killed is alive and tormented in "Hell." After all, they cannot have God killing an immortal soul before He cast it into "Hell" could they?
Man can destroy the life we now have, but God alone is able to destroy [Apollumi] both soul [life-psukee] and body in Gehenna "AFTER HE HAS KILLED." To prove Hell, many have this earthly body tormented in Hell after the Judgment Day. If both the body and soul are destroyed in Gehenna proves an immortal "immaterial, invisible part of man" [W. E. Vine] that cannot die will be tormented in Hell, then it also proves the earthy body will be tormented in Hell. IF THE "IMMATERIAL, INVISIBLE PART OF MAN" CANNOT DIE BECAUSE IT IS IMMORTAL FROM BIRTH, GOD COULD DO NO MORE THAN A MAN. HE COULD ONLY DESTROY [KILL] THE BODY, BUT NOT THE IMMORTAL "IMMATERIAL, INVISIBLE PART OF MAN" THAT CANNOT DIE AND CANNOT BE DESTROYED. Was Jesus telling the twelve apostles not to fear God? He is if the soul [psukee] is immortal from birth and cannot be killed. Does it mean what it says, or does "destroy," mean to "torment forever," as today's theology interprets and demands? If it were as is taught today that destroy means torment, and Gehenna means Hell, then they have God tormenting both this body of flesh and the "soul" in Hell forever, which is more than they want it to say, but when they change Gehenna to "Hell," this passage teaches something that even those who make the change do not believe. Will this earthly body be in "Hell" and be immortal? If it is to be tormented forever in "Hell," then the earthly body is as immortal as the soul is. When a person has killed the body, he can do no more. At the worse, a person can only take a few years of life from you, but there will be a resurrection and God can take an eternity of life from you.
God has the power to kill, or the power to torment (if He was that kind of a God, a fiendish and sadistic God); but we must look to the Bible to know what He will do and not look to theology. A man can only take this life from you, then can do no more, and most of the twelve Christ was speaking to were killed by men who could do no more, but there will be a resurrection of all they kill. God can DESTROY this life, and then DESTROY the resurrected life after the judgment. There is a second death for those not in Christ.
Apollumi is used 95 times in the New Testament. In the King James Version it is life and things that is destroyed (apollumi) 94 times; Matthew 10:28 is the only time it is the soul that is destroyed (apollumi). The other 94 times it is body that is destroyed (the end of life of the body) or things that are destroyed in the King James Version. It is translated destroy, perish, lose, lost, and die. Matthew 10:28 is the only time it is used of the soul and it says God is able to kill [apollumi] the soul just as the body is killed in the other passages. Those who believe the soul cannot die must deny the plain statement made by Christ.
Men did kill the bodies of many disciples Christ give this warning to them, but this has no effect on their or their ultimate existence. Death is but a brief sleep, which will be as if it were only a moment from death unto the resurrection. [Deuteronomy 31:16; 2 Samuel 7:12; 1 Kings 1:21; Job 7:21; 14:12; Psalms 13:31 Jeremiah 51:39, 57; 1 Kings 2:10; 11:21, 43; 14:20, 31; 15:8, 24; 16:6, 28; 22:40, 50; 2 Kings 8:24; 10:35; 13:9, 13; 14:16, 22, 29; 15:7, 22, 38; 16:20; 20:21; 21:18; 24:6; 2 Chronicles 9:31; 12:16; 14:1; 16:13; 21:1; 26:2, 23; 27:9; 28:27; 32:33; 33:20; Job 3:13; Isaiah 26:19; Matthew 9:24; 25:5; 27:52; Mark 5:39; Luke 8:52; John 11:11-14; Acts 7:60; 13:36; 1 Corinthians 15:6, 18, 20, 51; 1 Thessalonians 4:13-15; 5:10; 2 Peter 3:4]. There will be a resurrection, and in the ultimate eternal sense, man cannot kill the soul-life [psukee]. God can destroy and make our memory to perish [Deuteronomy 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:6; Ecclesiastes 9:4-6; Psalms 31:12; 88:5; Isaiah 26:14; Ecclesiastes 9:10; Matthew 10:28; Luke 12:5; Romans 6:23]. If death does not indicate unconsciousness, then the analogy of sleep, which is used throughout the Bible, is meaningless for the dead are not asleep. It is more than just meaningless, being asleep when they are awake in Heaven or Hell would be an outright lie that is repeated frequently.
The second death is never called a sleep because there will be no waking up or resurrection from it.
Many believe that THIS DESTROYING BY GOD IS AFTER THE RESURRECTION AND JUDGMENT, but just do not agree on if destroy means destroy or if destroy mean an everlasting life with punishment. IT IS CLEARLY SAID THAT THE DESTROYING IN THIS PASSAGE IS IN GEHENNA. However, if the destroying were after the judgment, even then it would not prove no one could be destroyed. "Fear him who is able to destroy" if it is as many believe it to be, at death, or as others believe it is after the judgment, this passage clearly says God is able to destroy the psukee [life-soul]. I know many who have a gun but there is no point to fear someone because he has a gun and could kill you if you know he never will. There would be no point to fear God because he has the power and could destroy you, but you know he never will. Jesus is not just making an idle threat. GOD IS TO BE FEARED BECAUSE HE WILL DESTROY. The fear is not of the fact that He can, but on the fact that He will destroy, on the certainty that He will destroy. IF THERE IS AN "IMMATERIAL, INVISIBLE PART OF MAN" THAT IS IMMORTAL AND CAN NEVER DIE, THEN GOD CANNOT KILL IT AND CHRIST IS SAYING DO NOT FEAR GOD FOR HE CANNOT KILL THE IMMATERIAL, INVISIBLE PART OF A PERSON, BUT THOSE THAT BELIEVE THE "SOUL" IS IMMORTAL DO NOT BELIEVE THIS IS THE MESSAGE CHRIST WAS GIVING. If a person kills us, God will raise us at the judgment. Those whom God destroys are lost, destroyed forever with no hope of a resurrection to life. God is able to destroy both body and soul is changed to: God is able to preserve both body and soul. Without this change, there would be no way to put "Hell" in this passage, and without it there would be no way to put the "soul" in "Hell" without also putting the body in "Hell"; but most important, without changing this passage, there would be no way to keep the soul that many say, "cannot be destroyed" from being destroyed.
EITHER WAY:
If the words "immortal soul" were substituted for "soul" and "life," it would be absurd. "But are not able to kill the immortal soul [life-psukee]: but fear him who is able to destroy both immortal soul [life-psukee] and body in Hell [Gehenna]...He that finds his immortal soul [life-psukee] shall lose his immortal soul [life-psukee]; and he that loses his immortal soul for my sake shall find his immortal soul " [Matthew 10:28-39]. In using this to prove that a person has an immortal soul, which cannot be destroyed, they prove that it can be. If psukee were an immortal soul, then God would be able to destroy this immortal soul. THERE IS NO STRONGER WAY IN WHICH TO SAY GOD CAN AND WILL DESTROY IT. He is to be feared by those of the world because He will. There would be no reason to fear Him if He could not, or if He will not destroy the psukee [soul or life]. I FIND IT STRANGE THAT ONE OF THE MOST USED PASSAGES TO PROVE THERE IS AN "IMMATERIAL, INVISIBLE PART OF MAN" THAT CANNOT BE DESTROYED SAYS GOD CAN DESTROY IT; BUT, NO STRANGER THEN THE USE OF DEATH TO MEAN AN ETERNAL LIFE OF TORMENT WITH GOD DOING THE TORMENTING. By saying black is white you can prove anything.
The point some are trying to make from God being "able to destroy" is that there is life after death, an immortal soul that cannot be destroyed, which this does not prove. At the resurrection there will be life that GOD CAN DESTROY, not that there is an immortal soul that God cannot destroy. IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT AN "IMMATERIAL, INVISIBLE PART OF MAN" THAT IS ALIVE BEFORE THE RESURRECTION THAT CANNOT BE DESTROYED. It does not say there will be any life from death unto the resurrection. That there will be a resurrection is taught through out the New Testament, but if all are alive when Christ comes, there cannot be a resurrection of those that are not dead. GOD CAN DESTROY THE LIFE NOW IS AND THE LIFE THAT WILL BE AFTER THE RESURRECTION. He is to be feared by the lost because He will destroy the life they will have after the resurrection.
PROVES MORE THAN THEY WANT Matthew 10:28 proves more than they want it to prove. More than they believe, for they do not believe this earthly body will be tormented in "Hell" or that the "immaterial, invisible part of man" will be destroyed. But, to prove their Hell, they make destroy be just a loss of well being, but still alive and being tormented in Hell. If the immaterial, invisible part of a person is not destroyed, but just lost its well-being, then the earthly body is not destroyed, but has just lost its well being. The same thing happens to both the body and the immaterial, invisible part of a person, therefore, if destroy means one is tormented, not destroyed, then it means the earthly body will be tormented in Hell just as the soul will.
The word "destroy" is from apollumi. Christ is speaking of a soul [life-psukee] whose destruction is expressed by the same Greek word, apollumi, as is the destruction of the body. Whatever you believe the "soul" to be, it is shown to be as destructible as the body is. WHAT GOD CREATED, GOD CAN DESTROY. Matthew 10:28 does not say a person has an inter "immaterial, invisible part" that God cannot destroy, It SAYS GOD CAN DESTROY BOTH THE BODY AND THE PSUKEE [life].
The advocate's of an immortal soul say, "destroy" [apollumi] means, "torment." If this is true, "torment" should be used in place of "destroy" in all places. Try it. The same is true when apollumi is made to mean "a loss of well-being."
"Destroy both body and soul [psukee]" Just as certain as the garbage of Jerusalem was consumed by the fire, God will destroy, consume both body and soul [living creature]. When Jesus says that God can destroy the body and soul in Gehenna, it is the whole being of man, not just his "well-being." THERE IS NO GROUND FOR THE TRADITIONAL VIEW OF AN IMMORTAL SOUL THAT CANNOT BE DESTROYED IN THIS PASSAGE OR ANY OTHER PASSAGE, BUT THERE IS GROUND FOR THE WHOLE OF MAN, BODY AND SOUL [life-psukee], BEING DESTROYED IN THIS AND MANY OTHER PASSAGES.
"Not able to kill the soul [life]," and "destroy both soul and body in Gehenna," are the same thing. JESUS USED BOTH KILL AND DESTROY, BUT SAID NOTHING ABOUT TORMENT. Theology must be used to make destroy mean torment for if the words kill and destroy means kill and destroy, there will be no living "souls" to be tormented in Hell, therefore, no Hell.
FROM THE SAME LESSON TO HIS DISCIPLES (God is able to destroy). Lose his life [Greek soul-psukee] must be made to mean an everlasting life of torment [Matthew 10:39].
When save and lose in Matthew 10:39 are applied to soul as it is used in today's theology, it makes nonsense.
Life and death and finding and losing life are the same thing. Death and losing life are not everlasting life separated from God. (1) "He that finds his life shall lose it," by some kind of magic charm is turns into eternal life in Hell. "Shall lose it (his life)" is made to mean an ETERNAL LIFE of torment in Hell. How could anyone know this? What dictionary is being used? (2) "He that loses his life for my sake shall find it." Losing the life of the body - being put to death for believing in Christ, also by some kind of magic is turned into eternal life for an "immaterial, invisible part of man" at death before the resurrection. Their magic makes the resurrection useless for they say eternal life is given to all at birth and none can lose it, therefore, Christ cannot give us life. He can only give a reward for being good and can only punish for being bad. TO MAKE PSUKEE BE IN "IMMATERIAL INVISIBLE, IMMORTAL PART OF MAN" THAT CANNOT DIE MAKES IT BE NONSENSE. No doctrine of the Bible is more plain than the loss of life in this passage is the lost of existence, not eternal life with torment for the sinner, and that saving or finding life is to find eternal life at the resurrection.
This was a different discourse than Matthew 5:29-30 above, but He was teaching the same thing. See the notes on the first occasion above. Matthew 18:9 "And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from you: it is good for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the hell [Greek-Gehenna] of fire." Mark 9:43, 45, 47 "And if your hand cause you to stumble, cut it off: it is good for you to enter into life maimed, rather then having your two hands to go into hell [Greek-Gehenna], into the unquenchable fire. And if your foot cause you to stumble, cut it off; it is good for you to enter into life halt, rather then having your two feet to be cast into hell [Greek-Gehenna]. And if your eye cause you to stumble, cast it out; it is good for you to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell [Greek-Gehenna] where their worm dies not, the fire is not quenched" "Where their worm dies not, the fire is not quenched" is in Mark 9:44, 46, and 48 in some translations. The foot note in the American Standard Version says, "Verses 44 and 46 (which are identical with verse. 48) are omitted by the best ancient authorities." "Where their worm dies not, the fire is not quenched" is a direct quotation from Isaiah 66:23-24 where it is speaking of dead bodies on this earth being burn with fire and eaten by worms. Gehenna, a place on this earth, has been changed to "Hell" a place not on this earth; and no one can give a Bible passage that tells of a place called "Hell."
Gehenna is used two times in a sermon to the Scribes and Pharisees warning them of God's rejection of Israel. In Matthew 23 and 24 Christ speaks of the destruction of Israel. "All these things shall come upon this generation" [Matthew 23:36]. The context of these two uses of Gehenna are clearly an in time judgment of Israel, not of anything that will be after the judgment at the coming of Christ. THEY HAVE NO REFERENCE TO "HELL." The "damnation of Hell" as it is preached today did not come on that "generation," but the judgment and destruction of Israel did. "Damnation" is from krisis which means judgment, not damnation as it is mistranslated in the King James Version, the "judgment of Gehenna," not the "damnation of Hell."
ISRAEL THE WICKED HUSBANDMEN Matthew 21:33-46: Before looking at this use of Gehenna it may help understand it to first look at the parable of the wicked husbandman that comes just before it and is a part of the same sermon spoken to the Scribes and Pharisees. "When; therefore, the lord of the vineyard shall come, what will he do unto these husbandman? They say unto him, HE WILL MISERABLY DESTROY THESE MISERABLE MEN, AND WILL LET OUT THE VINEYARD UNTO OTHER HUSBANDMEN, who will render him the fruits in their seasons. Jesus said unto them, did you never read in the scriptures, the stone, which the builders rejected, the same was made the head of the corner; this was from the Lord, and it is marvelous in our eyes? THEREFORE SAY I UNTO YOU, THE KINGDOM OF GOD SHALL BE TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU, AND SHALL BE GIVEN TO A NATION BRINGING FORTH THE FRUITS THEREOF." Many parables deal with the rejection of Christ by Israel and its destruction. See chapter 8, part 1 and part 2.
[1] SON OF GEHENNA: Matthew 23:15 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he is become so, you make him twofold more a son of hell [Greek-Gehenna] then yourselves." In speaking to the Pharisees, Christ said, "For you are like unto whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead man's bones, and of all uncleanness" [Matthew 23:27]. They made their proselytes "twofold more a son of Gehenna than your selves" [Matthew 23:15]. A place cannot give birth to a person. No one, not even those who believe in Hell, believe Hell is literally the father or mother of anyone. To call a person a son of a place is not to say that place is his mother, but is to say a part of his character is similar to the place. Gehenna was a place of filth and uncleanness. To use the metaphors "son of Gehenna" is to say they were unclean like the filthy city dump. To be a "son of Gehenna" means to be like Gehenna and the things in it: to be filthy and contemptible. The proselytes were made twofold more unclean then the Pharisees. Because Gehenna does not literally have sons, this is a figure of speech not intended to be taken literally nether in this life or after death. James and John are called "sons of thunder" [Mark 3:17]. Thunder did not give birth to them, but a part of their character is similar to thunder. "And if a son of peace be there" [Luke 10:6]. "Son of exhortation" [Acts 4:36]. "Sons of disobedience" [Ephesians 2:2]. "The son of destruction" [2 Thessalonians 2:3]. "The child of anything in Hebrew phraseology expressed the idea of special property which one has in the thing specified, as, for instance, children of disobedience [Eph. ii. 2]". J. W. McGarvey, Matthew 8:11, The Fourfold Gospel, Standard Publishing Company, 1914. This metaphor is not taken from the destruction by the fire and maggots in Gehenna; but it is a metaphor taken from the filth and uncleanness of Gehenna. Although this passage is repeatedly used to prove eternal torment after death, there is nothing about any torment in it, not in this lifetime or after death.
In the same address to the scribes and Pharisees Christ gives two more examples of their uncleanness.
[2] JUDGMENT OF GEHENNA: Matthew 23:33-36 "Fill you up then the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you offspring of vipers, how shall you escape the judgment of hell [Greek-Gehenna]? Therefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: some of them shall you kill and crucify; and some of them shall you scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the righteous unto the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you slew between the sanctuary and the altar. Verily I say unto you, all these things shall come upon this generation." Christ had just told the scribes and Pharisees they made their proselytes more a "son of Gehenna" [unclean] than themselves. Now He calls them "offspring [sons of] vipers," and "all these things (all the righteous blood from Abel to Zechariah) shall come upon this generation."
The Scribes and Pharisees knew the law, but did not keep it. Outwardly they were as beautiful as white sepulchers, but inwardly were full of dead man's bones. They would not escape the judgment to come. "Verily I say unto you, all these things SHALL COME UPON THIS GENERATION" [Matthew 23:36]. Matthew 24 is a discourse to His disciples about the destruction of Israel of which He had spoken of to the Pharisees in the chapter before. That generation would not escape the judgment of Gehenna. It came in A. D. 70 when some historians say Gehenna was filled with the dead bodies of Jews from the destruction of Jerusalem [See Jeremiah 19]. For notes on this use of "The judgment of Gehenna" see chapter eight, part one, Israel's destruction. Josephus said six hundred thousand dead bodies of the Jews were carried out of Jerusalem and lift unburied.
Foy E. Wallace, Jr. says, "The prophet declares that 'the day shall burn as an oven' and 'it shall burn them up'--a pronouncement against the Jewish nation and governments that rejected and condemned the Christ, and persecuted his saints. The advent of the Messiah would be 'the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord'" "God's Prophetic Word," Page 545. Malachi 4:1. Malachi's pronouncement against the Jewish nation that rejected and condemned the Christ, and persecuted his saints. "For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze, says the Lord of hosts, so that it will leave them neither root not branch" [Malachi 4:1]. Job says when a tree is cut down there is hope that the root will sprout [Job 14:8], there is hope of life. In the last chapter in the Old Testament of our English Bible Malachi says Israel will not be left a root to sprout a branch or a branch to sprout roots. There is no hope for life.
"Condemnation," "damnation," and "damned" of the King James Version
THE RESURRECTION OF DAMNATION
[krisis] (KJV), JUDGMENT [krisis] (ASV). "The resurrection of
judgment (krisis)" [John 5:29] says nothing about an eternal life of
torment in Hell after the judgment although this passage is
continually used to prove eternal torment. The verdict of the
judgment, if it be death, eternal life with torment, or what ever it
maybe, the verdict of the judgment is not in this passage. In an
attempt to put Hell in the Bible, the translators of the King James
Version changed the judgment and made it be the verdict of the
judgment and made the verdict be what they needed it to be.
If "krisis" means "damnation" then we are
all in trouble for "It is appointed unto men once to die, and after
this comes damnation
judgment (krisis)" [Hebrews 9:27]. When it is applied only to the
lost the King James translators translated "krisis" condemnation, but
when it is applied to all [Hebrews 9:27] they translated "krisis"
judgment. Just one more example of how they were willing to
mistranslate to put their "Hell" into the Bible. The American
Standard Version and most others do not translate "krisis" into
condemnation or damnation. TWO WORDS
HAD TO BE CHANGED IN MATTHEW 23:33 TO PUT TODAY'S HELL IN THE BIBLE.
"JUDGMENT" HAD TO BE CHANGED TO "DAMNATION" AND "GEHENNA" HAD TO BE
CHANGED TO "HELL."
Summary: JUST AS EVERY REFERENCE TO GEHENNA IN THE OLD TESTAMENT IS TO A PLACE ON THIS EARTH, TO THE VALLEY SOUTH OF JERUSALEM AND IS NEVER TRANSLATED "HELL." EVERY REFERENCE TO GEHENNA BY CHRIST IS ALSO TO THE SAME PLACE ON THIS EARTH. IN THE FOUR OCCASIONS THAT GEHENNA IS USED, NOT IN A ONE IS GEHENNA SAID TO BE ETERNAL OR EVERLASTING, NOT ONCE IS THERE ANY TORMENT OF LIVING PERSONS IN IT, AND NOT ONCE IS IT USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE RESURRECTION, BUT TODAY PREACHERS MOST ALWAYS ADD EVERLASTING AND SAY IT WILL NEVER END. HOW DO THEY KNOW THIS? NONE OF THE APOSTLES EVER PREACH ANYTHING ABOUT GEHENNA. IF IT WERE A PLACE OF TORMENT WHERE GOD SHALL TORMENT ALL THE LOST, WHY DID THEY NEVER SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT? THEY USED DEATH, DESTROY, DESTROYED, PERISH, DIE, AND END; BUT NEVER "HELL."
SET ON FIRE BY GEHENNA James 3:6 "And the tongue is a fire; the world of iniquity among our members is the tongue, which defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the wheel of nature, and is set on fire by hell [Greek-Gehenna]." James used the same proper noun [the name of a particular place] that Christ used, but he used it in a different way. The tongue is a fire and is set on fire by Gehenna-the filthy, contemptible garbage dump. Most who are given to gossip look for some filthy rotten garbage on someone, and then cannot wait to tell it. James did not use Gehenna to teach the Jews about what was going to happen them if they rejected Christ. To say "The tongue is set on fire by the place of eternal torment after the judgment," which is what many teach, makes no sense. This metaphor is not taken from the destruction by the fire and maggots in Gehenna; but it is a metaphor taken from the filth and uncleanness of Gehenna. There is nothing about torment or destruction in it, and nothing about after death. The tongue is a fire now in this lifetime. To make Hell be a literal place not of this earth that sets on fire a literal tongue of a living person on this earth would somehow make that person's tongue be in contact with a place that is not on this earth. Gehenna is a place of corruption, which was figuratively applied to a vile tongue.
Young's Literal Bible (1891) Author of "Young's Analytical Concordance To The Bible"
Wesley's New Testament (1755) Founder of Methodist Church. The original by Wesley, not the updated editions.
Weymouth New Testament (1903)
The New American Bible (1991) (Catholic)
Phillips New Testament (1952)
The Christian Bible (1991)
World English Bible
Plus many other translations that do not have "Hell" in them.
TRANSLATIONS ARE GETTING AWAY FROM HELL. The King James Version and the New King James Version ARE THE ONLY TWO OF THE MAJOR TRANSLATIONS THAT HAVE HELL IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. ALL OTHERS HAVE ABANDONED IT AS A BAD TRANSLATION. Hell is rapidly vanishing from the Bible. It has vanished from the Old Testament in most "conservative" translations. Moses or Abraham did not know about it. It has all but vanished from the New Testament in the "conservative" translations, and has vanished altogether in many. Even in the 31 times Hell is in the King James Version, in 12 of these, the New King James Version changed "Hell" in the King James Version to "Sheol" (from 31 times to 19 times). Were the translators trying to ease away but were afraid to go to far?
THE VANISHING HELL. WHY IS THE NUMBER OF TIMES HELL IS USED DECREASING? TRANSLATORS CANNOT AGREE ON HOW MANY TIMES TO MISTRANSLATE IT.
Number of times Hell is used in - - - - - The Bible | The O.T. | The N. T.
ONE EXAMPLE OF THE VANISHING HELL Psalms 116:3.
Some of the many Versions of Hell
The Bible version of Hell: There is no Bible version of Hell. Both the name Hell and the concept, a place where God will forever torment most men was not known about in Old or New Testament times. It was not known about by the Greeks or anyone back them. It was not used by Christ or Paul, neither the place nor the name. It was not known about by anyone unto long after the last page of the Bible.
Most of the versions of Hell below are based on the belief that:
The Dark Age Catholic version of Hell: The soul being immortal came from Greek philosophy, and was brought into the church by some of the "church fathers." By Augustine more then most others. The doctrine of Hell came soon after the immortal soul doctrine along with Purgatory, the sale of indulgences, Limbo, worship of Mary and saints, Nether World, Holy Water, the rosary, forbidding Priest to marry, the crucifix, Monks and Nuns, forbidding eating of meat on Friday, and many other teaching; and was fully developed by the Dark Age Catholic Church before the Protestant Reformation. I have found it difficult to pen down just what is the official teaching. It seems to be that in the past they believed that only a very few, the very bad, will go to Hell, which is a real place, at their death with no judgment. A few of the very good will go to Heaven at their death with no judgment [an instant rapture]. At death most Catholic will go to Purgatory, which seems to be a limited version of Hell, unto they have suffered enough to pay for their sins or unto their love ones have paid all they can, then they go to Heaven. How long a person will be in Purgatory is sometimes taught to be a short time and sometimes millions of years to those who have no one to win indulgences for them. It has brought enormous wealth to the rich Catholic Church from the poor who paid what little they had and even done without food to help a loved one. The Catholic Purgatory gives no hope for heathens, heretics, or the unbaptized.
The new Catholic version of Hell: Pope John II, "Hell is not a punishment imposed externally by God, but the condition resulting from attitudes and actions which people adopt in this life...So eternal damnation is not God's work but is actually our own doing...More than a physical place, hell is the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy." In a statement made to his general audience, July 28, 1999. There are other high up Catholics who have made statements like this one but I see no use in adding more when you have the top dog in the Catholic Church. Maybe this is why two of their Bible English translations do not have the word "Hell" in them, and who knows how many other Catholics translations in other languages do not. However, because it has been the official doctrine for centuries and the decrees of councils and Popes, the Roman Catholic Church cannot officially not teach Hell is a place of eternal torment without giving up completely her claim of infallibility. Protestantism has not made this claim of infallibility and many are giving Hell up.
The many divided Protestant versions of Hell: Going to Heaven or Hell one by one at death, before and without the judgment or the Resurrection. After much conflict among the reformers, most Protestants accepted much of the early Catholic version but without Purgatory. Unconditional immortality, which is the foundation on which Hell stands, was accepted mostly due to Calvin winning out over Martin Luther. If they had accepted Luther's views on immortality, there would be no foundation for Hell. Many Protestants believe all who do not accept Christ will go to Hell at death before a judgment. God deliberately chooses to make them suffer and feel the pain without any letup forever. The saved will go to their eternal home in Heaven at death [an instant rapture]. The Westminster Confession says, "The souls of the righteous...are received unto the highest heavens...the soul of the wicked are cast into Hell." Does God judge them at death, them maybe thousands of years later, takes them out of Heaven and Hell to rejudge them at the resurrection to see whether He made a mistake? Many believe an unbaptized baby will not be saved. This version is still believed by many today, even by many that say they are looking for the rapture. An opposition to belief in Hell is rapidly growing in the Protestant churches.
Some of the major Protestant versions of Hell. [Note: from the Protestant Reformation unto now there have been many changes and new Protestant versions of Hell].
Abraham's bosom or the after judgment Hell, A newer version of Hell: This version is based almost entirely on an interpretation of Luke 16:19-31 (see chapter eight, part two). It is believed by most members of the Church of Christ, the Christian Church and some Protestants although it is not generally accepted as being Protestant and is definitely not orthodox or traditional. In this version all who do not obey Christ will go to Hell, but Hell will not be unto after the coming of Christ and the judgment; and no one goes to Heaven before the judgment [no instant rapture]. All are taken to an intermediate holding place where the lost are tormented, and the saved are rewarded in a place sometimes called "Abraham's bosom." Instead of Heaven and Hell, it is the good and bad side of hades, which God will take them out of to rejudge to see whether He made a mistake the first time and put them on the wrong side of hades. A baby who has not come to the age of accountability is not lost and will go to the good side of hades. After the judgment, God will personally do the tormenting. Satan and his angels and all the lost will be tormented together.
This view has two places where God is going to torture the lost. One side of hades that is a temporary place of torture and will last only unto the second coming of Christ, and "Hell" which will be a permanent place where God will torture most of mankind without end but no one is now in Heaven or Hell and will not be unto after the resurrection and judgment. This is the view that I have been taught from the time I became a Christian and believed it a long time. I have many books and tracts in which well-known preachers and teachers, such as H. Leo Boles, E. M. Zerr, B. W. Johnson, J. W. McGarvey, and many others who teach this view; but lately it seems to be dying out in the church and is being replaced by going to Heaven or Hell at death without the Resurrection or Judgment particularly at funerals where preachers often say the dead person is now in Heaven. Most all think of and speak of their loved ones as now being in Heaven or with Jesus, not in Abraham's bosom unto the judgment.
Edward Fudge version: The short Hell. He uses the name Hell as if it was a Bible name, but thinks it will have a limited time and will end with the total destruction of those in it. He may have Hell, and the wrath and fury of God at the judgment confused. Roger Dickson believes the duration of Hell will fit the crime and then will end. It will be short for some and longer for other. He says, "After the stripes have been given, then the destruction occurs for which there is no reverse" Page 162ff, "Life, Death and Beyond." Is he renaming the Judgment Day and calling it "Hell?" If I understand him right, he thinks the lost will go to Hell, but the not so bad will not be tormented as long as the very bad. After the "punishment matches the crime," he says they will then be destroyed [Page 163]. (1) "Shall be beaten with many stripes" [Luke 12:47]. This is used to prove there will be an end after the stripes. "Beaten with few stripes" could not be as long as "beaten with many stripes," therefore, could not take forever. Some will be tormented longer than others, but the torment will end with death for all. (2) This short Hell is different from the Church of God short Hell in that it may not be on this earth, and there will be no second chance.
In the Bible God limited "many stripes" to 40 lashes [Deuteronomy 25:3; Luke 12:47; Acts 16:23; 2 Corinthians 11:24]. Yet, this "many stripes" is used to prove that God will forever give stripes without end to those in Hell.
Christadelphians version of Hell: Those who never heard the Gospel will never be raised. Death is the end of them. Only those who heard the Gospel will be raised at the second coming of Christ and judged to see whether they were faithful. The faithful will have eternal life on Earth, which will be restored to be like Eden before Adam sinned. The unfaithful of those who heard the Gospel and were raised will be annihilated by the second death.
Church of God version of Hell (and others): Both Heaven and Hell will be on this earth. After the resurrection of earthly bodies on this restored earth, all will be given a second chance to accept Christ. Most will, but the few who will not will suffer the second death. Their torment will end in death from which there will never be a resurrection. The saved will be raised and live on the earth restored to the way it was before Adam sinned with a body like Adam before he was put out of the garden. No one will ever be in Heaven. I how not been able to find how they think Adam's body was different before he was put out of the garden than it was after. Many premillennialists who are in most Protestant churches believe this version of Hell or one that is very similar to it.
Universalist version of Hell, The "age lasting" Hell: Hell will last for only an age; then all will be saved. Universalist calls it a time of "attitude adjustments," or "age-during correction." They do not see it as God torturing people in a literal lake or anything like that, they see it as simply as a time when God will be correcting or teaching them further unto they are fit for His kingdom. All will eventually end up in Heaven.
Seventh Day Advent version of Hell: They believe that at the second coming of Christ the unrighteous will be kill, the righteous will be taken back to Heaven for a 1,000 years. During the 1,000 years only Satan and his angels will inhabit the earth. At the end of the 1,000 years Christ will return to earth with the saved and the unrighteous will be raised for judgment. Satan gathers his angels and will the help of the resurrected unrighteous attempt to interfere with the judgment, they will be destroyed. The judgment and destruction of the lost will take place on this earth. Their Hell will be on this earth and will last only unto those in it are burned too ashes, the second death. The saved will live forever with earthly bodies on a restored earth on which there will be no evil. No one will ever be in Heaven. Just as with the Christ of God version of Hell many premillennialists who are in most Protestant churches believe this version of Hell or one that is very similar to it. The number of those who are called Protestant but do not believe any of the orthodox Protestant versions of Hell is growing.
The grave is Hell version: The grave is Hell and all go to it at death. There is no knowledge or torment in this Hell, just sleep or death. Some from many different groups believe this version of Hell. They get support mostly from the older translations like the King James Version, and most who believe it think the newer translations that translate only Gehenna into Hell are wrong. They believe Gehenna is a trash dump, not Hell. This Hell is going on now with all the dead in it, both the good and the bad are asleep in it and it will wake up at the Resurrection. All are unconscious and there is no torment of the wicked or reward of the righteous in "Hell" where all the dead, both the good and the bad now are. In this version, Hell will end at the resurrection and there will be no Hell after the resurrection and judgment. The Jehovah's Witnesses believe this version. They "believe that Hell is the 'common grave of mankind' where people go when they die. They are not conscious there." A. B. Robinson, September 1996 [A Jehovah's Witnesses]. "We do not have the word 'hell' in the NWT. We translate gehenna as gehenna, hades as hades and sheol as sheol. By doing this we can get the true import of these words. Gehenna is a garbage dump and sheol and hades often refer to the grave. We believe everyone who dies goes to 'hell' or sheol [hades]. The dead are unconscious, asleep if you will [Ecc 9:5,19 and 1 Thes 4:13-16] and will remain such until they are resurrected. We also believe that 'hell' will be emptied, as is clearly stated in Rev 20:13. The persons who were in hell, both the righteous and the unrighteous [Acts 24:15] will be resurrected and judged. Those who are deserving of it will then be thrown into the lake of fire, the second death [Rev 20:14,15]." Brian Holt in an E-mail to me. He says "JW's do not have the word "hell" in the NWT," then says everyone who dies goes to Hell. In today's English Hell has come to mean a place of eternal torment after death and Hell, as a translation of hades is an untrue translation. The grave is Hell was not the intentions of the translators who first put the word "Hell" into the Bible, then he says it is not the way it would have been understood by English speaking people then or today.
I have been told that what I believe "is what Jehovah's Witnesses have been teaching for years." One person said to me, "You believe the same thing Jehovah's Witnesses believe. Why don't you join them and leave us alone?" ONE WRITER SAID, "A NEW STANDARD OF TRUTH HAS BEEN FOUND. IF THE OCCULTS OR LIBERALS BELIEVE IT, THEN IT IS WRONG." The problem with this is that most all denominations, whether they are occults, liberals, or whatever, teach many things that the Bible teaches and many that the Bible does not teach. Nothing is right or wrong because a denomination teaches it, not even right or wrong if the Jehovah's Witnesses denomination teaches it. It is right if the Bible teaches it or wrong if the Bible does not teach it. Catholic, Baptist, Jehovah's Witnesses, Church of God, and all others each teach many things that the Bible teaches and each one teaches many things that it does not teach. Anything is right if the Bible teaches it even if the Jehovah's Witnesses teach it and wrong if the Bible does not teach it. To say, "That is what the Jehovah's Witnesses teach," is said for the same reason the Baptist says, "That is water salvation" or "That is Campbellism." THEIR REAL PROBLEM IS NOT THAT ONE OF THE OCCULTS TEACH IT, BUT THAT THEY HAVE NO OTHER ANSWER AND KNOW THAT THEY CAN TURN MANY OFF JUST BY SAYING "THAT IS WHAT JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES TEACH" JUST AS THE BAPTIST DID WITH "THAT IS WATER SALVATION."
Why? What is the real reason they say that is Jehovah's Witnesses teaching? I think one reason is that they just do not want to deal with it. Do not want to take the time. Another reason is the same reason the Baptist call us "Campbellism" and say, "You believe in water salvation." They could not show that a person can be saved without baptism, therefore, they would say, "You believe in water salvation" for they know this would make others prejudice and not believe the Bible. Now the same thing is being done to anyone who does not believe in Hell by saying, "You are nothing but a Jehovah's Witnesses." EVEN THOUGH WHAT I BELIEVE IS FAR FROM WHAT THE JEHOVAH'S TEACH, SOME SAY TO ME, "YOU BELIEVE WHAT THE JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES BELIEVE." They believe there is a Hall, but it is going on now, and I do not believe the Bible says anything about any kind of Hell; not one that is going on now or will be at any time after death. The truth is that if Jehovah's Witnesses did believe as I do (they do not, but even if they did) as long as the Bible teaches it, I would not care if it were what they believed, but would say that it is great that they believe the Bible on that point, and would wish that they believed the Bible on all points. If you made two lists, one a list of things any denomination believes that is not in the Bible, and a list of things it believes that is in the Bible, both lists would be long. The persons who say "That is Jehovah's Witnesses teaching" believes many of the same things that would be on the list of things the Jehovah's Witnesses believes. But, I must say that what I believe the Bible teaches is far from what the Jehovah's Witnesses teach. THEY BELIEVE IN A HELL THAT IS GOING ON NOW, AND I DO NOT BELIEVE THE BIBLE SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT A HELL AT ANY TIME, NOT NOW, NOT AFTER DEATH, AND NOT AFTER THE JUDGMENT. Some of the many things Jehovah's Witnesses teach that I do not believe.
- Jesus was not the Son of God.
- The Millennium.
- Only 144,000 will go to Heaven.
- Most of the saved will live forever on this earth.
- They don't believe in blood transfusions.
- Hell is the grave and all the dead are now in Hell. Unfortunately, it is not true that they do not believe in Hell. The more there are that do not believe that God slandering teaching the better, but, they do believe in Hell, just not one of the many orthodox Protestant versions of Hell although many premillennialists who are called orthodox Protestants believe as they do, that Hell is the grave.
- And many others.
IF "THAT IS WHAT...BELIEVES" MAKES ANYTHING WRONG, IT IS SUCH A BROAD ARGUMENT THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE BIBLE THAT IS NOT DESTROYED BY IT.
PROBABLE ORIGIN OF THIS VERSION OF HELL. Sheol is translated Hell in the King James Version thirty-one times and grave thirty-one times. It puts all in Hell or the grave together, both the good and the bad, where they will be unto the resurrection. If one believes the mistranslation of the King James Version, then he or she must believe the grave is Hell version of Hell for it is clearly taught in the Old Testament of the King James Version. The Jehovah's Witnesses and others who believe this version have all the proof they need in the mistranslation in the King James Version.
Latter-day Saints version of Hell [Mormons]: They believe in three Heavens that they call Kingdoms, Celestial, Terrestrial, and Telestial Kingdoms. They believe in a Hell, but only a very few, the sons of perdition, will be in it forever. They are those that were once faithful Mormons but become apostates and left the Mormon Church. All will be raised from the dead. Except for the sons of perdition, most of those in Hell will in time pass out of it into the lowest Telestial Kingdom and will be there forever, even those who are not Mormons, but those who are not Mormons can go no higher then the lower Telestial Kingdom.
Rephaim version of Hell - One of the Protestant versions of Hell: This version of Hell is Protestant. As far as I have been able to find, it is taught by no one but those who are called orthodox Protestants, but it cannot be called traditional or orthodox. Rephaim is in the Hebrew Old Testament eight times and is translated dead seven times and deceased one time in the King James Version, and is defined in some Lexicons as "departed spirits," "shades," "shadows," "ghosts," "name of the dead in sheol."
FIVE OF THE EIGHT ARE IN THE POETICAL BOOKS.
All five refer to the lost and speak of their death, deceased, destruction, dead, not attaining unto the paths of life, resting with the dead. The dead are simply spoken of as being dead. Nothing is said about them being alive some other place. Nothing about a soul or a spirit that lives after the death of the body. THERE IS NOTHING IN ANY OF THE FIVE PASSAGES ABOVE THAT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ANYONE BEING ALIVE IN HEAVEN, HELL, OR ABRAHAM'S BOSOM AT ANY TIME, NOT BEFORE OR AFTER THE JUDGMENT.
THREE OF THE EIGHT ARE IN ISAIAH. This is a book of many symbols, much like Revelation.
WHAT DO MANY BELIEVE? These passage are used to prove all "souls" are "rephaim" both the good and the evil. Many who believe the dead go to Heaven or Hell at death use it although it would make the dead not be in Heaven or Hell as they believe the immaterial, invisible part of a person will be after death.
Which way do they go? Both use "rephaim" in a way that does not agree with what they believe and teach; that the saved will be in their eternal home with Christ in Heaven at death or comforted in Abraham's bosom. They step away from their belief and say both the saved and unsaved are together, and both have only a weak shadowy existence. Even if we did grant that rephaim is the "immaterial, invisible part of man" after death, it would contradict their beliefs about the "soul" being in Heaven, Hell, or Abraham's bosom. It makes all the dead be "shades" "shadows." Anyway you look at it, the eight times rephaim is used does more to refute the belief of going to Heaven or Abraham's bosom at death than it does to support them. They use rephaim in a way that contradicts what they believe, also in a way that contradicts the Bible teaching of death being a sleep. Are they so desperately in need of proof that a person has an immaterial, invisible part that can never die that they reach for anything even if it is far from what they believe and want to find?
Robert Morey, an orthodox Protestant, has written one of the most accepted and used books in defense of the doctrine of Hell that has come out in recent years. In his book he makes an argument for Hell which I think shows just how desperate he is for any kind of proof. In "Death And The Afterlife," On page 79 he says FROM THE MEANING OF REPHAIM, WHEN THE BODY DIES, MAN ENTERS A NEW KIND OF EXISTENCE. HE THEN WILL EXIST AS A SPIRIT CREATURE AND EXPERIENCES WHAT ANGELS AND OTHER SPIRITS EXPERIENCE. JUST AS ANGELS ARE DISINCARNATE ENERGY BEINGS AND ARE COMPOSED ONLY OF MIND OR MENTAL ENERGY AND ARE CAPABLE OF THOUGHT AND SPEECH WITHOUT THE NEED OF AN EARTHLY BODY, WHEN MAN DIES, HE BECOMES A DISEMBODIED ENERGY BEING AND IS CAPABLE OF THOUGHT AND SPEECH WITHOUT THE NEED OF BODY. This is nothing more than a desperate attempt to prove that the "immaterial, invisible part of man" has some kind of life somewhere before and without the resurrection. NOT A ONE OF THE EIGHT PASSAGES REPHAIM IS USED IN SAYS ANYTHING ABOUT A REPHAIM BEING LIKE GOD AND ANGELS. He must have made that up out of thin air and hoped you would not see it is not in any of the eight passages.
I wonder if he sees how low he is making God if God were like the rephaim in the eight passages? That he is making God be only "shades," "shadows," "ghosts," "name of the dead in sheol."
WHAT IS THEIR NO SUBSTANCE SOUL? What could it be if it has no substance? God made all things out of nothing. If the soul has no substance, it is still nothing. Are they saying God made nothing out of nothing? And this God who made nothing out of nothing is Himself nothing.
"The Hebrew rephaim denotes those who have 'sunk' to the unseen abode, descending into Hades as the sun goes down to a fiery death in the west; the rephaim are those who 'sank,' vanished, disappeared, passed away, departed. The best translation would be 'the departed.'" Paul Haupt "American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature"
NOTE: I have tried to give the views of the majority in each in the above versions of Hell. In each of them, there are some individuals and/or small groups who believe in a variation of that believed by the majority.
The doctrine of Hell is forever changing, and therefore, it is difficult to say just what it is. It is very different from one time to another, and from one denomination to another.
SOME BELIEVE:
O-well, one is as good as another and one place is as good as any other for there is no Bible teaching for any of them. They are all man made, and believing any of them is to believe a lie. "But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men" [Matthew 15:9]. The only sure thing is that what men believe about Hell is that Hell is always changing to suit the times and the denominations.
Summary: Believers in Hell must:
IT CAME FROM PAGAN PHILOSOPHERS, and was brought into the church along with Purgatory, the sale of indulgences, Limbo, worship of Mary and saints, Nether World, Holy Water, the rosary, forbidding Priests to marry, the crucifix, forbidding eating of meat on Friday, candle-burning, and many other teachings; and was opposed by such men as Luther, Tyndale, Moses Lord, and many others. It came into the church in the Dark Age from Pagan Greek philosophers and writers like Dante Aligheri's (1265-1321) "The Divine Comedy" and Milton's "Paradise Lost" added things like Satan has a red suit, horns, and pitchfork and is forever tormenting the damned. Aligheri was a pagan who believed the teaching of Plato on the soul being immortal and it is basically Plato's view of the soul that is in "The Divine Comedy." This view of Hell was adopted in the Middle Age Church to create fear of leaving the church. The church in the Dark Age and the translators of the King James Bible were more influenced by this Pagan philosophy and writers of that time then they were from the teaching of God.
Growler 1995 Encyclopedia ASPS says, "In Greek Mythology, Hades is the underworld ruled by the god of that name, who is also known as Pluto; in Nurse Mythology, Hel is a cold and shadowy subterranean realm." Both Hel and Hell are from the same root word- "Kel".
The American Heritage Dictionary, Page 2108 says, "KEL-1. O-grade from kal 1. A Hell, from Old English Hell, Hell; B HEL, from Old Nurse Hel, the underworld, goddess of death."
Compton's 1995 Encyclopedia, "Hell and Hades" "The modern Western understanding of Hell derives from the latest period in ancient Israel's history, and it was more fully developed by early Christianity...There is no fully developed teaching about Hell in the New Testament, though there are frequent mentions of it. Only in the course of later church history was it elaborated into official church doctrine. Today the New Testament statements and their later explanation are taken literally by some Christians, regarded as allegory or myth by some, and denied altogether by others."
Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 2, Page 402, "Old English. Hel, a Teutonic word from a root meaning 'to cover.'"
Encyclopedia Americana, Volume 14, Page 81, "Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception."
[1]. HEL AND OTHER PAGAN TEACHING WERE BROUGHT INTO THE BIBLE [as Hell] BY REINTERPRETING FOUR WORDS FIFTY-SEVEN TIMES IN THE King James Version, but much fewer times in later translations, and none at all in many translations. The American Standard Version, which many say is the most accurate translation ["This honored version of 1901, long held to be the most accurate translation in the English language" Star Bible catalog Page 3, 1996], uses it 13 times; and even then has a footnote which says, "Gr. Gehenna" or "Gr. Tartarus." Csonka says, "Every good Bible student know Hades is not Hell." Then why do so many in the Lord's church teach it is?
"The word Gehenna does not occur in the LXX or Greek literature...In contrast with later Christian writings and ideas, the torments of hell are not described in the NT...Neither does the NT contain the idea that Satan is the prince of gehenna, to whom sinners are handed over for punishment" The Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Volume 2, Page 208-209. One writer in the Lord's church [who believes in Hell] says, "The New Testament is loaded with metaphors that describe Hell" and then he says Gehenna is one of the metaphors. On the page before he says that Gehenna is not used in secular Greek literature, not used in the Septuagint, and not by Josephus in the last part of the first century in any of his writings. When he says, "Gehenna" was not used by them; he is using it to mean Hell. Therefore, he is saying Hell was not used by any of the above. Neither is it in any of the Apocryphal books. The first time Gehenna is used by any Christian writer was by Justin Martyr in about A. D. 150 and he says the unrighteous will suffer and then pass out of existence.
[2]. NOT IN VOCABULARY. Heaven and Earth are named together about 30 times, and each is named separately 100's of times, but not one time is Hell named or even spoken of. Why? No doubt, it would have been if Hell were real and there is such a place. We are even told not to swear by Heaven or Earth [Matthew 5:34], but today men swear by Hell as much or more than anything. Why not then? Was it not because it is a word that was not in their vocabulary? No word with the meaning of today's English Hell was used in the ancient writing as a swear word or any other way. No such word was in their vocabulary, and they knew of no such place. No word with the meaning that the English word Hell now has was used or known about unto long after the last book of the Bible was written. It is not in Greek literature in New Testaments times or before, first century writers did not use it, Josephus or any other historian of that time did not use it, it is not in the Septuagint. A place where God will torment the lost forever after the Judgment Day was not known about. THE CONCEPT OF THE PLACE CALLED HELL, OR THE NAME HELL IS NOT IN THE BIBLE, AND DOES NOT OCCUR IN ANY WRITING OF EITHER THE HEBREWS OR THE GREEKS UNTO LONG AFTER THE BIBLE. THE OLD TESTAMENT HEBREW, OR THE NEW TESTAMENT GREEK, HAS NO WORD THAT IS EVEN CLOSE TO TODAY'S ENGLISH WORD "HELL." HOW DO WE KNOW ABOUT THIS PLACE CALLED HELL? WHERE DID HELL COME FROM? Not by faith that comes by hearing God's word. It is from the doctrines and precepts of men [Matthew 15:9]. It was not used in the first century because it was a word that was not in their vocabulary, and a place they know nothing about. The word "Hell" is of Saxon origin about the 3rd to 5th century A. D. and originally was a covered over place such as a grave. The nearest thing I can find to the English word Hell is in Greek Mythology and Nurse Mythology [According to Socrates, Plato and other Greek philosopher], was a shadowy subterranean realm somewhere under the earth where souls went unto they could be reincarnated; but this shadowy place was far from being as terrible or as dreadful a place as today's Hell is, and "souls" would only be in it unto they were reincarnated. This underground place did not have the name Hell and is nothing like the Hell that grew out of it in the Dark Age.
"Hell has entirely changed its old harmless sense of dim under-world: and that meaning, as it now does, to myriads of readers...it conveys meanings which are not to be found in any of the New or Old Testament words for which it is presented as an equivalent" Canon Farrar, Excursus II, "Eternal Hope."
A doctrine as terrible as Hell must not be assumed, but demonstrated by unquestionable proof. Such proof is not in the Bible. Heaven is in the Bible over 600 times, but Hell not one time. Why? The Bible is full of warnings. Paul warned that many "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" [1 Corinthians 5:9], but he never said anyone would "go to Hell." Paul said he declared the whole counsel of God [Acts 20:27]; yet not one time [even in the King James Version] did he use the word Hell. Why? T. L. Andrews says our English word Hell has come to mean the eternal abode of the sinner where this tormenting punishment takes place? Florida College Lectures, 1997, Page 168. When? The English word Hell did not exist in Paul's time. It therefore come to mean the eternal abode of sinners long after the New Testament; and came from man, not God. Therefore Paul could not, and did not use it. "Three hundred years or so ago the word 'Hell' was commonly used to refer to any dark or foreboding place. A grave could be referred to by that term without readers or hearers automatically envisioning 'the lake of fire, which is the second death' [Rev. 20:15]. The hole dug in the ground to receive the body of a deceased loved one is certainly a foreboding place. A prison, dungeon, lunatic asylum, or a valley such as the valley of Hinnom outside of Jerusalem with equal propriety could be spoken of as 'Hell' three or four hundred years ago. That is no longer so...in our time 'Hell' has a fairly settled meaning...its use conjures up visions of the awesome lake of fire judgment reserved for sinners." Russell Boatman, Dean at St. Louis Christian College, "What The Bible Says, The End Time," College Press, Page 305.
IF HELL WERE A REAL PLACE, WHICH WAS KNOWN ABOUT IN THE TIME OF CHRIST, OTHERS OF THAT TIME WOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT IT AND USED ITS NAME; BUT NONE DID. Gehenna was the name of a real place near Jerusalem [the city dump], which the people near Jerusalem would know about it, and would understand what Christ was saying when He used its name as a place of destruction. The rest of the world would not know about Jerusalem's trash dump or know what its name was, and would not have understood. If Paul had used the name Gehenna in Rome or in writing to Gentiles, it is unlikely that any would have known what Gehenna was. When the Greek philosophy about the underworld was brought into the church by the "church fathers," what Christ had said about Gehenna was made to order for them to misuse. "Gehenna" was soon mistranslated into Hell, probably it came from "Hel" [see above], for Hell is not in the secular Greek literature of the first century or before. Whatever is not taught in the Bible cannot be a Bible doctrine. If it is the doctrine of man, is it not sinful to teach it as God's word?
Hell is not a Bible word. It is a word chosen by Bible Translators to translate four Bible words, sheol, hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus. Not one of the four has the meaning of Hell as it is used today. Not only is there no Hebrew or Greek word for Hell, but also at first even the English word Hell did not mean a place of torment after death as it does today. In Old English it was a covered place. A farmer would say "I helled my potatoes" meaning he put them in a hole and covered them to keep them from the cold. Helling a house meant to cover it with a roof. Helmet, a covering for the head is derived from the same word. Hell was never the best translations of hades, but formerly it would have been acceptable in Old English. It is not an acceptable translation of hades in modern English and has been abandoned by many of the newer translations. When the King James Version was made, the doctrine of Hell was completely developed and the translation of sheol and hades into Hell were a mistranslation. Most likely a deliberate mistranslation for in 1611 it had taken on the modern meaning of a place of torment after death.
Those who believe in Hell use the word as if both the place and the name are used repeatedly in the Bible. Their "proof texts" are metaphors, parables, and symbolical language as is found in the book of Revelation. If there is a place as terrible as Hell, why is it never spoke of in clear words that the common person could not misunderstand? If Hell were real, it would be strange if a doctrine as important as Hell would be, would have to depend on an interpretation of a parable or symbolical language.
[3] NOT IN EARLY CREEDS The two earliest creeds, The Apostles Creed, traditionally ascribed to the 12 Apostles, and the Nicean Creed, 325 A. D., were both doctrinal statements saying what those that used them believed, but neither one contained the concept of Hell.
[4]. TODAY'S PREACHING - versus - FIRST CENTURY PREACHING. Heaven is taught throughout the Bible [used about 635 times in the New American Standard Bible], but there is nothing about today's Hell. Adam was warned that he would die if he ate, but not that he would go to Hell. Moses warned about death to those who did not keep the law, but he said nothing about Hell. The Bible is as silent as a tomb on it. It is beyond belief that there would not be many clear and unmistakable warning about Hell if there were such a place. There are many clear and unmistakable warning that the wages of sin is death, but not a one about Hell.
"Jesus said it [Hell] was a place where 'the fire...never shall be quenched...Hell is further described as a place where..." Whitlock, Seibles Road Church of Christ bulletin, August 9, 1998. Christ did not say anything about Hell, but was using Gehenna as a metaphor of destruction; but Whitlock uses Hell and in the same sentence he quotes only a part of a sentence used by Christ, adds to it, and makes it all one sentence. In doing so he has put the word Hell into the mouth of Christ; but he must deny that this is a metaphor. [1] He changes one proper noun into another proper noun, but does not tell us from where he got the proper noun "Hell." [2] He makes Christ say something He did not say. [3] He says, "Hell is further described as a place where," but he did not say where it is described as a place. Hell is not described as a place or is not described in any other way in the Bible. This is the very way the words of Christ were first misused by some of the so called church fathers in about the third century and after, long before it was mistranslated into any Bible translation. Unto after the end of the second century only a few of the "church fathers" taught that men have an immaterial, invisible part of a person that is immortal and it was not unto later that Hell came into being. The half converted "church fathers," looking for a way to put their philosophy into Christianity, used the words of Christ in the same way Whitlock did. The "church fathers" had to have a place to put their "immortal soul," which came from their Greek philosophy. Very often statements like the one John Benton made, that the same world aionios, "eternal" is used to describe both Heaven and Hell. "How Can a God of Love Send People to Hell?" Page 44, 1985. Dr. Bert Thompson says both Heaven and Hell are described with the exact same terminology in the Bible. Reason and Revelation, July 2000. The sad thing is that many will believe such a statements without question. The truth is that aionios, "eternal" is not used in any passage with sheol, hades or Gehenna, not in any passage that any of the three words that are translated "Hell" in the King James Version. To say aionios is used to describe "Hell" is an outright lie. It is not. Dr. Thompson did not give one passage where "Hell" is described with the same terminology as Heaven. There is not one.
Summary: In Pagan and Greek philosophy [Plato, Socrates and others], souls went to a place underground to "a cold and shadowy subterranean realm" unto they could be reincarnated. They believed in the soul being immortal and would be reincarnated, but they did not believe in Hell, a place of everlasting torment before or after the judgment was unknown to them; and they had no word for it. It was not unto long after the last page of the Bible were written that Hell, as we use the word today, a place of torment was believed and taught by anyone. The doctrine of Hell, as is believed today, became fully developed in the medieval Dark Age. The Catholic Church teaching that most go to Purgatory to be purified on their way to Heaven was fought by Tyndale and many others in the Protestant reformation, but "Hell" was accepted without Purgatory by most Protestant churches. It was preached in all its terror by the Jonathan Edwards type of Hell fire preacher and many Gospel preachers a few years back, with Satan tormenting the lost from the time of their death. Today it is almost never preached or written about by Gospel preachers; but when it is, it is almost always toned down from the Jonathan Edwards type of Hell fire preaching; and it is now God, not Satan, who will be doing the tormenting.
ANOTHER CHANGE: In the same way the King James Version changed Gehenna into Hell, it also changed the proper noun "Passover" into "Easter." "Pasha" is in the New Testament twenty-nine times. Twenty-eight times the King James Version translates it "Passover." Only one time [Acts 12:4] is it translated "Easter." There is no way the King James translators could not know Pasha is not "Easter." This is another deliberate change where a Proper Noun was changed into another Proper Noun, which has a completely different meaning. Most other translations have corrected this change
IF GEHENNA IS A METAPHOR, WHAT IS A METAPHOR OF? Present day preachers make it be a metaphor of a place unknown unto long after the last page of the Bible was written. BUT (after they change it's name) THEY CONTINUOUSLY USE IT AS IF IT IS A PLACE, NOT A METAPHOR.
CAN ONE METAPHOR HAVE SEVERAL OTHER METAPHORS THAT ARE METAPHORS OF IT? After saying Gehenna was a valley that was used as a place of refuse where fires were always needed to consume, Hamilton says, Jesus took the term and applied it to the place of eternal torment. C. Hamilton in Truth Commentaries, 1 Peter, Page 385. This is a typical example of how even well-educated men know how Christ used Gehenna, but they are compelled to use the mistranslation of the King James Version to prove their belief. Then he says Hell is represented by several metaphors. He says Gehenna is a metaphor, and then he says this metaphor (Gehenna) is represented by several metaphors. He has one metaphor that has several other metaphors that are metaphors of it. Then on the same page he says, Gehenna, Hell, means the place of punishment in the next life. First, he says Gehenna, a valley used for the destruction of the unwanted city garbage, is a metaphor of Hell, and then on the same page says Gehenna is Hell! Which one does he think it is? It comes down to what is the real thing, and what is the metaphor. He says all three, that Gehenna, the lake of fire, and the second death, are all metaphors. Then how could any of them be hell if they are all metaphors? How could he say Hell-Gehenna is a real place when he has just said it is a metaphor? His problem is that he knew Gehenna was the city dump (a real place), but needed to make it into another real place, namely Hell. He has the both the lake of fire and the second death being a metaphor of Gehenna-Jerusalem's trash dump. He says Hell is called the second death, and the lake of fire on page 385; but he did not give one verse where either one is called Hell. He did not for there is not one. This is one of the biggest adding to the word of God that can be found anywhere by anyone. When was Gehenna changed into Hell? When was one place changed into another place? When did a place of destruction of unwanted trash become a place of eternal torment and damnation? The second death is not a metaphor of anything. If the second death is only a metaphor then the first death would also have to be only a metaphor; or there would not be the first and the second, but two different and unlike things. The second death is a real death, just as real as is the first death. He changed Gehenna into Hell and used it over and over as if it were a Bible name for a real place (but not the name of the city dump). He has done what many do, He has taken the name of a particular place [the city dump] and made it into another particular place, which does not exist in the Bible; and then made the second death into a metaphor of the place he has made. He has taken a thing [death-the second death] and then made this thing into a place and calls this place he had made out of death "Hell."
How could he know Gehenna is a metaphor of Hell? If it is, then he would have to know about Hell from some other place, for he could never know Gehenna was a metaphor of a place if the Bible said nothing about that place. We would never be able to understand a metaphor if it were about somewhere far out in space which we know nothing about if we are not told by revelation that there is such a place. This is just what he is doing if he does not know there is a Hell from another part of the Bible. From where did he learn of Hell? From where did he learn it name? Maybe from the very badly mistranslated King James Version, and the theology he has heard all his life, but not from any revelation from God for there is not a word in the Bible that has the meaning of today's English word hell. He says in one breath that Gehenna is a metaphor of Hell and in the next breath it is not a metaphor, but that it is Hell. He and most others that believe in Hell say Gehenna is a metaphor of Hell. But if Gehenna, the city dump, is a metaphor of Hell why is this metaphor of Hell translated into Hell? If it is a metaphor of Hell, in what passage is "Hell" to be found? Without changing Gehenna into Hell, there is nowhere that Hell can be found in the Bible. They seem to be between a rock and a hard place. They know Gehenna is a metaphor, but if it is then they have no place to get the name of Hell. Yet, they tell us it is a metaphor and then tell us it is not a metaphor but that they know it is an actual real place of eternal torment even if they cannot tell us what passage they know this from.
Here is a strange statement for one who believes Hell is found in revelation from God. Hamilton quotes Henry Thayer who says, "Gehenna, the name of a valley on the S. and E. of Jerusalem...which was so called from the cries of little children who were thrown into the fiery arms of Moloch...an idol having the form of a bull. The Jews so abhorred the place after these horrible sacrifices had been abolished by King Josiah...that they cast into it not only all manner or refuse, but even the dead bodies of animals and of unburied criminals who had been executed. And since fires were always needed to consume the dead bodies, that the air might not become tainted by the putrefaction, it came to pass that the place was called Gehenna tou puros" A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament, Page 111. Hamilton says the concept of hell is derived from a valley south and east of Jerusalem. Truth Commentaries, 1 Peter, Page 385. Who does he think had this "concept?" Man or God? Is he saying God or man had this concept from the misuses of a valley on this earth? When was this "concept"? A big part of the Old Testament was past history before the Jews so abhorred the place, Page 385. Was it just a late afterthought with God, which he derived from man's misuse of a valley? He overlooked the fact that "Hell" is in the King James Version before the "Jews so abhorred the place after these horrible sacrifices." He said (1) Hell was unknown in much of the Old Testament and (2) "the concept of Hell is derived" by man. Do you see what he has done? He has taken what Thayer said about the origin of the name of a real valley that is "S. and E. of Jerusalem" then he changed the name of this real valley from Gehenna to Hell, and then applied what was said in the lexicon about the valley of Gehenna to the origin to his Hell, which he says is a place not on this earth. He completely changed what Thayer said about the name of a valley on this earth to make it be proof of what he needed, but did not have. If the lake of fire were prepared for the Devil and his angels (Matthew 25:41), how did it become a metaphor of Gehenna, a place that did not exist unto long after the creation of man, and very long after the fall of Satan and his angles? According to Hamilton, it did not exist unto after the Jews so abhorred the place. THAYER SAYS WHERE THE NAME OF A VALLEY NEAR JERUSALEM (Gehenna) IS DERIVED FROM, BUT WHERE IS HELL (as we use the word today) DERIVED FROM? EITHER THE NAME OR THE PLACE? The answer is clear that it came from pagan philosophy and was brought into the church by the so-called church fathers.
If Gehenna were a metaphor of Hell, a place of eternal torment, it would be a very poor one, for GEHENNA THE CITY DUMP WAS A PLACE OF DESTRUCTION WITH NO TORMENT; BUT HELL AS IT IS USED TODAY IS A PLACE OF TORMENT WITH NO DESTRUCTION. IN THE TIME OF CHRIST GEHENNA WAS A PLACE OF DESTRUCTION, NOT A PLACE OF TORMENT.
STEP AFTER STEP AFTER STEP
Summary: Major changes must be made to the Bible to teach a person now has an immortal immaterial, invisible part of a person that will be tormented in Hell.
Nowhere does the Bible say there is such a place as Hell, and it is up to those who teach it to prove there is a place in the Bible. This they have not, and cannot do. MANY CHANGE "GEHENNA" INTO HELL, AND TEACH IT AS IF HELL IS TAUGHT IN THE BIBLE. THERE COULD BE NO BIGGER ADDING TO AND CHANGING GOD'S WORD. THEY HAVE ADDED A PLACE, GIVE IT A NAME, AND SOME PUT SATAN OVER IT; BUT THEY HAVE NOT ONE WORD ABOUT IT IN THE BIBLE.
Both the Old Testament and the New Testament are completely silent on today's concept of a place where God will unending torment most of mankind. HOW CAN ANYONE BELIEVE IT IS NOT A SIN TO ADD SUCH A PLACE TO GOD'S WORD? WHAT DO THEY THINK GOD WILL SAY AT THE JUDGMENT TO THOSE WHO ATTRIBUTE SUCH AN EVIL TEACHING TO HIM? Does not attributing this evil to God make them a sinner?
In the King James Bible, there are four words translated Hell [sheol, hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna]. Most Bible students now admit that sheol, hades and Tartarus should never have been translated into Hell, but many still hold onto the badly mistranslated King James Version, and Gospel preachers and Bible teachers do little or nothing to teach the truth. Many, who do all they can too correct any lesser error; just do not seem to care about this one.
[1] SHEOL in the King James Version is translated grave 31 times, Hell 31 times, and pit 3 times. The American Standard Version used the untranslated Hebrew word "sheol." The New International Version translated it "grave" 53 times and "death" 12 times. The New Century Version and others also translated it grave. The American Standard Version and other newer translations knew Hell as used today [a place of eternal punishment after the resurrection] was not right, but did not translate it "grave"; they left the Hebrew word untranslated. Maybe they thought it would make their translation unacceptable if they translated it, and it most likely would have. Neither sheol nor hades have any meaning in English and left all free to use any theological definition they wanted. Hamilton says contrary to popular opinion it does not mean Hell as we use this term, Page 384, Truth Commentaries.
The King James Version makes sheol be three different places. The grave, Hell, and a pit. How did they know the same word means three different places? "HELL" AS IT IS USED TODAY IS NOT A THIRTY-FIRST COUSIN TO GRAVE YET IT IS THE SAME WORD IN THE HEBREW OLD TESTAMENT. How did they know when the same word in one place was a grave for the dead, and when the same word was an entirely different place, a place of torment for those who can never be dead?
"THERE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE A VERY CLEAR DISTINCTION IN THE O. T. BETWEEN THE FINAL DESTINY OF THE GOOD AND THE EVIL. THEY ALL ALIKE GO TO THE GRAVE." Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible, "SHEOL," Volume 1, Page 953. The reason for there being no distinction in the Old Testament is that both the good and the evil go to the grave, and will not come out unto the resurrection.
The Hebrew word "sheol" is left untranslated all sixty-five times it is used in the American Standard Version, New American Standard Version, and many others. An untranslated Hebrew word in an English translation does not help the English reader understand what was said, but it is better than mistranslating it as the King James Version did and teaching a lie. Why do many translations translate all other words and leave this one untranslated? Was the reason that if sheol was translated, it would be contrary to what the translators believed, or is it an attempt to side step the question and not have to deal with it. Were the translators afraid that if they told us the truth their translation would not be accepted?
ALL SIXTY-FIVE TIMES SHEOL IS USED IN THE OLD TESTAMENT IN FOUR TRANSLATIONS.
OBVIOUSLY, IF "SHEOL" MEANS "HELL" IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN TRANSLATED "GRAVE" IN THE KING JAMES OR ANY OTHER TRANSLATIONS FOR THEY ARE DIFFERENT PLACES. IT IS ALSO OBVIOUS THAT IT DOES NOT MEAN BOTH, THEREFORE, IF "SHEOL" MEANS "GRAVE" IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN TRANSLATED "HELL."
W. E. Vine says, "First, the word means the state of death. 'For in death, there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks' (Ps 6:5; cf. 18:5). It is the final resting place of all men: 'they spend their days in wealth, and in a moment go down to the grave' Job 21:13...second, 'sheol' is used of a place of conscious existence after death" "Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary Of Old And New Testament Words" Page 227. He could not (or anyone) ever know for sure when it was used the first or second way in any verse. How could they? Does everyone just use the one they want to? Although he is Protestant, this is not anything like the orthodox Protestant version of all going to Heaven or Hell at death. FIRST HE SAYS SHEOL IS THE STATE OF DEATH WHERE THERE IS NO REMEMBRANCE, SECOND HE USED THE SAME WORD FOR A PLACE OF CONSCIOUS EXISTENCE. HOW DOES HE THINK THE SAME PLACE COULD BE BOTH A PLACE OF DEATH WITH NO REMEMBRANCE AND AT THE SAME TIME A PLACE OF LIFE WITH CONSCIOUS EXISTENCE? He is speaking of conscious existence in sheol-the grave after death; therefore, he is saying the orthodox Protestant view of all going to Heaven or Hell at death is not true. He tries to prove the second with Genesis 3:7-35 "I will go down to sheol in mourning for my son" New American Standard Version. The New Century Version says, "unto the day I die." "You will not abandon my soul to Sheol; neither will thou allow your holy one to undergo decay" (Psalms 16:10 New American Standard Version). "And lie silent in the grave" (Psalms 31:17 New International Version). "As heat and drought snatch away the melted snow, so the grave snatches away those who have sinned" (Job 24:19 New International Version). "So man lies down and does not roused from their sleep. If only you would hide me in the grave" (Job 14:12-13 New International Version). In the very verses W. E. Vine uses to prove his second use of the word, God could not be saying the first any clearer. IN THESE PASSAGES AND OTHERS, IT IS SO CERTAIN AND UNDENIABLE THAT SHEOL IS THE GRAVE THAT MANY (LIKE W. E. VINE) HAD TO CREATE A NEW SHEOL. A DIFFERENT GOSPEL IS PREACHED WITH TWO SHEOLS (OR HADES). ONE FOR THE BODY TO "SLEEP" IN FROM DEATH UNTO THE RESURRECTION, AND ONE FOR THE SOUL (OR THE LIVING DEAD) TO "LIVE" IN FROM DEATH UNTO THE RESURRECTION; AND THEN A THIRD PLACE MUST BE ADDED FOR THE LOST TO BE TORMENTED IN FOREVER AFTER THE JUDGMENT DAY.
Summary: The King James translators tried to put their preconceived belief of Hell in the Bible by mistranslating sheol, but could not consistently conceal the truth in all 65 times sheol is used. If they had:
[2] HADES in the New Testament: Hades is the same word in Greek as sheol is in Hebrew [Psalms 16:10-Acts 2:27]. It is used eleven times.
In the New Testament there are only two words the translators did not want to or would not translate into English words. They are baptizo (immersion) and hades (grave). Baptizo, if translated into English would be "immersion," which would not have fit into the theology of the King James translators. Many uphold and even use the mistranslation of hades in the King James Version, and the non-translation in the American Standard Version of both hades and sheol. Both are common nouns, which some use as if they were proper nouns [names of particular place] to have a biblical name for their non-biblical place. If any other word were put into the Bible, as was the word Hell, there would have been sermon after sermon and articles after articles showing it was a mistranslation, just as there has been on baptism. Although the translators of the New International Version believed in Hell, they were honest enough to translate sheol correctly but would not translate hades in four of the eleven times it is used. In many translations the Greek word hades was put into many English versions untranslated for if it had been translated it would not fit with the belief of the translators, or the belief of many they wanted to sell it to; but there is a correct translation, and even the King James Version had to translate it correctly part of the time. They do not want to translate hades, for them it would not say what they want it to say, therefore, the Greek word hades is either mistranslated into Hell in the King James; or is left untranslated in many others. They want "hades" to be the only Greek word in the New Testament that cannot be translated into English. Why? The problem was made because the translators did not want hades understood the way it was by Greek speaking people. DO YOU THINK GOD GIVE THEM A REVELATION THEY COULD NOT UNDERSTAND, OR THAT HE USED A WORD WE CANNOT TRANSLATE OR UNDERSTAND IN OUR OWN LANGUAGE?, IF HE DID, HE IS SAYING NOTHING TO US. The right translation of sheol and hades is grave and we can understand it. In the Old or New Testament, no one used or understood these names as we use them. We do not, and the world does not use or understand them in this way. The Hebrew "sheol" or the Greek "hades" have no meaning in English, therefore, English-speaking people would not understand them. Proper names like Jerusalem, New York, and Gehenna are the same in most languages and should not be translated but common nouns must be translated to be understood, not left untranslated. Both sheol and hades are common nouns and need to be translated just as all other common nouns were.
[3] GEHENNA See Chapter four for notes on the four occasions that Christ used Gehenna.
[4] TARTARUS 2 Peter 2:4 is the only time this word is used. Tartarus in the Greek, and was changed to Hell in the King James Version. "For if God spared not angels when they sinned, but cast them down to Tartarus ["Hell" in the King James Version], and committed them to pits of darkness, TO BE RESERVED UNTO JUDGMENT" [2 Peter 2:4]. "And angels that kept not their own principality, but left their proper habitation, he has kept in everlasting bonds under darkness UNTO THE JUDGMENT OF THE GREAT DAY" [Jude 6]. This is the place where the angels that sinned ARE NOW BEING KEPT UNTO THE JUDGMENT DAY. THE Peter or Jude says nothing about fire, torment or pain, but those who believe in Hell most always add them. As far as we know, no man will ever be there and it will last only "unto the judgment." If, as many teach, the angels are now being tormented, why bring them out of torment for judgment only to put them back into torment? Note: This is a difficult passage to understand, and just as difficult to use, as many do, as the base of any theology in the light of the other passages on the angels that sinned. It is not my purpose to go into Demonology, but I think it is safe to say the angels that sinned are the demons of the New Testament. Just what the "everlasting bonds" ["chains" King James Version] are is difficult to say, but they are not chains of iron as we think of chains being. "Your adversary the devil as a roaring lion, walks about seeking whom he may devour" [1 Peter 5:8]. "His (Satan) ministers also fashion themselves as ministers of righteousness" [2 Corinthians 11:14]. Are they only in bonds in what they can do?
Forever in Jude.
JUST AS THEY DID WITH GEHENNA, THE KING JAMES TRANSLATORS CHANGED ONE PROPER NOUN, THE NAME OF ONE PARTICULAR PLACE THAT NOW EXISTS, INTO ANOTHER PROPER NOUN, THE NAME OF ANOTHER PARTICULAR PLACE THAT MANY BELIEVE WILL NOT EXIST UNTO AFTER THE JUDGMENT.
ARE THESE ANGELS NOW IN TARTARUS OR HELL? WHY ARE THESE ANGLES USED TO PROVE HELL? Jude 6; 2 Peter 2:4 "UNTO the judgment," not "after the judgment," for these angels are being kept in Tartarus NOW and will be kept there UNTO the judgment day. The place where these fallen angels are now at is changed into the place where some think these angels will be after the judgment. Many do not believe anyone will be in Hell unto after the judgment, but, the King James Version is mistranslated to say these angels are NOW in Hell before and without the judgment.
Many say it is a sin to change God's word, but despite this some have made many changes in it.
THE THREE PROPER NOUNS THAT ARE CHANGED INTO ANOTHER PROPER NOUN IN THE KING JAMES VERSION.
THE TWO COMMON NOUNS THAT ARE CHANGED INTO THE SAME PROPER NOUN IN THE KING JAMES VERSION.
More and more in today's writing, "The Neither World" is being used as if it is a Bible place that is clearly taught in the Bible; but I have yet to read where anyone told where it is in the Bible. Do both the "Nether World" and "Abraham's bosom" now exists at the same time? If so, how are they different? I have heard the same preachers preach one at one time and the other at another time. Where did this world come from? It is not in the Bible, therefore, how do we know about it? It came from the Catholic Church. Like Hell, they mistranslated it from hades to get it into the Bible. BOTH HELL AND NETHER WORLD WERE MISTRANSLATED FROM THE SAME WORD (HADES) AND BOTH FROM THE SAME PASSAGE. See Acts 2:27 New American Bible "for you will not abandon my soul to the Nether World." Also Psalms 16:10 etc. THE NETHER WORLD IS A NEW NAME BEING PUT INTO THE BIBLE BY THE SAME PEOPLE (the Catholic Church) WHO PUT HELL INTO IT, AND IT IS BEING PUT INTO THE BIBLE IN THE SAME WAY, BY MISTRANSLATING THE SAME WORD THEY MISTRANSLATED TO PUT IN HELL. IT WORKED FOR THEM THE FIRST TIME, SO THEY TRIED IT A SECOND TIME. When they need to prove Hell, they use one mistranslation; and when they need to prove the "Nether World," they use another mistranslation of the same word in the same passage.
Summary: SHEOL, HADES, OR TARTARUS ARE OFTEN USED TO PROVE AN ETERNAL LIFE OF TORMENT IN HELL, BUT THEY HAVE NEVER HAD THE MEANING THAT HELL HAS TODAY AND SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN TRANSLATED HELL. THOSE WHO USE THEM ARE CHANGING THE BIBLE.
A short outline of this chapter
The reinterpretation of the thirty-one passages where Hell is used in the King James Version. The only word that is translated Hell in the Old Testament is translated Hell only 31 of the 65 times it is used in the King James Version, and only 19 of the 65 times it is used in the New King James Version. In most cases, the King James translators put the wicked in Hell and the just in the grave even though many Protestants believe the just go to Heaven at death. The Hebrew Old Testament has them all in one place, the grave [sheol]. Almost all other translations have removed Hell from the Old Testament [American Standard Version, New American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New International Version and most others], but as long as the King James and New King James Versions are used, those who are new in Christ and those who still need milk and not solid food will be misled by them.
SHEOL IS NOT USE WITH "ETERNAL" IN ANY OF THE SIXTY-FIVE TIMES IT IS IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, AND THERE IS NO ETERNAL TORMENT IN ANY OF THEM.
In the King James Version, three words are translated from one Hebrew word. The thirty-four times it is translated pit and grave give most no problem, but the thirty-one times it is translated Hell does. That the translators of the King James Version translated sheol into Hell less than half the time shows they found it not to fit with their theology. They made "sheol" be three different places. Grave, Pit, and Hell. THEY DID NOT, AND MOST TODAY WHO BELIEVES IN HELL DO NOT BELIEVE THE GRAVE AND HELL TO BE THE SAME PLACE. HOW DID THEY KNOW WHEN THE SAME WORD WAS ONE PLACE OR WHEN IT WAS ONE OF THE OTHER TWO PLACES? SOME TIMES EVEN WHEN IT IS IN THE SAME PASSAGE, SHEOL WAS MADE TO BE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PLACES. Is it that they could not find a way to put their view, the Protestant view, into the Bible and had to settle for the best they could, even if it was not what they believed?
(1) Numbers 16:30 "But if the Lord make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them. And they go down quick into the PIT [sheol-Hell]." They and all that belong to them fell into the pit in the ground. It is undeniable that the "pit" is a hole in the ground that they fell into. Does anyone think this hole in the ground is Hell? The translators of the King James Version did not seem to. They went down into sheol alive, their earthly bodies alive with all their belongings into the hole in the ground, which was their grave. Can the earthly body go alive to a place for the soul? Can anyone take all their earthly belongings with them to the spirit world? This simply says they were buried alive and all their belongings were buried with them, not that they took their belongings with them to Hell. Physical things, such as all their belongings and weapons of war [Ezekiel 32:26-27] are put in graves, but not in "Hell." Neither could they have taken their things to the bad side of hades that many believe in.
(2) Numbers 16:33 "And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. They and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the PIT [sheol-Hell], and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation." They went into their grave while their earthly bodies were alive; they had not died at the time the earth closed upon them. Do any that believe in "Hell" think they went to "Hell" while their bodies were alive?
(3) Job 17:13-16 "If I wait, the GRAVE [sheol-Hell] is mine house: I have made my bed in the darkness...They shall go down to the bars of the PIT [sheol-Hell], when our rest together is in the dust." The dead rest in the dust, not the good or bad side of hades. The same word in the same context is translated both grave and pit.
It is hid from those who use the King James Version that "grave" in these thirty-one passages is the same word that is translated "Hell" in thirty-one other passages. Did the translators do this deliberately? THE DEFINITION OF DEATH BY TODAY'S THEOLOGY IS THAT DEATH IS ONLY SEPARATION OF AN IMMORTAL SOUL FROM GOD. IF THAT WERE RIGHT THE SEPARATED SOUL COULD NOT BE IN SHEOL (THE GRAVE) FOR IF IT WERE THEN IT COULD NOT BE IN HELL WHERE THEY BELIEVE IT TO BE. The King James Version used the same word to put the dead in both the grave and Hell at the same time without and before the judgment, and by putting the dead in the grave it destroyed the Protestant view that ALL the dead are in Heaven or Hell and none are in sheol. The American Standard Version and many others left sheol untranslated and put ALL the dead in it with none in Heaven or Hell before the resurrection. The New International Version translated sheol into grave and puts ALL the dead in the grave. I read the Bible for many years without seeing this so I can understand how many read it and cannot see through their theology and see what God has said so clearly that now or at the judgment we can have no excuse for not understanding and believing His word. No excuse for teaching something in His name, which is in opposition to what He did say.
PASSAGES THAT ARE SPEAKING OF THE DESTRUCTION OF NATIONS AND SAY NOTHING ABOUT INDIVIDUALS.
(1) Isaiah 14:11 "Your pomp is brought down to the GRAVE [sheol-Hell], and the noise of your viols: the worm is spread under you, and the worms cover you." The worms that eat the body are in the grave, not maggots in Heaven or Hell. "Maggots are spread out as your bed beneath you, and worms are your covering" New American Standard Bible. In the same context sheol is translated HELL in Isaiah 14:9, GRAVE in Isaiah 14:11, and HELL in Isaiah 14:15 in the King James Version and in all three it is Israel's "taunt against the king of Babylon" [Isaiah 14:4], and of the description of Babylon joining the other dead nations in sheol [Isaiah 14:9-10]. They do not seem to know whether they wanted to put Babylon in "Hell" or in the "grave." How inconsistent could they be? They were just as inconsistent throughout the Old Testament.
(2) Ezekiel 31:15 "Thus says the Lord God; In the day when he went down to the GRAVE [sheol-Hell] I caused a mourning." See notes on Ezekiel 31:16 where sheol is translated "Hell."
(3) Hosea 13:14 "I will ransom them from the power to the GRAVE [sheol-Hell]; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be your destruction." God will destroy death by resurrecting the dead, not by bring those who are not dead back from Hell. The translators did not believe any would be redeemed from Hell, therefore, they have them being redeem from the grave, but if they are redeemed from the grave, how could they be in Heaven or Hell? This is God redeeming the nation of Israel from captivity. The whole chapter is about the nation of Israel. God brought them out of Egypt [13:4]. "It is your destruction, O Israel, that you are against me, against your help" [13:9]. "O Israel, return unto Jehovah your God; for you have fallen by your iniquity" [14:1].
(4) Hosea 13:14 "O GRAVE [sheol-Hell], I will be your destruction." Paul quotes this in 1 Corinthians 15:55. Hosea said, "O grave" Paul quotes it, "O death." "O death" and "O grave" are the same. They could not translate this sheol into Hell for if they had, they would have had Hell being destroyed.
(5) Genesis 37:35, 42:38, 44:29, and 44:31 "You shall bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the GRAVE [sheol-Hell]." The first time sheol is used, if it means Hell is Jacob saying his son is being tormented in Hell, and he will go down to "Hell to be with him?" No, he is saying he will go down to the grave. The King James translators know that Hell would not teach what they wanted to teach. They did not want Jacob in HELL. This and many others times they know they could not translate sheol into Hell.
Some say that the "grave" is the abode of departed spirits. My question to them is where did they learn this? There is not one passage in the Bible that speaks of "a place" where all departed spirits go, and not one passage that speaks of "departed spirits." Do they out of thin air come up with both a place and departed spirits to put in that place? They manufacture terms and use them as if they were Biblical and expect all others to accept their manufactured terms without question.
If Jacob were going to Heaven at death, why did he say he was going DOWN to his son IN SORROW? If he were going to Heaven, he should have said he was going UP to his son REJOICING. Those today who speak of going to Heaven always speak of going UP, never DOWN.
(9) Job 14:13 "O that you would hide me in the GRAVE [sheol-Hell], that you would keep me secret, until your wrath be past, that you would appoint me a set time, and remember me!" Job was in so much pain that he wanted to go to the grave-sheol [Hell] for relief from his sufferings, but today's Hell is incomparably worse than the suffering he wanted relief from. The translators did not dare to make this Hell for them they would have Job asking to go to Hell. "There is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man" [Job 1:8] asking to go to "Hell" to escape his sufferings. Those who believe in Hell teach the sufferings in it are much worse than anything in this life. Job certainly would not have wanted to escape from the painful time he was having by going to a place much more painful. "Why died I not from the womb? Why did I not give up the ghost when my mother bare me? Why did the knees receive me? Or why the breasts, that I should suck? For now should I have lain down and been quiet; I would have slept; then had I been at rest ... There the wicked cease from troubling: and there the weary are at rest" [Job 3:11-17]. Beyond any doubt, Job did not know about or believe in Hell as it is taught today. Job did not want to go to today's Hell and be tormented; he wanted to go the "grave" to avoid the torment he was in. WHY IS IT THAT NO PREACHER WHO BELIEVES IN "HELL" NEVER SPEAKS OF "HELL" IN THE WAY JOB DID? THE ANSWER IS SIMPLE, SHEOL DID NOT MEAN A PLACE OF TORMENT, BUT A PLACE OF REST, AND THOSE WHO PREACH "HELL FIRE" TODAY JUST DO NOT BELIEVE JOB.
(10) Job 17:13 "If I wait, the GRAVE [sheol-Hell] is my house: I have made my bed in darkness. I have said to corruption, you are my father: to the worm, you are my mother, and my sister. And where is my hope? As for my hope, who shall see it? They shall go down to the bars of the PIT [sheol-Hell], when our rest together is in the dust." It was clear even to the King James translators that Job was not saying Hell was gong to be his bed. He gives a description of the corruption and maggots of the grave. An undeniable statement that the grave was to be his house, not Heaven, Hell, or Abraham's bosom. He had no thought of being eternally tortured in the Dark Age Hell, but all of both the good and the bad resting together in the dust. Death is never said to be a gateway to Heaven. It is described as a place of darkness and forgetfulness. In the same passage they translated the same word, sheol, into both grave and pit.
Scott P. Wiley in "Eternal Torment or Annihilation" makes the grave be the place where man puts bodies but he says sheol is not the grave but the place where God puts souls of the dead. This passage clearly puts the corruption of dead bodies and the worm that eats dead bodies in sheol; it also puts those in sheol "in the dust." Is he saying God keeps living souls in the dust of the earth? If the grave and sheol are not the same place, why is the same word translated into grave and pit in this one passage? Newer translations like the New American Standard that leaves sheol untranslated both times it is used in this passage make it even clearer that maggots and corruption are in sheol. Can there be corruption and maggots in sheol if sheol is a place for "souls" that are not corruptible? His view puts him in conflict with most Protestants who believe the soul goes to Heaven or Hell at death. A few years back, most who are members of the same church he is, the church of Christ, believed as he does, but now many no longer believe it for at most funerals the dead person is said to be alive in Heaven. Many in the church are going over to the view of going to Heaven or Hell at death. But worst of all, he seems to be in conflict with himself on his view of Luke 23:43. In his comments on 2 Corinthians he makes the Lord be with Paul in sheol or he makes Paul be in Heaven with Christ before the resurrection. It is hard to know whether he believes the dead are in sheol or if the dead are in Heaven. Most of the time he is saying they are in sheol but at times he seems to be saying both.
(11) Psalms 30:3 "O lord, you have brought up my soul from the GRAVE [sheol-Hell]: you have kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit." David was not saying he had been dead, and his soul was in Hell. God had saved him from his foes and death, therefore, saved him from going to the grave. He did not come back from Hell. He was expressing his gratitude for his recovery. "You have kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit" and " you have brought up my soul from the grave" is Hebrew dualism where the same thing is said in two ways.
(12) Psalms 49:15 "But God will redeem my soul from the power of the GRAVE [sheol-Hell] for he shall receive me." The translators did not believe God would redeem any from Hell. At the resurrection, his life will be redeemed from the grave, from death. If "sheol" were really "Hell," then this passage would be saying God will redeem from Hell, and the writer of this Psalm expected to be in Hell and redeemed from it.
(13) Psalms 88:3 "And my life draws nigh unto the GRAVE [sheol-Hell]." He would soon die, not soon be in Hell. This is one of the good guys with a white hat.
(14) Isaiah 38:10 "I said in the cutting off of my days, I shall go to the gates of the GRAVE [sheol-Hell]: I am deprived of the residue of my years." King Hezekiah thinks he will die before he is old. If Hell had been used in this passage, he would have said he expected to go into eternal torment in Hell.
(15) 1 Samuel 2:6 "The lord kills and makes alive: he brings down to the GRAVE [sheol-Hell], and brings up." If they had translated this Hell, they would have the Lord brings up from Hell, but they believed no one could come out of Hell and have a second chance after they were in Hell, therefore, they did not use Hell. Coming out of Hell would not go with their theology.
(16) Job 7:9 "As the cloud is consumed and vanishes away: so he that goes down to the GRAVE [sheol-Hell] shall come up no more." ALL go down to the grave. They could not have translated this into Hell for then they would have put ALL in Hell together, both the good and the bad. Neither do they believe any in "Hell" will vanish away as bodies in the grave do.
(17) Psalms 6:5 "For in death there is no remembrance of you: in the GRAVE [sheol-Hell] who shall give you thanks?" David is not saying that only these in Hell have no remembrance of God, but that none of the dead have any remembrance or none can give Him thanks. If the bad were in Hell and the good in Heaven or Abraham's bosom, then both the bad and the good would have a remembrance of God. Do some think anyone could be in Heaven and have no remembrance of God or those who are being tormented in Hell will have no remembrance of the God who is tormenting them? If they had translated this Hell, they would have put ALL, both the good and the bad in Hell with no remembrance of why they were there or of the God that was tormenting them. THIS STATEMENT IS A FLAT CONTRADICTION OF TODAY'S THEOLOGY OF AN IMMORTAL SOUL THAT IS ONLY A PART OF A PERSON. That the dead are unconscious is so strongly stated in this passage that those who believe the dead are conscious have a hard time with it. This is shown in the Connelly-Field "Debate On The State Of The Dead" when Thomas P. Connelly says, "The desire expressed here is for salvation, in view of the fact that there is no chance of salvation in the grave; those who go to the grave unprepared give God no thanks, they do not remember the Lord, the term remembrance being used in the sense of obedience." David was asking God to save him from death "for in death there is no remembrance of You." It was David who he said did believe in God that would have no remembrance of Him, not someone who went to the grave not believing in God. David was not, as he says, someone who went "to the grave unprepared."
(18) Psalms 89:48 "What man is he that lives and shall not see death? Shall he deliver his soul [life - nehphesh] from the hand of the GRAVE [sheol-Hell]." Another Hebrew dualism that is used throughout Psalms. A person cannot keep himself from death and the grave. If this grave [sheol] were Hell, then no person could keep himself from Hell, not even the good guys. All die and go to the grave [sheol], but no one believes all go to Hell.
(19) Psalms 141:7 "Our bones are scattered at the GRAVE'S [sheol-Hell] mouth, as when one cuts and cleaves wood upon the earth." Will the bones of those in Hell be scattered at the mouth of Hell and not be in it? Whatever David means by grave's mouth, he is not saying that the inside of the grave [sheol/hades] has two sides, one for the good and one for the bad. Even the King James translators did not think so and translated it grave, not Hell.
(20) Proverbs 1:12 "Let us swallow them up alive as the GRAVE [sheol-Hell]: and whole, as those that go down into the pit."
(21) Proverbs 30:16 "The GRAVE [sheol-Hell] says not 'It is enough.'" No matter how many die, the point will never be reached when no more can die.
(22) Ecclesiastes 9:10 "Whatsoever your hand finds to do, do it with your might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the GRAVE [sheol-Hell], whether you go." Those in the grave know nothing and will know nothing unto the resurrection. A Hell or a Heaven where those in them know nothing would not be the Hell, or the Heaven the Catholics or the Protestants believe the dead to be living in. Solomon is not speaking in figurative language. A more positive statement that the dead are now unconscious could not be made. It could not be said any plainer that death is death and no part of anyone is alive before the resurrection. In the same chapter Solomon says, "The dead know not any thing" [Ecclesiastes 9:5].
(23) Song of Solomom 8:6 "Love is as strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the GRAVE [sheol-Hell]." No distinction is made of the good or the bad. The bad and the good are the same to the grave.
(24) Isaiah 38:18 "For the GRAVE [sheol-Hell] cannot praise you, death cannot celebrate you: they that go down into the pit cannot hope for your truth." No distinction is made of the dead. Neither the good or bad dead can praise God. If the good dead are living in Heaven, why could they not praise God? Those who go down to the pit [the grave] are asleep and know nothing. They cannot hope for God's truth while they are asleep. Death, pit and grave (sheol) are used interchangeably in this passage.
(25) 1 Kings 2:6 "And let not his hoar head go down to the GRAVE [sheol-Hell] in peace." No one could have peace while he was being burned by Satan or by God with a fire many times hotter than any fire on earth and tormented far worse than any torment known to anyone. The Hell preached today is not a place of peace. In 1 Kings 2:6-9 David is telling Solomon not to let Joab die peacefully because of the evil he had done. There is nothing about Joab being forever tormented in Hell in this. David knew Solomon had the power to bring Joab down the grave, but no one has the power to send anyone to "Hell" as the word is used today, but to make this teach their theology, they seem to be more than willing to give Solomon this power.
(26) 1 Kings 2:9 "But his hoar head bring you down to the GRAVE [sheol-Hell] with blood." See notes on 1 Kings 2:6 above. A man can shed the blood of another man and bring him down to the grave, but only God could say he was going to Hell if there were one.
(27) Job 21:13 "They spend their day in wealth, and in a moment go down to the GRAVE [sheol-Hell]." They "go DOWN to the grave," not to somewhere out in space or who knows where. At one time Hell was believed to be under the earth. In Greek philosophy after death the souls waiting to be reincarnated were under the earth; and Hell, which grew out of Greek philosophy had the souls in torment under the earth. From the Dark Age unto not many years ago, most who believed in Hell believed it was under or deep in the earth just as many who believed in pagan reincarnation believed it was under the earth. Most, but not all, now realize there is no place of torment under the earth and have moved it. Now who knows where they think it is, maybe somewhere out in space, but under the earth is no more unscriptural than any other place. Any torment in the grave [sheol] has to be read into this passage.
(28) Job 24:19 "Drought and heat consume the snow waters: so does the GRAVE [sheol-Hell] those which have sinned." Those who have sinned and are consumed by the grave just as heat does snow is a far cry from torment in a Hell where we are told that those that have sinned are never consumed. Job just did not understand and needed Jonathan Edwards to tell him that those, which have sinned, are not in the grave but are in Hell, a place of endless torment where they will never be consumed.
(29) Psalms 31:17 "Let me not be ashamed, O Lord; for I have called upon you: let the wicked be ashamed, and let them be silent in the GRAVE [sheol-Hell]." The translators knew David was not asking God not to let those in Hell cry out in pain as they were being tormented. He was asking for their end, not for them to be silent when they are being tormented in Hell. Most who believe in Hell believe that it will be anything but silent, but that there will be eternal yells in the pain there. Those who believe in "Hell" teach that the wicked will be weeping, wailing and gnashing their teeth. Nothing silent about that. According to the view of Hell many believes today, David would be asking God to torment many, but most of the ones who teach eternal torment in Hell would condemn anyone who prayed in church for God to forever burn most in the hot fires of Hell.
(30) (31) Psalms 49:14 "Like sheep they are lain in the GRAVE [sheol-Hell]; death shall feed on them" Also Hebrew dualism. No one believes sheep will be in "Hell." "And the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning; and their beauty shall consume in the GRAVE [sheol-Hell]. No matter how much beauty a person may have when living, that beauty will consume in the grave. They will swell up and decay in the grave. This was not translated Hell for they do not believe anyone will decay, be consumed, in Hell. They believe an immortal soul is the part of a person that will always be the same, not consume or decay away with the swelling of the dead body. "And their form shall be for Sheol to consume, so that they have no habitation" [New American Standard Bible].
Note: There are four others words in the Hebrew Old Testament that are translated "grave" in the King James Version (kvooraf, kehver, shahaghath, bgee), but to my knowledge none of them are used by anyone to prove there is any kind of life in the grave.
In the Hebrew, sheol is a common noun as is grave in English [SHEOL a common noun = GRAVE a common noun]. How can a common noun be translated into a proper noun [SHEOL a common noun = HELL a proper noun]? It is against all rules of translation to change a common noun into a proper noun. The King James Version left it a common noun thirty-four times, but thirty-one times they changed it into a proper noun. The same word is translated into two common nouns, grave and pit, and one proper noun, Hell. Which one did they think it is, common or proper? How did they know when it is a common noun and when they should change it to a proper noun? The New American Standard Version did not translate it but used the Hebrew word in the English translation, however, they capitalized it as if it were a proper noun. The New International Version translates the common noun "sheol" into the common noun "grave" sixty times and into the common noun "death" five times and did not capitalized it.
In none of the sixty-five passages where sheol is used is it said to be a place of fire or torment. It is said to be a place of silence and darkness but never fire. Sheol is never used with the word eternal or everlasting, and sheol will be destroyed [Hosea 13:14].
FIFTEEN OF THE THIRTY-ONE PASSAGES TRANSLATED HELL IN THE KING JAMES VERSION ARE THE DESTRUCTION OF NATIONS AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH INDIVIDUALS. ALTHOUGH WHAT IS SAID IN THESE FIFTEEN PASSAGES DO NOT IN ANYWAY FIT WITH TODAY'S THEOLOGY OF "HELL," THEY ARE OFTEN USED ANYWAY, mostly by the Jonathan Edwards type of Hell fire preacher.
(1) Deuteronomy 32:22 GOD'S ANGER TOWARD ISRAEL. "For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest HELL [sheol], and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains." Hundreds of years from Genesis to Deuteronomy had passed, and it was not unto the seventh time sheol is used before the King James translators thought they could put the Hell they believed in into the Bible. But, what does this passage say? Jeshurun forsook God [32:15]. They (Israel) provoked God to jealousy with strange gods [32:16]. They (Israel) sacrificed unto devils [32:17]. They moved God to jealousy with that which is not a god and provoked Him to anger [32:21]. In God's anger, a fire is kindled which would burn to the lowest sheol [grave] and shall consume the earth. This fire is on earth, not in Hell. "I will heap mischief upon them; I will spend mine arrows upon them. They shall be burnt with hunger, and devoured with burning heat, and with bitter destruction: I will also send the teeth of beasts upon them, with the poison of serpents of the dust. The sword without, and terror within, shall destroy both the young man and virgin, the suckling also with the man of gray hairs. I said, I would scatter them into corners, I would make the remembrance of them to cease from among men" [Deuteronomy 23:23-26, Also 1 Thessalonians 2:16]. ALL THIS, INCLUDING THE FIRE UNTO THE LOWEST GRAVE IS GOD'S PUNISHMENT TO THEM AT THAT TIME. ALL THESE PUNISHMENTS ARE THOSE THAT CAN ONLY BE INFLICTED ON THE LIVING, NOT ON AN IMMATERIAL, INVISIBLE PART OF A PERSON THAT HAS NO SUBSTANCE. THERE IS NOT ONE WORD ABOUT ANYONE BURNING IN HELL AFTER DEATH OR AFTER THE JUDGMENT. If it were a Hell, there would be beast, poison serpents, swords, etc. in Hell. Suckling babies would be destroyed in Hell.
The "how" of this burning "unto the lowest hell [grave-sheol]," is described in Deuteronomy 32:21-26 in a way that it could not be the "Hell" that is believed in by many today, but is God's anger with the nation of Israel. This is almost a repeat of Leviticus 26:14ff of what would happen to Israel if they did not obey God.
If "lowest Hell" spoken of in this passage were the "Hell" that is taught today, was David forever tormented by God in this "lowest Hell"? Or was he in it for a period of time and came out of it? See Psalm 86:13 below where David says he was delivered out of the lowest Hell in the King James Version.
FROM GENESIS TO DEUTERONOMY, CENTURIES HAD PASSED BEFORE THE KING JAMES TRANSLATORS FIRST PUT HELL IN THE BIBLE ALTHOUGH SHEOL HAD BEEN USED OFTEN. HUNDREDS MORE YEARS PASSED BEFORE THE NEW KING JAMES TRANSLATORS TRANSLATED SHEOL INTO HELL THE SECOND TIME.
FIVE OUT OF THIRTY-SIX The New King James Version translates "sheol" into Hell only five times out of the first thirty-six times "sheol" is used.
(2) Psalms 9:17 "The nations have sunk sown in the pit which they have made...The Lord is known by the judgment which he executes: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands ... The wicked shall be turned into HELL [grave-sheol], and all the nations that forget God" ["return to Sheol" New American Standard Bible, Psalms 9:15-17]. The same thing will happen to both the wicked persons and the nations that forget God. They both will go to sheol, the grave. Do some think evil nations live in torment in Hell after the nations no longer exists on this earth or that evil nations do not have some good people in them that would not be in Hell? Both will be in the grave, both will be dead, not both in eternal torment together in Hell. According to the American Standard Version the wicked are the wicked nations. "The wicked shall be turned back unto sheol, even all the nations that forget God." Psalms 9:15-20 is speaking of the nations that forget God. There is no threat of after-death punishment in this passage.
(3) Isaiah 5:14 "Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge: and their honorable men are famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst. Therefore, HELL [grave-sheol] has enlarged herself and opened her mouth without measure." Because they had left the Lord, they went into captivity. See Proverbs 27:20 above. Their captivity was a grave [sheol] to them as a nation.
(4) Isaiah 14:9 "HELL [sheol "grave" in margin of King James Version] from beneath is moved for thee to meet you at your coming: it stirs up the dead [rephaim] for you, even all the chief ones of the earth; it has raised up from the earth; it has raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall speak and say unto you, Are you also become weak as we? are you become like unto us?" This is a deception of the fall of Babylon and has nothing to do with the soul after death. In this metaphor, the past dead nations were surprised to see a nation as strong as Babylon joining them. If the dead were alive in sheol, why would they be surprised to see other persons joining them when all would? Isaiah 26:14 "They [the Nations] are dead, [rephaim] they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise; therefore has you visited and destroyed them, and made all remembrance of them to perish." This is about nations that did not remember God. It has nothing to do with an immortal immaterial part of a person after death. Because dead nations (not dead souls) are speaking in verse 9, the King James Version translated it Hell but verse 11 has worms and they feed on dead bodies not an immortal part of a man, therefore, they translated it "grave." This parable where dead nations speak is not to be taken literally any more then the parable before it where the trees speak [Isaiah 14:8]. If it were taken literally, it would be a completely different Hell than any Hell that is taught today. How did the translators think they could get the Hell they believed in out of this passage?
(5) Isaiah 14:15 "Yet you shall be brought down to HELL [grave-sheol]." See Isaiah 14:9 above. The picture of maggots and worms covering the king of Babylon [Isaiah 14:15] and warriors lying with their swords under their heads [Ezekiel 32:27] is a picture of the grave, and is far from what the Hell is that is taught today.
(6) Isaiah 28:15 and
(7) Isaiah 28:18 "Wherefore hear the word of the Lord, you scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem. Because you have said, we have made a covenant with death, and with HELL [grave-sheol] [HELL CHANGED TO SHEOL IN NEW KING JAMES VERSION] are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us." Isaiah 28:18 "And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with HELL [grave-sheol] [HELL CHANGED TO SHEOL IN NEW KING JAMES VERSION] not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then you shall be trodden down by it." When the "overflowing scourge" passed through, many would die, but they thought they could escape death and the grave. This is the nation of Israel that had made a covenant with some and thought they were safe but were not; it is not about individuals going to Hell.
(8) Isaiah 57:9 "And you went to the king with ointment, and did increase your perfumes, and did send your messengers far off, and did debase yourself even unto HELL [grave-sheol] [HELL CHANGED TO SHEOL IN NEW KING JAMES VERSION]." See Isaiah 57:8 and notes on Proverbs 15:24 above. Israel is spoken of as a woman who is unfaithful to her husband (God). Ultimately, this leads to the death of any nation. Does anyone believe nations will be forever tormented in Hell? Nothing is said about an individual going to Hell.
(9) Ezekiel 31:16 In this chapter God is saying to Egypt, "Do you remember Assyria, a great nation strong as a cedar. I made the nations to shake at the sound of his fall, when I cast him down to SHEOL [the grave]." This chapter of Ezekiel is about a nation, Assyria, which God had cast down and it was no more, not people. See notes on Isaiah 14:9-20 above.
(10) Ezekiel 31:17 "They also went down into HELL [grave-sheol] with him unto them that be slain with the sword; and they that were his arm, that dwelled under his shadow in the midst of the heathen," The nations around Assyria also perished. In the same context, the King James Version translated the same Hebrew word both Hell and grave [GRAVE in 31:15 and HELL in both 31:16 and 31:17]. They put nations in both the grave and in Hell at the same time.
(11) Ezekiel 32:21 "The strong among the mighty shall speak to him out of the midst of HELL [grave-sheol]." Egypt will join the other mighty nations in SHEOL [the grave]. Ezekiel is talking about nations, not individual people.
(12) Ezekiel 32:27 "There is Meshech, Tubal, and all her multitude: her graves are round about him: all to the uncircumcised slain by the sword, through they caused their terror in the land of the living. And they shall not lie with the mighty that are fallen of the uncircumcised, which are gone down to HELL [grave-sheol] with their weapons of war: and they have laid their swords under their heads, but their iniquities shall be upon their bones." Swords under their heads refer to ancient practice of burying the weapons of warriors with them. Their weapons of war could be under their heads in the grave but not taken with them after death to Hell. Those who believe in Hell do not believe any belongings from this life can be taken to Hell.
(13) Amos 9:2 "I saw the Lord standing upon the altar; and he said, Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake: and cut them in the head, all of them; and I will slay the last of them with the sword: he that flees of them shall not flee away, and he that escapes of them shall not be delivered. Though they dig into HELL [grave-sheol], thence shall mine hand take them." There was no place where they could flee from God. Even if they dug into the grave [sheol] God would find them. Many of the graves were caves or a room dug out of rock and sealed up. Does anyone think that a living person can dig into the place where they say the "immaterial invisible" souls of the lost are being tormented after their death? DOES ANYONE SERIOUSLY BELIEVE ANY LIVING PERSON CAN DIG INTO HELL? Can "souls" in Hell flee and be slain with the sword? Will there be a sword in Hell? Anyone can see that this is the living that are the enemies of God that cannot find a place to hide from His wrath, not even by hiding in a grave or pit. The very idea of digging into the Hell that is taught today is absurd. Amos 8 and 9 may be speaking of God punishing a nation, not individuals. "Have I not brought up Israel from the land of Egypt...And I will destroy it from the face of the earth" [Amos 9:7-10].
(14) Habakkuk 2:5 "Yea also, because he transgress by wine, he is a proud man, neither keeps at home, who enlarges his desire as HELL [grave-sheol], and is as death, and cannot be satisfied." Habakkuk is a book of prophecy about Chaldea. Chapter 2:4-17 Chaldea conquered many nations. "He enlarges his appetite like Sheol...He also gathers to himself all nations" Habakkuk 2:5 New American Standard Bible. They were like a man intoxicated with power and his desire is as the grave [sheol] that can never be satisfied. See Proverbs 27:20.
The grave [sheol] is said to be under the earth all through the Old Testament. Is Hell under ground?
(15) 2 Samuel 22:6 "When the waves of death compassed me, the floods of ungodly men made me afraid; The sorrows of HELL [grave-sheol] [HELL CHANGED TO SHEOL IN NEW KING JAMES VERSION] compassed me about; the snares of death prevented me." Up to the time of David, Hell is used in the King James Version only one time. FROM GENESIS ONE TO THE TIME OF DAVID IN 2 SAMUEL, OVER THREE THOUSAND YEARS HAD PASSED BEFORE THE SECOND TIME THE WORD HELL WAS PUT INTO THE KING JAMES VERSION; BUT, EVEN THEN, THE NEW KING JAMES TAKES IT OUT. 2 Samuel 22:5-6 is David speaking about troubles and fears he had, including fear of death for he was running from Saul who was trying to kill him. It is difficult to see why the King James Version put "Hell" in this passage for when they did, it is far from being what those who believe in "Hell" believe. Was David running from Saul because he thought Saul would send him to the grave or would send him to Hell? Even those who believe in Hell do not believe Saul could have sent David to it. THERE IS NOTHING IN IT ABOUT ANYTHING AFTER DEATH OR AFTER THE JUDGMENT DAY. Matthew Henry says, "This is expressed figuratively. He was surrounded with death on every side, threatened to be overwhelmed, and saw no way of escape." Matthew Henry's Commentary, Page 357. "The sorrows of HELL compassed me about" and "the snares of death prevented me" are Hebrew dualism.
(16) Psalms 16:10 "For you will not leave my soul in HELL [grave-sheol] [HELL CHANGED TO SHEOL IN NEW KING JAMES VERSION]: neither wilt you suffer your Holy One to see corruption." This is used in Acts 2 and is about Christ. See "The 11 'hades' translations" below. The translators put most of the saved in the grave, not in Hell, but this says his soul was not left in sheol. They could not put a "soul" (as the word is used today-an immaterial, invisible nothing) in the grave. If Christ were alive in Hell, He was alive and never was dead, therefore, there was no resurrection of Christ. Did God raise Christ from the dead, or did He just take the living Christ who was not dead out of Hell?
(17) Psalms 18:5 "I will call upon the Lord, who is worthy to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies. The sorrows of death compassed me, and the floods of ungodly men made me afraid. The sorrows of HELL [grave-sheol "grave" in margin of King James Version] [HELL CHANGED TO SHEOL IN NEW KING JAMES VERSION] compassed me about: the snares of death prevented me. In my distress I called upon the Lord, and cried unto my God; he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him even into his ears." This is David saying about the same thing that he said in 2 Samuel 22:5-6. See notes there. This is Hebrew dualism where the same thing is said in two ways. "The sorrows of sheol compassed me about" and "the snares of death prevented me" are two ways of saying the same thing. If Hell were a place of eternal torment after death and David had been compassed about by it, he would not have been alive on earth to write this. This is one of the good guys who came near unto death, not near unto Hell.
(18) Psalms 86:13 "For great is your mercy toward me: and you have delivered my soul from the lowest HELL [grave-sheol]." [HELL CHANGED TO SHEOL IN NEW KING JAMES VERSION]. [Footnote in King James Version: "Or, grave"] Neither the Catholic, Protestant, nor the after judgment versions of Hell believe that a person can go the Hell and come back to live on Earth. The writer of this Psalm is thanking God for saving his life from the grave, not for bring him back from Hell. The New Revised Standard Version says, "You have delivered my soul from the depths of Sheol" [sheol-grave]. AT THE TIME DAVID WAS WRITING THIS HE HAD NOT BEEN TO HELL TO BE DELIVERED FROM IT FOR THE HELL THAT IS TAUGHT TODAY IS A PLACE OF ETERNAL TORMENT FROM WHICH NONE WILL EVER BE DELIVERED. It is no wonder that the New King James took "Hell" out of this passage.
IF THIS PASSAGE WERE BELIEVED AS IT IS TRANSLATED IN THE KING JAMES VERSION, USING THE WORDS "SOUL" AND "HELL" AS THEY ARE USED AND UNDERSTOOD TODAY, IT WOULD TEACH:
In trying to put Hell in the Bible, they made a mess of things, a mess that no one believes, not even the translators that made the mess. In the next verse it is clearly indicated that this is deliverance from a threat of death from those who sought his life. "O God, arrogant men have risen up against me, and a band of violent men have sought my life [nehphesh]" [New American Standard Bible].
(19) Psalms 116:3 "The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of HELL [grave-sheol] [HELL CHANGED TO SHEOL IN NEW KING JAMES VERSION] gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow. Then called I upon the name of the Lord; O Lord, I beseech thee, deliver my soul." The writer could see that death and the grave may be close. When they translated sheol into Hell did they not put the righteous in Hell? Did he pray that his soul be taken out of Hell while he was living, when according to today's teaching his soul would not have been in Hell? The New King James Version did not think so and changed Hell to sheol. His trouble and sorrow were in this life, and he called upon the name of the Lord to deliver him from death and the grave, not to deliver him from Hell when he was not in Hell.
(20) Psalms 139:8 "If I ascend up into heaven, you are there: if I make my bed in HELL [grave-sheol], behold, you are there." He is saying God is everywhere, He is ommnipresent. There is nowhere one can go away from God. He can reach into the grave and raise the dead. The King James Version makes God be in Hell. If He were, then those in Hell would not be away from the presence of God and death would not be a separation from God as some teach it is. Sleep is used as a metaphor of death throughout the Bible. Those who believe in Hell do not believe those in Hell will have a bed and sleep. "If I make my bed in Sheol" [Hell in the King James Version]. If David had made his bed in Hell, this would be saying one of the good guys was asleep in Hell? See GATHERED TO HIS PEOPLE - WAKENING UP AT THE RESURRECTION in chapter three on the use of sleep in the Bible.
(21) Jonah 2:2 "And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and he heard me; out of the belly of HELL [grave-sheol] ["grave" in margin of King James Version] [HELL CHANGED TO SHEOL IN NEW KING JAMES VERSION] cried I, and you heard my voice." In the belly of the great fish was a dark covered place as the grave is. He was not dead, and neither the Catholics, Protestants, nor the after judgment versions of Hell believe that a person can be in Hell before his death or that he can come back to this world from Hell. For 374 years [from 1611 to 1985] the readers of the King James Version were told Jonah was in Hell, then the New Kings James Version came along and said not so, he was in sheol. This passage is also, as are many others, difficult to see how the King James translators thought they could get their view of "Hell" out of it even when they mistranslated it.
(22) Job 11:8 "It is as high as heaven; what can you do? Deeper than HELL [grave-sheol] [HELL CHANGED TO SHEOL IN NEW KING JAMES VERSION]; what can you know?" "They are higher than the heavens-what can you do? They are deeper than the depths of the grave-what can you know?" New International Version. This is one of Job's comforters, Zophar. God said, "My wrath is kindled against you and against your two friends, because you have not spoken of Me what is right as My servant Job has" [Job 42:7]. Can the words of Job's friends, which God says are not "right," be used to prove any truth? WHAT IS HIGHER THAN THE HEAVENS AND DEEPER THAN THE DEPTHS OF THE GRAVE? THE MYSTERIES OF GOD AND THE LIMITS OF THE ALMIGHTY [11:7]. All though Job's friend might not have been speaking what was right, there still is nothing in what they said about anything after death or after the judgment. In this, as in all the sixty-five uses of sheol, there is no torment after death.
(23) Job 26:6 " HELL [grave-sheol] [HELL CHANGED TO SHEOL IN NEW KING JAMES VERSION] is naked before him, and destruction has no covering."
(24) Psalms 55:15 "Let death seize upon them, and let them go down quick into HELL [sheol-grave in the margin of the King James Version]: for wickedness is in their dwellings, and among them." David is asking that they die and go to SHEOL [the grave] quickly. He is not asking that they be tormented in Hell forever. Those who believe in the after judgment Hell do not believe the wicked go quickly to Hell at death, but some of them are desperate enough for proof of their Hell that they use this and other verses like it. Though this is the twenty-ninth time sheol is used, it is only the eighth time Hell is in the New King James Version. Numbers 16:29-33 is similar. "If these men die the death of all men, or if they suffer the fate of all men, then the Lord has not sent me. But, if the Lord brings about an entirely new thing and the ground opens its mouth and swallows them up with all that is theirs, and they descend alive into SHEOL [grave-sheol, PIT in King James Version], then you will understand that these men have spurned the Lord. Then it came about as he finished speaking all these words, that the ground that was under them split opened; and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, and their households, and all the men who belonged to Korah, with their possession, So they and all that belonged to them went down alive to SHEOL [sheol-grave-pit in King James Version]; and they perished from the midst of the assembly" New American Standard Bible. Their possessions went into the grave with them, but those who believe in Hell do not believe anyone can take their possessions to Hell. If they had translated this "sheol" into "Hell," it would have put Hell in a hole in the ground and on this earth.
Hebrew dualism where the same thing is said in two ways is used throughout Psalms and Proverbs. Sheol is used in dualism repeatedly.
(25) Proverbs 5:5 "Her feet go down to death: her steps take hold on HELL [grave-sheol]." Through out the poetry books, a statement is made and then for emphasis will be repeated in a different way. "Her feet going down to death" is repeated for emphasis "her steps taking hold on sheol [the grave]." In Proverbs 1:12, it was the victims of the evil, therefore, the King James Version puts the victims in the grave; but in Proverbs 5:5, it is the evil women, therefore, the King James Version puts her in Hell.
(26) Proverbs 7:27 "Her house is the way to HELL [grave-sheol]," is repeated for emphasis "going down to the chambers of death." Hebrew dualism where the same thing is said in two ways. Going down to the chambers of death is the same as the way to the grave [sheol].
(27) Proverbs 9:18 "But he knows not that the dead are there; and that her guests are in the depths of HELL [grave-sheol]." "The dead are there" is repeated for emphasis "her guests are in the depths of sheol [the grave]" is a repeat of the same thing. This was when there was no cure for sexual diseases and many of her guests went to a premature grave. Proverbs 5 is about prostitutes, and it says of those that go to them, "And you groan at your latter end, when your flesh and your body are consumed" [Proverbs 5:11].
(28) Proverbs 15:11 "Correction is grievous unto him that forsakes the way: and he that hates reproof shall die. HELL [grave-sheol] and destruction are before the Lord." The "grave and destruction" is also Hebrew dualism where the same thing is said in two ways, a repeat for emphasis of "shall die." The grave and destruction are not a picture of Hell as it is painted by today's Theology.
(29) Proverbs 15:24 "The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from the HELL [grave-sheol] beneath." Protestants do not believe that any will depart from Hell once they are there. See Psalms 18:3-6 and Psalms 55:15. The writers of Psalms, Proverbs and all the Old Testament believed God would reward and save the righteous and punish the evil even with death in their lifetime. Israel went into captivity frequently and many of them died in captivity. When they would repent God would bring them out. The wrath of God is on the sinner now in this life [Romans 1:18; 2 Peter 2:9].
(30) Proverbs 23:14 "You shall beat him with the rod, and shall deliver his soul from HELL [grave-sheol]." A child that is not punished when it does wrong will not keep the law and may be punished even with death [see note on Proverbs 15:10-11 above]. "You shall beat him with the rod, and deliver (save) his life from the grave." No child can be delivered from the Hell that is taught today by beating him with the rod, so why did they put "Hell" in this passage?
(31) Proverbs 27:20 "HELL [grave-sheol] and destruction are never full." "And he that hates reproof shall die [Proverbs 15:24]. Hell [grave-sheol] and destruction are before the Lord" [Proverbs 15:10-11]. No matter how many die, as long as time goes on, there will be room for more. In Proverbs 30:16 the translators translated the same thought as grave. "The GRAVE [sheol]...says not 'It is enough.'" This is not saying Hell is so large a place that it can never be filled. This passage is like the other 64 passages that have sheol in them, nothing is said about torment in Hell.
Mr. Stuart, who believes in "Hell" says, "The inconsistency with which they have sometimes rendered the word Sheol, in the same connection and with the same sense, is a striking circumstance which cannot but be regarded with some wonder by an attentive inquirer."
PASSAGES FROM WHICH THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION REMOVED "HELL" THAT WAS IN THE KING JAMES VERSION The New King James Version took Hell out of thirteen of the thirty-one times it is in the King James Version. It changed the way sheol was translated in the King James Version 19 of the 65 times sheol is used. It also changed the 3 words used in the King James Version to 4 words; pit, grave, Hell, and sheol.
After looking at the sixty-five passages where sheol is used in the Old Testament, there is only one conclusion that we can come to, death really is death for both the good and the evil, and there is no life for anyone or any part of anyone before the resurrection. THERE IS NO HINT OF AN ETERNAL LIFE OF TORMENT AFTER DEATH OR AFTER THE JUDGMENT IN ANY OF THE SIXTY-FIVE PASSAGES. THE OLD TESTAMENT DOES NOT CONTAIN TODAY'S CONCEPT OF HELL. THERE IS NO WORD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT THAT EVEN COMES CLOSE TO THE MEANING THAT HELL HAS TODAY.
TWO DEFINITIONS: Webster's New World Dictionary, (1) A place in the ground where a dead body is buried. Any place where a dead body is laid or comes to rest." (2) Today's theology, "A place where the living that can never be dead are tormented forever by Satan or by God." HOW DID THE TRANSLATORS GET TWO WORDS, GRAVE AND HELL, WITH SUCH A VAST DIFFERENCE IN MEANING FROM THE SAME HEBREW WORD? It is as if the same word [sheol] means "white" in thirty-four passage and "black" in thirty-one passages. TO MISTRANSLATE THE WAY THE KING JAMES TRANSLATORS DID IS NOT ONLY A BAD TRANSLATION, IT IS SINFUL TO SO MISUSE GOD'S WORD, BOTH SINFUL FOR THE TRANSLATORS AND SINFUL FOR THOSE WHO KNOW IT IS WRONG BUT USE IT ANYWAY AND DO NOT SPEAK OUT ABOUT WHAT THEY KNOW TO BE WRONG. What will they say to God at the judgment? L. Ray Smith says, "I do not even contend that this is bad scholarship. This is NO scholarship at all. This is nothing less than FRAUD-a Christian HOAX! Show me where else in historic academia we find such reckless abandonment of the facts? I am not contending for my personal preference in translating the scriptures, but to merely translate accurately and consistently what we find in all the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts."
Often, the person who teaches sheol is somewhere beneath the surface of the earth and the dead all to sheol, will, at other times, teach all go to Heaven or Hell at death. The Old Testament teaching of all the dead being asleep in sheol, the grave, is in direct contradiction to today's teaching of going to Heaven at death, yet many teach both, depending, I guess on what their needs are at any given time, but most seem to be unaware of what they are doing, unaware that they are changing back and forth between two contradictory teachings.
The Greek word hades in the New Testament corresponds to sheol in the Old Testament. Hades is used in the Septuagint Version, a translation of the Old Testament into Greek, sixty of the sixty-five times where sheol is used. It is used in the New Testament when the Old Testament is quoted [Psalms 16:10; Acts 2:27]. HADES DOES NOT HAVE ANY REFERENCE TO THE SOUL OF ANYONE IN ANY OF THE ELEVEN PASSAGES WHERE IT IS USED. NOR DOES IT HAVE ANY REFERENCE TO TORMENT IN HELL. An examination of every passage where hades is used in the New Testament shows that not one of them says anything about everlasting conscious torment or of eternal punishment. Not a one of them says anything about what will be after the judgment day.
(1) Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church: and the gates of HELL [the grave-hades] shall not prevail against it." "And the gates of HADES shall not prevail against it" New King James Version. When Christ was put into the grave, it looked as if His death had prevailed against His building His Church, but God raised Him on the third day and His church was built in Acts 2. "Death shall neither destroy the organic church which is in the world, nor the members thereof which go down into the grave." J. W. McGarvey, The Fourfold Gospel, Standard Publishing Company, Page 412. There is no mention of eternal torment after death.
(2) Acts 2:27 "Because you will not leave my soul in HELL [the grave-hades], neither will you suffer your Holy One to see corruption." Hades is the Greek translation of the Hebrew sheol. In Acts 2:27, hades is a translation of sheol from Psalm 16:10, and in 1 Corinthians 15:54-55 is an allusion to Isaiah 15:8. Only the King James Version translates hades into Hell. Most translations, even the New King James Version, have not translated hades into Hell. Many would not translate it and therefore left the untranslated Greek word in the English translation. This does not help the English reader who does not know Greek; but it was left untranslated because those who believe the soul is immortal and believe in Hell do not want neither sheol in the Old Testament or hades in the New Testament to be translated.
(3) Acts 2:31 "He seeing this before spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in HELL [the grave-hades]; neither his flesh did see corruption." "That His soul was not left in HADES" New King James Version. This is a quotation of Psalms 16:10. David "both died and were buried, and his tomb is with us unto this day" [Acts 2:29]. If David were living at this time and he was not in the tomb, Peter had no point or argument, and what he said had no meaning. "From the day that the fathers fell asleep" 2 Peter 3:4. This shows that David is still asleep, along with all other's that "are fallen asleep" 1 Corinthians 15:6. To say that David is not dead or has been raised is to say the resurrection is passed, and Christ was not the "first fruits" 1 Corinthians 15:20, or the "first born" Colossians 1:18, Revelation 1:5. To say that David was never dead is to make a resurrection impossible. The resurrection at the coming of Christ is the subject, and nothing is said about what will be from death to the resurrection. Jesus was in His grave until God resurrected Him, and David will be in his grave until the resurrection. David and all who have died except Christ are still in the grave [in sheol-hades] and will be unto the Resurrection. The King James Version has the "soul" of David being taken out of Hell but those who believe in Hell do not believe that a "soul" that has gone to Hell will ever be taken out of it. If His soul [Hebrew-nehphesh; Greek-psukee] "was not left in hades [the grave]," then His soul, the part of Him that cannot die, according to those who say the soul is immortal, was in the grave [hades].
(4) 1 Corinthians 15:55 "O death [thanatos], where is your sting; O grave [hades], where is your victory?" It is so obvious that a place of torment after death is not what Paul was speaking of that even the King James translators could not translate this into Hell See Revelation 20:13-14 below. This is the only time in the King James Version that hades is translated grave. The New American Standard and many others translate both "thanatos" and "hades" into "death." "Death [thanatos] is swallowed up in victory. O death [thanatos], where is your victory? O death [hades], where is your sting? The sting of death [thanatos] is sin" [1 Corinthians 15:54-56]. They translate "thanatos" into death many places, but this is the only time they translate "hades" into death. Why the inconsistency? Was it not because translating either sheol or hades into grave would not fit with their theology everywhere else? If death is only separation of an immortal soul from God, the separated soul could not be in the grave. If it were, then it could not be in Hell where they believe it to be.
This is a quote from Hosea 13:14 where the King James Version translated "sheol" into "grave," not "death." "I will ransom them from the power of the grave [sheol]; I will redeem them from death; O death, I will be your plagues; O grave [sheol], I will be thy destruction." The New Kings James left hades untranslated.
"1 Corinthians 15:55 is parallel to Hosea 13:14, where the destruction of Hades is prophesied. Whatever Hades means, it is not to endure forever. It is destined to be destroyed. It cannot be endless torment. That its inhabitants are to delivered from its dominion, is seen from Rev. 20:13. 'And Death and Hell delivered up the dead that were in them.'...It does not retain its victims always, and hence, whatever it may mean, it does not denote endless imprisonment. Hence the next verse reads, 'And death and Hell were cast into the lake of fire.' Can a more striking description of utter destruction be given than this?" J. W. Hanson, "The Bible Hell."
(5) Matthew 11:23 "And you, Capernaum, which are exalted unto heaven, shall be brought down to HELL [grave-hades]: for if the mighty works, which have been done in you, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day."
(6) Luke 10:15 "And you, Capernaum, which are exalted to heaven, shall be thrust down to HELL [grave-hades]." They were favored more than most cities by seeing and hearing Christ "exalted unto heaven," but because of their unbelief they were brought down to the grave. Capernaum ceased to exalt and was covered by sand of Galilee's seashore, its grave. Not even those who believe in Hell believe cities will go to Heaven or Hell, yet they use this passage to prove that lost souls will go to Hell just as the King James translators sends Capernaum to Hell. Cities do cease to exalt [brought down to hades-the grave]: as both Capernaum and Sodom have been. There is nothing said about eternal torment of cities or nations. JUST AS CAPERNAUM WAS NEVER LITERALLY IN HEAVEN, IT WAS NEVER LITERALLY IN "HELL."
"And you, Capernaum, which are [present tense] exalted to heaven, shall be [future tense] be brought down to the grave." I know of no one who believes Capernaum, was at the time Christ was speaking [present tense], was in Heaven with God, but would be [future tense] brought down to Hell to be with Satan, yet this is what this passage would have to be saying if it proved "Hell."
Albert Barnes, who believes in Hell ["Hell" in the King James Version he was using], admits that in this passage Hell does not mean Hell. He says, "This does not mean that all the people should go to hell; but that the city which had flourished so prosperously, should lose its prosperity, and occupy the lowest place among cities. The word hell is used here, not to denote a place of punishment in the future world, but a state of desolation and destruction as a city" Note on Matthew 11:23.
(7) Luke 16:23 "And in HELL [grave-hades] he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeing Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom." This is one of the first passages most go to, to prove there is torment after death. See THE INTERMEDIATE BOSOM in chapter eight for notes on this parable.
(8) Revelation 1:18 "I am he that lives and was dead; and behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen: and have the keys of HELL [grave-hades] and of death." Many do not believe Hell will exist unto after the judgment, but they make Him be saying He has the keys to a place that does not yet exist.
What this passage does not and does say:
(9) Revelation 6:8 "And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that set on him was Death, and HELL [grave-hades] followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth." This is a symbolic passage, but to prove Hell it is taken out of context and made literal, but when they do, they have Hell, which they believe to be a place of torment after death, killing the living before their death. Definitely not what they believe. If those in Hell will be killed with the sword and with hunger, how can they be tormented forever? If this were made literal, then death and Hell would have power over only one fourth of mankind. Will the other three fourths live forever without dying and never go to Hell? If so, then they had no need of the death of Christ to save them from death or Hell.
(10) Revelation 20:13 "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and HELL [hades-footnote in King James Version says "the grave"] delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works." Will the "Hell" that is taught today give up those who are in it? If made literal, this also would not be today's theology. This passage makes a distinction between the dead in the sea and the dead in the grave [hades]. If hades were a place where all the dead go, the good to one side of hades (Abraham's bosom) and the lost to the other side of hades, all the dead would be in hades and none in the sea. Neither the Catholics, Protestant versions of Hell believe any will come out of Hell, but the way the King James Version is translated ALL that are in Hell do come out of Hell when this is made literal, which many do when they are trying to prove Hell is real.
(11) Revelation 20:14 "And death and HELL [grave-hades] were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death." NEITHER DO THEY BELIEVE HELL WILL BE CAST INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE. THEY BELIEVE HELL IS THE LAKE OF FIRE. If it were, then the King James Version would have Hell being cast into Hell, but John says it is death and the grave that are being cast into the lake of fire, not Hell cast into Hell. THE GRAVE, NOT HELL, WILL DELIVER UP THE DEAD AT THE COMING OF CHRIST. The victory of death over mankind will have ended [See I Corinthians 15:55 above]. MOST ALL THAT USE THIS MISTRANSLATION IN THE KING JAMES VERSION DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT THE KING JAMES VERSION SAYS, THAT HELL WILL DELIVER UP THOSE IN IT, FOR IF IT DID, THEIR HELL WOULD NOT BE ETERNAL. This mistranslation in the King James Version makes Hell end at the resurrection.
Dr. George Campbell: "It is very that neither in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, nor in the New, does the word hades convey the meaning which the present English word hell, in the Christian usage, always conveys to our minds." Diss. vi., Page 181.
Conscious in sheol-hades or Conscious in Heaven or Hell. Some believe and teach two contradictory beliefs at the same time.
"Christians, when they speak of hell, adopt the phraseology used about Sheol and Hades rather than Gehenna, though it is contended that Gehenna is the word which signifies the place of endless misery. I shall explain what I mean. For example, it is evident, from an inspection of the passages in which Sheol, Hades, and Gehenna occur, that Gehenna for depth is never contrasted with heaven for height, like Sheol and Hades. Nor do we read of persons going down to Gehenna; of the depths of Gehenna, or of the lowest Gehenna. Neither do we read of the gates of Gehenna. All these things are said of Sheol and Hades...Besides, no representation are given of Gehenna, as of Sheol and Hades, that all the dead, or even the wicked, are there. No persons are ever represented as alive in Gehenna, as speaking out of Gehenna, or as tormented in its flames. It is never, like Sheol and Hades, represented as a dark, concealed place, under the earth. No; it is represented as on a level with the persons addressed concerning it. These facts show a remarkable difference in the scripture representations of the two places. Such a marked difference must strike every man's mind with great force, who takes the trouble to examine this subject. An examination of the twelve places in which Gehenna occurs in the New Testament will show that what I have stated is strictly correct. In them we read of the judgment of Gehenna or hell; persons are said to be in danger of it; they are threatened with going into it, or being cast into it; but we never read that any one was alive in it, and lifter up his eyes in its torments. Now, comparing all these different forms of speech, about Sheol and Hades, with those of Gehenna, the difference is not only manifest, but very significant." Walter Balfour, "An Inquiry Into The Scriptural Import Of The Words, Sheol, Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna," 1854.
Summary of chapter six: Passages with both sheol and hades are often quoted for the purpose of proving Hell. Is this not a perversion of the truth? BY MISTRANSLATING THE KING JAMES VERSION PUT HELL INTO THE BIBLE OFTEN; BUT MOST OTHER TRANSLATIONS HAVE TAKEN IT OUT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, AND MOSTLY OUT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. IT IS IN THE AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION ONLY 13 TIMES, AND IS NOT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT. YOUNG'S LITERAL TRANSLATION AND MANY OTHER TRANSLATIONS HAVE NOT TRANSLATED ANY WORD INTO HELL. TO TRANSLATE SHEOL, GEHENNA, HADES, OR TARTARUS INTO HELL, IS A TOTAL PERVERSION OF THE TRUTH; AND IS AN INTENTIONAL MISTRANSLATION. IF WE USE IT OR TEACH IT, CAN THERE BE ANY HOPE FOR US? HELL IS A VERY DIFFERENT GOSPEL [GALATIANS 1:9]. IT IS CERTAINLY MORE DIFFERENT THAN ANYTHING THAT WAS PREACHED IN PAUL'S TIME.
The reinterpreting of life, death, torment, destruction, destroy, perish, die, and end.
In the Old Testament the penalty for disobedience is always in this lifetime. There is no allusion made to any punishment after this lifetime. THE PUNISHMENTS WERE TEMPORAL, NOT ENDLESS BUT LIMITED PUNISHMENTS, NOT PUNISHMENTS IN THE HEREAFTER BUT IN THIS LIFETIME.
[1] ADAM: God told Adam in the day he ate he would die. The day he ate was the beginning of the dying process ["Dying you shall die"]. The death that came into the world by Adam's sin is the same death that he died for eating, a physical death. His punishment was having to work to live, and dying. It was not the death of Adam's "soul," an inward immortal never dying part of Adam that could not die. He was not told that after his death he would be subjected to endless torment in Hell, but endless torment is almost always read into this. The complete silence of any punishment after death would be unthinkable if the doctrine of Hell were true.
[2] CAIN: His sin was the first murder, which by most is believed to be the greatest of all sins. What was his punishment? Today, he would be told that he would go to Hell if he did not repent, but his punishment was that he was to be a fugitive and a vagabond in his lifetime on the earth. Not one word about any punishment after his death. The punishment for anyone who killed Cain would be SEVEN TIMES GREATER than the punishment of Cain. How could anything be seven times greater than today's Hell?
[3] THE FLOOD: The people had become so evil that God destroyed them. Only eight were saved. What was their punishment? Read the Bible. It was death. There is no mention of any punishment after their death. They were not told they had lost their souls or that they would go to Hell. Their punishment was not something that would be after the flood; it was the flood and their death. "And the Lord was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. And the Lord said, 'I will BLOT OUT MAN whom I have created from the face of the land'" [Genesis 6:6-7 New American Standard]. "And all flesh DIED that moved upon the earth, both birds, and cattle, and beasts, and every creeping thing that creeping that creeps upon the earth, and every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, of all that was on the dry land DIED. And every living thing was DESTROYED that was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and creeping things, and birds of the heavens; and they were DESTROYED from the earth" [Genesis 7:21-23]. The same thing happened to "every man" also happened to every beast. Their punishment was death, not eternal torment. If the punishment of Hell awaited all those who drown in the flood, the punishment given to them utterly pales into insignificance when it compared to an eternal life of torment in Hell, yet absolutely nothing is said about it.
"I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you; and with every living creature (soul-nehphash) that is with you, the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that go out of the ark, even every beast of the earth. And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of the flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to DESTROY the earth" [Genesis 9:9-11]. All the souls, both of beast and man were destroyed, not forever tormented.
"For this they willfully forget, that there were heavens from of old, and an earth compacted out of water and amid water, by the word of God; by which means the world that then was, being overflowed with water, PERISHED [apollumi]" [2 Peter 3:5-6]. American Standard Version. "WAS DESTROYED" New American Standard Bible. Nothing is said about endless torment or any torment after death.
[4] THE DESTRUCTION OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH: Genesis 13 and 14: These cities were literally burnt up [Psalms 11:6; Isaiah 34:9], not still burning with the people walking around in torment. Their end was complete [total destruction] and is an example of the total destruction that is coming to the ungodly at the judgment.
[5] FROM ADAM TO MOSES: For about twenty-five centuries, from Adam to Moses, Lot's wife, Pharaoh, building of Babel, etc., punishment was always in this life, not in life after death.
[6] THE LAW OF MOSES, ALL THESE BLESSING, ALL THESE CURSING: "Now it shall be, if you will diligently obey the Lord our God, being careful to do all His commandments which I command you today, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth. AND ALL THESE BLESSING SHALL COME UPON YOU AND OVERTAKE YOU, if you will obey the Lord your God" [Deuteronomy 28:1-2]. "Moses was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians" [Acts 7:22], therefore, he knew of their teaching of life after death, but he did not put a word of it in the Law.
ALL THESE BLESSINGS of the Law were in this lifetime, not after death. If they kept the Law [Deuteronomy 28:11]. NOT ONE WORD ABOUT A BLESSING AFTER DEATH.
ALL THESE CURSES of the Law, if they did not keep it, were in this lifetime [Deuteronomy 28:18-19]. NOT ONE WORD ABOUT A CURSE AFTER THIS LIFETIME. "But it shall come about, if you will not obey the Lord your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that ALL THESE CURSES SHALL COME UPON YOU AND OVERTAKE YOU" [Deuteronomy 28:15].
"I declare unto you this day, that you shall surely PERISH; you shall not prolong your days in the land" [Deuteronomy 30:18]. "So they, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into Sheol: and the earth closed upon them, and they PERISHED from among the assembly" [Numbers 16:33]. "And whatsoever soul it be that does any manner of work in that same day, that soul will I DESTROY from among his people" [Leviticus 23:30]. Throughout the Old Testament perish and destroy means dying and has nothing to do with any kind of torment after death. It would be past comprehension that God would give them such detail of what would happen to then in this lifetime and say nothing of the unending pain He was going to forever heap on them in Hell that awaited them.
"One of the first phenomena which draws attention in the Pentateuch is the omission, both in the historical and perceptive portions of it, of any mention of the immortality of the soul. If this view of man's nature be true in our time, it was true from the beginning, and true in the time of Moses. And if it be as important as it is supposed to be now, it was equally important then. Yet no single indication of it is discoverable in the writings of Moses...There is but one tolerable explanation of this silence. Moses was withheld by divine control from teaching what was not true; a doctrine which was radically opposed to the fundamental facts of man's sin and mortality, on which redemption proceeds" Edward White, Life In Christ, Third Edition, Page 148, 1878.
The fifth commandment is the "first commandment with promise" [Ephesians 6:2]. What was the promise? Was it that one would be rewarded in Heaven? No, it had nothing to do with life after death, but life on earth, "That your days may be prolonged, and that it may go well with you on the land which the Lord your God gives you" [Deuteronomy 5:16].
UNDER THE JUDGES AND KINGS: Both under the Judges and later under the Kings the history of the Jews is one of rebellion against God followed by defeat and captivity. When they repented and turned back to God, they came out of exile and prospered.
"The entire history of the Jewish people as a nation, and as individuals, from generation to generation, shows with what exactness the threatening of the law was fulfilled in judgment. When they were obedient, the Lord prospered them, and rewarded them with fruitful seasons, with increasing wealth and power, and made them superior to their enemies. But, when they were rebellious and wicked, then followed adversity, defeat, captivity, and all the physical calamities threatened in the Law. But, all this while we have not one syllable of an endless woe, which is to be added to all the other woes. In no instance of rebellion against God, not when their corruption and idolatry were at the highest reaches of crime and blasphemy, do we find them threatened with the torments of a hell beyond the present life." Thomas Thayer, "Origin And History Of The Doctrine Of Endless Punishment"
All the blessings and all the punishments of the Law were physical in their lifetime. Punishment or reward after death is not promised. For thousands of years throughout the Old Testament, God warned of punishments in this lifetime if anyone did not keep the Law, but not one warning that anyone would "go to Hell." Death [mooth] is used hundreds of times and except the few times it is used in a symbolic passage it always means an actual physical death. The concept of Heaven is in the Old Testament but only as the dwelling place of God [Psalms 11:4; 33:13-14] and of angels [Genesis 21:17; 22:11; 28:12]. Heaven in the Old Testament was not a place where any person would ever be and where they would live forever. The God of Israel was a God who would protect them, give them blessings in this lifetime if they were faithful to Him and punish them only in this lifetime if they were not. The savior they looked for was A PERSON (not the Son of God) who would restore Israel as a nation and make it be superior to other nations. Even after His death and resurrection His apostles still thought the Christ they and all Israel looked for would restore the nation of Israel and rule it [Acts 1:6]. A resurrection to immortality and life in Heaven was a new teaching by Christ [2 Timothy 1:10] and was unknown in the Old Testament. The word resurrection is used forty-one times in the New Testament but not once in the Old Testament. One of the great difficulties with the eternal torment view is the profound silence of the Old Testament about it. How could God have warned Israel in detail about punishments in this life, droughts, plagues, and other punishments and not say one word about an eternal Hell which would be the worst of all punishments? The TOTAL SILENCE of the Old Testament for thousands of years about this endless torment is proof that it does not exist.
"For man to endure unending pain (characterized by fire) is a doctrine so awful to contemplate, that it is reasonable to conclude it would be revealed to man from the beginning, and so revealed that he could by no possibility misapprehend the consequences of sinning against his Maker; and we might expect to find the terrible sentence reiterated from time to time throughout the Scriptures, especially upon occasions of aggravated sin and wickedness" W. T. Berger, The Wages Of Sin And Everlasting Punishment, 1886.
"First. If their belief was the same as in our day, why did they never express themselves as people now do in books, sermons, and common conversation. None can deny the wide difference in the language used, or that the difference is proof that the new language had its origin in new views concerning the future. An unscriptural doctrine always give rise to unscriptural language; for the words of Scripture are the very best which could be chosen to express the will of God to man. If the doctrine were of God, the words of Scripture would be sufficient to express it. As we do not find this new phraseology in the Bible, we infer that the doctrine it was introduced to teach is not there. Second. How is it to be accounted for that the fears and feeling and exertions of good people, under the old dispensation, were so different from the fears and feelings and exertions of Christians in our day, about saving men form hell? I do not find that they express and fear of hell, and it is fair to conclude that they had none.I find no examples of their fears about their children, their relations, their neighbors, or the world at large, gong to eternal misery. As to their feelings, I do not find a sigh heaved, a tear shed, a groan uttered, a prayer offered, or any exertions made, as if they believed men were exposed to endless misery. We see parents, and others, deeply affected at the lost of their children and friends by death; we see pious people grieved on account of their disobedience to God's laws; but we find no expression of feeling arising from the belief that such persons would lift up their eyes in endless misery. Now, is it not strange that all this should be the state of the fears and feelings of good people, if they believed such misery was to be the portion of the wicked? The whole race of mankind was swept from the earth by a flood, Noah and his family excepted; but does this good man deplore, in any shape, that as many precious souls should be sent to hell? God also destroyed the cities of the plain. Abraham interceded that they might be spared, but used no argument with God that the people might not go to hell to suffer eternal misery. If Abraham believed this doctrine, it is possible he should have failed to urge it as an argument, that all those wicked persons must go to hell, if God destroyed them? No notice is taken of the very argument, which, in our day, would be most urged in prayer to God, if anything similar was to take place. All who have read the Old Testament know what vast numbers were cut off in a day, by war and pestilence, and other means; yet do you ever hear it deplored by a single individual, as is often done in our day, that so many were sent out of the world to eternal misery? If, in short, this doctrine was then believed, a dead silence and the most stoical apathy were maintained even by good men about it.
Under the Old Testament dispensation the sinful condition of the heathen nations is often spoken of. But do we ever find the inspired writers representing those nations as all going to eternal misery, or did they use similar exertions to save them from it as are used in the present day? If the doctrine of eternal misery was know and believe in those day, is it not unaccountable that so many ages should pass away before God commanded the gospel to be preached to every creature, and before those who knew their danger should use exertions to save them from it? If the doctrine be false, we may cease to wonder at this; but if it be true, it is not easy to reconcile these things with the well known character of God, and the feelings of every good man. What an immense multitude of human beings, during four thousand years, must have lived and died ignorant that such a place of misery awaited them!" Walter Balfour, "An Inquiry Into The Scriptural Import Of The Words, Sheol, Hades, Tartarus And Gehenna" 1854.
The Law of Moses offered no atonement of reconciliation, if it had, the death of Jesus would not have been needed. Then Jesus, our High Priest, would not have presented his sacrifice to the Father, and would not have brought life and immortality to light through the gospel [2 Timothy 1:10].
Hebrew 11: Some seem to have had some knowledge and faith in life after death, not in an immortal soul [see Hebrews 11:13-16; 11:35 and Job 14:14-14], but there is nothing about it in the promises made to Abraham or the first covenant given to Moses. Nothing recorded in the Old Testament giving any promise of life after death. All other rewards spoken of in Hebrew 11 were rewards in this lifetime and have no promise of a reward after death.
From the first page to the last page of the Old Testament God warns no one of an eternal life of torment after death if they were not faithful to Him.
The belief of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. There is much conflict and confusion in what has been written about the beliefs of both the Pharisee and the Sadducees. Below is a brief outline of their beliefs, which is in agreement with most writers.
Gehenna was used on four occasions by Christ and recorded in three of the four Gospels, and one time by James. In the rest of the New Testament "Gehenna" was not used, as Gentiles would not understand it; and the people not living near Jerusalem would not know what Gehenna was, that it was the name of the trash dump of Jerusalem. Just as I and most who read this would not know the name of the trash dump of London. John did not use Gehenna in his gospel for when he wrote the destruction of Jerusalem was passed and most believe his gospel was written to Gentiles, and Paul was an apostle to the Gentiles. Therefore, neither John nor Paul used Gehenna. EVERY TIME CHRIST USED GEHENNA, ON ALL FOUR OCCASIONS IT WAS SPOKEN TO THE JEWS. Gentiles are not once threatened with destruction in Gehenna.
Today, those who believe in Hell are always warning unbelievers about going to Hell if they do not believe. Acts covers about thirty years of preaching, but not one time is anything said about Hell. Paul said he did not keep back anything that was profitable [Acts 20:20] and that he declared the whole counsel of God [Acts 20:27], yet in none of his letters did he say anything about Hell. In about thirty years of preaching to many in many countries, he never told any that they would be forever tormented in Hell if they did not believe. Why? He certainly would not have omitted such a doctrine as Hell. Today it is preached as a most profitable teaching, and the fear of Hell is used to keep many going to church. Paul did not declare anything about Hell for the same reason he did not declare anything about purgatory; there are no such places.
If the lost shall be forever tormented in Hell, it is only reasonably to believe there would be many warning about it, but there are none. The Hell, which is preached today was not a part of the teaching of the apostles and early church. This same strange silence is found through out the Old Testament. Did God just forget to warn a person of the awful place some are always preaching about?
Those who believe in Hell, try to prove it by their interpretation of metaphors and symbols for they have not one plain statement in the whole Bible. The name they give it (Hell) is not in the Bible. The place they preach about is not in the Bible under any name. It's origin is Pagan to the core.
With no revelation from God about Hell, how could we: (1) Know about it. (2) Know what it is. (3) Know its name. (4) Know there will be torment in it. (5) Know it will last forever. (6) Know who or if anyone will be in it. (7) Who told us these things? God has given us not one word of revelation on it.
The apostles did tell what would be the fate of the unbelieving, but the words they used are very different than what is preached today. Most churches would throw a preacher out if he preached the lost would be destroyed, perish, die, death, or end. Death is very different than everlasting life in Hell [see chapter two, "Life and Death"]. The words used to describe the fate of the lost are miles apart from much of today's preaching.
SOME OF THE NONE SYMBOLIC GREEK WORDS USED TO DESCRIBE THE FATE OF THE LOST ARE:
[1] DEATH "For the wages of sin is DEATH" [Romans 6:23]. See chapter two "Life or Death." DEATH IS DEATH, NOT EVERLASTING LIFE WITH TORMENT. LIFE AND DEATH ARE OPPOSITES, NOT TWO KINDS OF LIFE.
Unconditional immortality makes both life and death into life in a different place. Death has been reinterpreted to be life.
Death deprives us of all life. It does not give more life than we now have. It is not just a continuation of life in a different form. The resurrection restores the life death took away. It is a return to life from the dead, not a return of the undead to still being undead just as they were before the resurrection. The resurrection is our only hope of life after death. A change from one state of being to another state of being, moving from one place to another place, is not a resurrection.
DEATH IS THE BIG PROBLEM FOR UNCONDITIONAL IMMORALISTS. Innate immortality says whether it is a sinner or saint, an immortal soul cannot die and cannot be subject to death. They MUST prove that death is not death but is only a change from one kind of life to another kind of life. THEY MUST PROVE THAT DEATH IS ETERNAL LIFE AND NOT DEATH, but if they did, then they would have proven that Christ could not have died and that He has not been raised from the dead. Unconditional immoralists have taken all resurrections, both of Christ and ours, out of the Gospel. Without the resurrection death is the end of life and means our utter destruction.
The immortal soul doctrine says death is not the enemy Paul thought it to be [1 Corinthians 15:26], but the friend Plato and Greek philosophy thought it to be. IN GREEK PHILOSOPHY THE PREACHING OF THE RESURRECTION WAS FOOLISHNESS FOR DEATH WAS A GATEWAY TO A BETTER LIFE. IN TODAY TEACHING DEATH HAS REPLACED THE RESURRECTION BY BEING THE GATEWAY TO A BETTER LIFE IN HEAVEN.
"The words of the Bible contain all the ideas in it. These words, then, rightly understood, and the ideas are clearly perceived. The words and sentences of the Bible are to be translated, interpreted, and understood according to the same code of laws and principles of interpretation by which other ancient writings are translated and understood; for, when God spoke to man in his own language, He spoke as one person converses with another-IN THE FAIR, STIPULATED, AND WELL-ESTABLISHED MEANING OF THE TERMS. This is essential to its character, as a revelation from God; otherwise, it would be no revelation, but would always require a class of inspired men to unfold and reveal its true sense to mankind." A. Campbell, "The Christian System," Page 3, Gospel Advocate, 1970. In today's teaching of an immortal part of a person that is not subject to death, and death cannot be used "IN THE FAIR, STIPULATED, AND WELL-ESTABLISHED MEANING OF THE TERMS." Death must be reinterpreted to be life.
THE WORLD'S GREATEST SCHOLARSHIP IS COLLECTIVELY SEEN IN THE TRANSLATIONS AS TO THE MEANING OF [1] DEATH [2] APOLLUMI [3] APOLIA [4] OLETHROS [5] PHTHIRO [6] PHTHORA [7] KATAPHILEO [8] "PASSES AWAY...ABIDES FOREVER" [9] EXOLOTHREUO [10] KATARGEO, AND [11] DESTROY BY THE WAY THEY TRANSLATED THEM. THE TRANSLATORS CHOSE WORDS THAT TO THE AVERAGE MIND CONVEY THE END OF LIFE, NOT LIFE IN ANOTHER LOCATION. Some say hundreds of the world's greatest scholars failed. The Bible is not a physics textbook and does not give a scientific definition of annihilation, but God could not have been any clearer on what will happen to the lost, and the translators of most versions give us a true translation of the above words.
Robert Dozier gives us a true picture of the way many try to prove these scholars wrong. He says, "The scripture in Mt. 10:28 is translated 'destroy.' But I don't want to believe that, as it contradicts my preconceived ideas. So I go to the lexicon and find out if the translators and translation is correct. I know little of the language compared to the translators, but I do find out that the Greek word translated 'destroy' is defined by the lexicons. The first definition is, 'to destroy' but that won't work for me. If I accept that, the translators are correct. Also included in the definition is 'to put out of the way entirely.' That is just not precise enough. Next is 'abolish' but that is not much better than destroy. Then, 'put an end to.' Nope, that may be the worst yet! Then 'ruin.' Finally! Something I can work with! I am not saying that James or others are consciously or deliberately trying to avoid the meaning of words or discredit the scholarship of the translations, but if we start out with a false premise and then try to defend it, we can find ourselves making some unreasonable arguments and claims along the way. That all the translators made huge blunders over and over regarding the end of the lost is such a claim. The men who wrote the lexicons rendered it 'destroy' in our Bible, and defined it the same way, but if that won't fit our idea, we must point out their error and be thankful that they left us one word in a lexicon to grasp at. While the word 'annihilation' is not in our scripture, the words translated are much closer to it than they are to 'never ending conscious torment.' that's for sure...Even the rendering of 'ruined' doesn't help that much. It may neutralize that text from being one that favors annihilation, but it sure doesn't teach 'never ending conscious torment.'" Robert Dozier-James Johnson Debate on eternal punishment at: http://www.religiousdebates.com/
BUT, WHAT DO LEXICONS MEAN BY "RUIN"?
[2] APOLLUMI Used 92 times in the New Testament. "Englishman's Greek Concordance," Page 74. In King James Version, it is translated [1] Destroy 19 times, [2] Destroyed 7 times, [3] Perish 25 times, [4] Perished 8 times, [5] Lost 13 times, [6] Lose 18 times, [7] Die 1 time, [8] Be marred 1 time (perished in American Standard Version).
All from the same Greek word. ["TO DESTROY UTTERLY, TO MURDER, TO KILL, TO LAY WASTE; FROM OLLUMI, TO DESTROY, TO CONSUME, TO MAKE AN END OF, TO PERISH, TO COME TO AN END, TO DIE" Liddell and Scott]. "Bottles perish" (apollumi) [Matthew 9:17]. "Lose (apollumi) his reward" [1 Peter 1:7]. The Heavens and Earth "shall perish"; (apollumi see 2 Peter 3:10). Even those who believe in eternal torment do not believe these things will be tormented forever, but will come to an end: yet, when the same word is used for people [Romans 2:12, 1 Corinthians 1:18, 2 Corinthians 2:15, 4:3], some teach they will not and cannot come to an end; but must live forever in torment. It would be hard to say any plainer that "apollumi" means to perish, to come to an end, to be destroyed than the King James Version says it. "Slain" and "perished" [apollumi] are used interchangeablely in Acts 6:36:37.
1) To destroy (apollumi) is to kill. Matthew 2:13; 12:14; 21:41; 22:7; 27:20; Mark 3:6; 9:22; 11:18; 12:9; Luke 11:51; 17:27; 17:29; 19:47; 20:16; Jude 5; 2 Peter 3:6
2) To perish (apollumi) is to die. Matthew 8:25; Mark 4:38; Luke 8:24; 13:33; 15:17; John 18:14; Acts 5:37; 1 Corinthians 10:9; 15:18; Hebrews 11:31. Perish must be changed to live. When it is the body that perishes, as in Mark 4:38 "Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing [apollumi]," even those who say to perish does not mean to die if it is the soul, must admit that when the same word is unquestionably applied to the body of a person or to a tree, it means the person and the tree dies. They want the body that perishes to be dead, but the soul that perishes to be alive. I marvel that they cannot see their inconsistency, but then I remember that when I believed as they do, I could not see it either. "Theudas was slain" Acts 5:34-36. A Pharisee, named Gamaliel said Theudas died [was slain]. "Judas...also perished. Both apollumi [perished] and slain are same thing, both mean dead. Neither Theudas who was slain, nor Judas who perished, was alive and being tormented. MOST ADMIT IT IS ACTUAL DEATH WHEN IT REFERS TO THE EARTHLY BODY BEING DESTROYED OR PERISHING BUT SAY IT MEANS TO PRESERVE ALIVE FOREVER WHEN IT REFERS TO THE "SOUL" BEING DESTROYED OR PERISHING. They first assume mankind has a "soul" that can never die, then they must change the meaning of any word that would be in conflict with what they have assumed. However, they see that it cannot be changed to preserve alive in the many times the same words are used when it refers to the earthly body being dead. The same questions must be asked again, how do they know it must be changed and how do they know what it must be changed to? What new revelation do they have? How would those who Paul was writing to know when Paul used it one way and when he used it the other way?
3) "In like manner perish (apollumi) " "Now there were some present at that very season who told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And he answered and said unto them, Think you that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they have suffered these things? I tell you, No: but, except you repent, you shall all in like manner perish (apollumi). Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed them, think you that they were offenders above all the men that dwell in Jerusalem? I tell you, No: but, except you repent, you shall all likewise perish *(apollumi)" [Luke 13:1-5]. Both groups literally died, and all who do not repent will literally likewise perish [apollumi], not literally live forever in torment. "Killed" and "perish" are the same thing in this passage. They are being told that all who do not repent will likewise be killed, will literally lose their life (after the judgment, not their earthly life).
2 PETER 3:6 APOLLUMI-PERISHED. The world before the flood "perished" [2 Peter 3:6]. When the Lord comes, the heavens "shall pass away...shall be dissolved...burned up" [2 Peter 3:10]. "To be dissolved...shall be dissolved" [2 Peter 3:12]. "Shall melt" [2 Peter 3:12]. Just as those who "perished" [2 Peter 3:6] when the flood came, the lost "perished" with the world that then was, the lost "Shall...surely be destroyed" [2 Peter 2:12]. Peter could not have said any clearer that the heavens and the lost will come to the same end at the same time at the Judgment Day. Theology says, "Not so Peter, God can destroy the heavens and the earth; but He cannot destroy the immaterial, invisible, inter part of a person; for our theology says it is immortal, therefore, He must torment this immaterial part of a person." "Burned up" in 2 Peter 3:10 is from the Greek word "katakaio." The same thing that happened to the chaff and tares will happen to the earth and those who perish. "He will burn up (katakaio) the chaff" [Matthew 3:12; Luke 3:17]. Not, "He will eternally torment the chaff." "The tares are gathered and burned (katakaio)" [Matthew 12:40].
"In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will PERISH [Apollumi], but you will remain" [Hebrews 1:11]. THE QUESTION IS, WHAT WOULD THE GREEK PEOPLE IN THE TIME OF THE NEW TESTAMENT UNDERSTAND BY THE ONE WORD ALL NINETY-TWO TIMES THAT APOLLUME IS USED AND IS THERE A WORD IN ENGLISH THAT WOULD BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE SAME WAY?
[3] APOLIA a noun derived from aplooumi and is used 20 times. Wigram, Page 79. In the King James Version it is translated [1] Destruction 5 times, [2] Waste 2 times, [3] Perdition 8 times, [4] Perish 1 time, [5] Damnation 1 time, [6] Damnable 1 time, [7] Pernicious ways 1 time, [8] To die 1 times.
These "things" will come to an end, not be tormented for eternity. If you destroy something, it does not then exist in another higher state of being; but this is just what those who believe in unconditional immortality believe will happen.
PHILIPPIANS 3:19 APOLIA DESTRUCTION
Put the translators of the major translations together, and you have hundreds of the most learned men on the New Testament Greek. Most if not all the translators of these translations did not believe a soul could be destroyed and most if not all of them believed in Hell, but they did not translate Apolia into "torment." If all of them translate a word in a way that disproves something those who did the translating believed in, there could be no stronger proof of the way that word should be translated. This is just what happened with the word "destruction." SOME OF THE WORLD'S BEST SCHOLARSHIP SAYS APOLIA IS THEIR UTTER DESTRUCTION, THEIR END, THEIR DOOM, THEIR DESTINY, AND COMPLETION EVEN WHEN THEY DID BELIEVE A PERSON HAS A SOUL THAT CANNOT BE DESTROYED AND WILL NOT COME TO AN END. THERE IS NO WAY GOD COULD HAVE SAID IT ANY CLEARER OR STRONGER. Some are openly saying God is wrong when they teach the lost will have no end, or completion, or doom; but will have an everlasting life of extreme pain and anguish. Men are driven to absurd reasoning when they try to avoid plain Bible teaching.
PHILIPPIANS 1:28 APOLIA-DESTRUCTION
This clearly says the wicked will be destroyed and the righteous saved. The only way anyone can get around it is to use the word with a theological meaning, which it does not have in English or Greek. Both the destruction and the salvation are at the Judgment Day. Paul is not telling the Philippians that their enemies are going to be destroyed or go away in this life, or that their salvation will be in this life.
HEBREWS 10:39 APOLIA - DESTRUCTION
2 PETER 2:1 APOLIA - SWIFT DESTRUCTION
2 PETER 3:7 APOLIA - DESTRUCTION The destruction BY FIRE of "the ungodly" AND "the heavens that now are, and the earth" will BOTH be at:
IN 2 PETER CHAPTER 3 THE DESTRUCTION OF THE EARTH AND THE DESTRUCTION OF UNGODLY MEN IS THE SAME. WHAT HAPPENS TO ONE WILL HAPPEN TO THE OTHER. BOTH ARE TO BE DESTROYED BY FIRE AT THE SAME TIME, ON THE DAY OF JUDGMENT. Some use the same word in the same context with two different meanings, namely; God will destroy the earth but will torment men. God could not have said any clearer that He will destroy both? Do you believe God or man?
"PASSES AWAY...ABIDES FOREVER" 1 John 2:17. This is a contrast showing that the world with those who are of the world shall pass away, but "he that does the will of God abides forever." Those who are of the world shall pass away with the world, and do not "abides forever." The world "shall pass away...be dissolved...be burned up...dissolved...shall melt with fervent heat" [2 Peter 3:10-11]. The unsaved are "not of the Father, but is of the world, and the world passes away" [1 John 2:17]. There is no way to say any stronger or clearer that the lost shall pass away [come to an end] just as the world will come to an end. "BUT THE HEAVENS THAT NOW ARE, AND THE EARTH, BY THE SAME WORD HAVE BEEN STORED UP FOR FIRE, BEING RESERVED AGAINST THE DAY OF JUDGMENT AND DESTRUCTION OF UNGODLY MAN" [2 Peter 3:7]. Both are destroyed "in the day of," not one [the earth] destroyed "in the day of," and one [the lost] being destroyed for all eternity but never destroyed; not that they will be just as undestroyed after a million years as they were at it's beginning and will be undestroyed for all eternity. Not the destruction of one and the everlasting torment of the other one, but it is the same destruction of both at the same time.
THE DESTRUCTION OF THE EARTH AND THE UNGODLY IS ON THE JUDGMENT DAY, THE THEOLOGY OF TODAY SAYS, "NOT SO, SINNERS WILL HAVE NO DESTRUCTION, BUT WILL LIVE FOREVER IN TORMENT FOR THEY CAN NEVER BE DESTROYED."
JOHN 3:16 APOLIA - PERISH "Should not PERISH, (apolia) but have ETERNAL LIFE" This verse certainly teaches that God sent His Son that a person may have eternal life, not just a reward to those who are born with eternal life. It does not teach that a person is born with a soul that cannot die, and this part of a person had eternal life before Christ came and without the death of Christ. John 3:16 teaches those who believe on Christ will have life, and those who do not will have death, not life in Hell.
ACTS 8:20 APOLIA - PERISH "May your silver PERISH (apolia) with you" [Acts 8:20]. The SAME THING that happens to the silver happens to the person ["PERISH WITH YOU"]. Is the silver being tormented WITH HIM or did both perish?
The King James and New King James translators try to cover this up by using "perdition." Apolia is translated "perdition" Eight times in the King James Version, and comes from the Latin Bible used by the Catholic Church, not from the Greek. Does this show the unwillingness of the translator's to translate it honestly? Were they trying to hide its true meaning? If not, WHY DID THEY TRANSLATE THIS GREEK WORD INTO A LATIN WORD IN AN ENGLISH TRANSLATION? Was it because they did not want it understood? Perdition in Latin is not a synonym for endless torture. Perdition means "utter destruction," but not many English readers would know this. It hides the true meaning from all who do not understand Latin but nonetheless lets the translators say they did not mistranslate it. Apolia is translated "perdition" in both the King James Version and the American Standard Version in John 17:12; Philippians 1:28; 2 Thessalonians 2:3; 1 Timothy 6:9; Hebrews 10:39; Revelation 17:8; 17:11. In 2 Peter 3:7 the King James Version says "perdition" and the American Standard Version says, destruction." The New Revised Standard Version, New International Version and most other translations have been more truthful to the English readers and taken "perdition" out and replaced it with "destruction."
[4] OLETHROS is used 4 times. Translated DESTRUCTION all 4 times. Wigram, Page 528.
2 Thessalonians 1:9 "Who shall be punished with EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION [olethros] from the presence of the Lord." WE ARE TOLD CLEARLY AND EXACTLY:
Two views of 2 Thessalonians l:9.
One view) THE EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION COMES FROM THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD. The "everlasting destruction" comes "from [apo] the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power" New King James Version. This destruction is the penalty for sin [death] to those who are not in Christ and are not saved by His death. Henry Thayer says, "Destruction proceeding from the [incensed, wrathful] countenance of the Lord, 2 Th 1.9." A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Page 59. In Jeremiah 4:26, the origin of the destruction is from God. In Isaiah 2:10: 2:19; and 2:21 the Septuagint, a Greek version of the Old Testament made in third century BC, has the same Greek words ["from the presence of the Lord"] used by Peter in Acts 3:19 where it is used as proceeding from the Lord.
A second view) THE DESTRUCTION IS TO BE SENT AWAY FROM THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD. Unconditional immoralists add "away." "Is to be sent away from the presence of the Lord." They want this destruction to be only being sent away from the presence of God [as if there were such a place]. To be away from the presence of God is to be nowhere at all. Not to be. To have no existence at all anywhere. To be alive anywhere is to be where God is [Psalms 139:7-9]; and with God sustaining the life they have, for there can be no life that is not sustained by God. There cannot be a place where there is life away from the presence of God. Today's theology denies the omnipresence of God by saying there is a place where God is not present, then says mankind can forever live there without God being there to sustain their life. The destruction comes from God. It is "destruction from the presence of the Lord," not to be given eternal life but then "being sent away from the presence of the Lord."
A sign, many things, destruction, and seasons of refreshing are all things that came FROM God, not things that were SENT AWAY from God.
TWO PASSAGES THAT ARE USED BY SOME TO PROVE TORMENT IN HELL, 2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 and Revelation 14:10-11. Where is Hell? Those who believe in Hell use 2 Thessalonians 1:9 to prove Hell is away from the presence of God and that death, the wages of sin is separation from God, but not a real death. Yet, they make Revelation 14:10-11 be literal to prove Hell, but when they make this torment be literal torment, they literally make it be in Heaven, not Hell. "FROM THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD" or "IN THE PRESENCE OF THE LORD." Both are used to prove Hell by those who believe in Hell. They teach both "from" and "in" the presence of the Lord are where the torment in Hell will be, they clearly contradict themselves. Is Hell in Christ's presence or away from His presence? They say death is separation from God. They have it both ways with the dead both separated from God and at the same time in the presence of God.
Robert Peterson commenting of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 in "Hell on Trial" says:
DESTRUCTION HAS BEEN CHANGED TO EXIST. To exist in some faraway place where God does not exist. Who made this place? Did God make it and then abandoned it to exist on it own just as those sent there must exist on their own and sustain their own life without the help of God who is not there? WHERE IS THE REVELATION FROM WHICH ANYONE COULD KNOW DESTRUCTION MEANS TO EXIST AWAY FROM GOD AND WITHOUT GOD? They know that if destruction is destruction, then those who are destroyed do not exist any longer, therefore, they must change the word God used to exist. They must say to God, "Not so God, even despite the fact that You said they will be destroyed, no one can be destroyed." This is an example of how far Peterson and all who believe this heathen teaching are willing to go to save their theology. BEING PERMANENTLY APART FROM GOD MAKES LIFE IMPOSSIBLE. IT MAKES TO EXIST IN ANY WAY IMPOSSIBLE.
For this passage to prove God will forever be tormenting most of mankind, "eternal destruction" must be changed to "eternally destroying." God is made to be like a man that sets out to destroy a house by tearing it down, but works on it all his lifetime, and not one part of the house is destroyed. They have God spending eternity destroying a soul but never will destroy any part of that soul. "Destroy" and "torment" are different things and cannot be made to be the same thing.
1 Thessalonians 5:2-4 "For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night. When they (those of the world) are saying, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction (olethros) comes upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall in no wise escape. But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that day should overtake you as a thief." The sudden destruction, which "they shall in no wise escape" is on "THAT DAY," not eternal torment after "that day." Also 1 Timothy 6:9; 2 Corinthians 5:1-5.
Roger E. Dickson says, "2 Thessalonians 1:9 should thus be translated that 'these shall be punished with destruction that has unending result.' The word 'destruction' means something is terminated, that the action of destruction would not continuously go on forever and ever...The result of the destruction would continue forever. In other words, those destroyed would not come back into existence. Taken literally, they are destroyed." "Life, Death and Beyond" Biblical Research Library, Volume 11, 1998, Page 160.
[5] PHTHIRO is used 8 times: Wigram, Page 786. It is translated [1] Destroy 2 times, [2] Corrupt 4 times, [3] Corruption 2 times.
"If any man DESTROYS (phthiro) the temple of God, God will DESTROY (phthiro) him" 1 Corinthians 3:17 New American Standard Version. Against all rules of interpretation, the same word is used in the same sentence with two completely different meanings. By today's theology it is changed to be, "If any man DESTROYS (phthiro) the temple of God, God will TORMENT (phthiro) him." They change horses in the middle of the stream. Why such inconsistency?
[6] PHTHORA is used 9 times: Wigram, Page 786. It is translated [1] Corruption 7 times, [2] Perish 1 time, [3] Destroyed 1 time.
[7] KATAPHILEO is used 2 times: Wigram, Page 416, Translated [1] Utterly perish 1 time, 2 Peter 2:12, [2] Corrupt 1 time, 2 Timothy 3:8.
"Truth Commentaries" on 2 Peter 2:12 changes what Peter said about the same thing shall happen to these men that happened to the beast, and tried to side step by saying they only act as if they are of the same nature. NOTHING IS SAID ABOUT A PERSON AND BEAST HAVING THE SAME NATURE, BUT THAT THEY WILL HAVE THE SAME END: "BE DESTROYED" American Standard Version. The writer could not get around this so he changed what Peter said from both beast and corrupt men having the same end, to both having the same nature; and then says they do not even have the same nature, but only act as if they do? The "same end" is not the same thing as "same nature." From where did he get "same nature"? Is he not a county mile from what Peter did say? Does he think only the "nature" of a person or beast is to be destroyed (phthora)? Psalms 49:20.
[8] EXOLOTHREUO is used only one time. "And it shall be, that every soul [psukee] that shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be UTTERLY DESTROYED from among the people" [Acts 3:23]. It is the "psukee" [soul, living being, person] that shall be "utterly destroyed." The very thing many say is immortal from birth and cannot be destroyed is "utterly destroyed." In Acts 3:22-23 Peter is speaking of anyone who will not hear Christ shall be "utterly destroyed," not forever preserved alive.
"Exolothreuo is found in this one passage. This is the strongest word in Greek for the action of God towards man in his evil. There is not a shade of modification from the idea or absolute eradication. The word means clearly 'the wiping out of existence.' Even the translators used an adjective, 'utterly' to convey the idea of eradication. It clearly refers to all those who reject Christ as being eradicated." G. A. Adams, "The Judgment," Page 25.
When the strongest words in the Greek language that signify destroy or destruction are made to mean an everlasting existence in torment; there cannot be a grosser misinterpretation of language.
[9] KATARGEO is used 27 times. Wigram, Page 415. Translated [1] Abolished, [2] Vanish away, [3] Bring to nought (nothing), [4] Do away with, [5] Destroy [6] Destroyed, [7] Be done away, [8] Ceased, [9] etc.
[10] DESTROY like death, is used in a way it is not used in any English Dictionary, or is not used in everyday language by us or the world, but only by some in their special theological way. The English word "destroy" does not mean "torment." If the Greek word did, then "destroy" would be a very bad mistranslation. None of the Bible translations translate it "torment."
If, as many teach, destroy means banishment to Hell, then it means the same for all the creatures named in Genesis 7:21-23 where all mankind was destroyed along with all living beings not in the ark. "Destroyed" in King James Version, "blotted out" in the New American Standard. I know of no one who believes all living creatures will be in Hell.
[11] THE DEVOURING, CONSUMING, DESTROYING FIRE Hebrews 10:27. "But a certain terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire that will consume the adversaries" [New American Standard Version]. Some have made the wicked into a burning bush that is not consumed [Exodus 3:2], and have put out the consuming fire of God [Hebrews 12:29]. Therefore, God is no more a consuming fire. They use consume by fire to mean to burn up [see 1 Kings 18:38; Leviticus 9:24; Deuteronomy 28:38], except when it is God consuming the evil, for then it would not fit with their teaching. Therefore, they must use consume with two different meanings. They must make consume mean eternal torment, but it has never meant torment.
The fury of fire is at the judgment and is a consuming, devouring, destroying fire, not an everlasting tormenting fire that cannot consume. There is a big difference. The adversaries of God will be judged and will be devoured, consumed, destroyed by the lake of fire, which is the second death, and will never be raised again. It is a death from which there will never be a resurrection
THE CHAFF [Matthew 3:11-12] The wheat is those who responded to Christ. The chaff is the useless parts of the wheat, those who do not respond to Christ, are "burned up." Peter used the same words when he said the world and its works will be "burned up" [2 Peter 3:10]. Neither the world nor the chaff will be tormented forever.
WEEDS, TARES AND BAD FISH [Matthew 13:30-50]. Both the wheat and the tares (the children of the devil) exist together in the world, but at the judgment, God will burn the tares and save the wheat. In the parables, both the tares and bad fish represent people at the end of the age (aion-age, not world).
DRY BRANCHES [John 15:1-10] Jesus is the vine. Any branches that do not bear fruit are cut off. The dry dead branches are cast into the fire and burnt up. When dead lifeless branches are burnt up, the branches do not exist, there is nothing left but ashes. "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and they gather them and cast them into the fire, and they are burned" [John 15:6].
"Then fire came out from before the Lord and CONSUMED the burnt offering and the positions of fat on the altar...And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and CONSUMED them, and they died before the Lord" [Leviticus 9:24-10:2].
"Fire also came forth from the Lord and CONSUMED the two hundred and fifty men who were offering the incense" [Numbers 16:35].
"So I will send fire upon the wall of Gaza, and it will CONSUME her citadels" [Amos 1:7]. "And it will CONSUME her citadels" [Amos 1:14]. "But I will send a fire on its cities that it may CONSUME its palatial dwellings" [Hoses 9:14].
"And Elijah answered and said to the captain of fifty. 'If I am a man of God, let fire come down from heaven and CONSUME you and your fifty.' Then fire came down from heaven and CONSUMED him and his fifty" [2 kings 1:10].
"But a certain terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire that will CONSUME the adversaries" Hebrews 10:27.
HEBREWS 10:29 On the Judgment Day, when all the saved and the lost will most likely be able to see what Heaven will be like, and the lost to know that they are going to die; and know there will not be another resurrection, that they have forever missed being in Heaven, it will be a death very much sorer than physical death. It is not said that the "sorer punishment" is to be tormented forever; but some read this into it, and teach it as if it is a Bible truth; and that everlasting torment in Hell is the only "sorer punishment" that is possible. TO DIE FOREVER AFTER THE JUDGMENT IS A MUCH SORER PUNISHMENT THAN TO DIE ONLY UNTO THE RESURRECTION AND JUDGMENT WHEN THEY WILL BE RAISED FROM THE DEAD. That death is not endless for there will be a resurrection, but the second death will be without end and there will never be a resurrection from it.
HEBREWS 11:31 Rahab "PERISHED NOT with them that were disobedient." If we know what happened to those who were disobedient then we will know what did not happen to her. "And they UTTERLY DESTROYED everything in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox and sheep and donkey, with the edge of the sword" [Joshua 6:21]. To perish is to be utterly destroyed, not to have eternal life and be tormented forever. THE SAME THING HAPPENED TO BOTH AN OX AND A MAN. BOTH PERISHED. BOTH WERE UTTERLY DESTROYED WITH THE EDGE OF THE SWORD.
ROMANS 9:22 "Vessels of wrath fitted unto destruction." Many of today's preachers do not like the way God said this and change it to, "Vessels of wrath fitted unto an eternal life of torment." After all, "An immortal soul" cannot be destroyed.
The response I get more than all others combined is that "if there is no Hell, then it does not make any difference what we do." I do not think most find life that useless. Most will do anything they can to live. Those who are sick do all they can to live a little longer. Only a few, who must not be right in the head, would not care if they did not live. Those who teach Hell are like a drowning man reaching for a straw. They reach for anything to save their theology. This theology belittles the death of Christ. God thought it important enough to give His only Son. Christ gave His life that we could live, but some say His gift of life to us is not important if there is no Hell to be tormented in. To die is O.K. with them. This is the same as saying, "If I will not go to Hell, then I do not care if I die and do not go to Heaven, for I only want to go to Heaven to keep from going to Hell." Fear of Hell has made many hypocrites who go to church and think that they are Christians, but it has never made one true Christian. Never saved one person, but it has made many hypocrites and will go on making them as long as it is taught. Anyone who goes to church because they fear Hell and would not go without this fear, is a hypocrite, not a Christian. Would they cheat on their wife, lie, and steal if it were not for fear they would be found out? If it is not from love of God, going to church for any other reason will do no good. If one is not a Christian because of the love of God and the hope of eternal life, he cannot be a Christian because of the fear of going to Hell. The Lord does not add anyone to the church because of fear of the nonexistence pagan Hell. Some would say, "Has not the fear of Hell made many Christian?" No, the believing of Satan's lie over God has made many be lost even while they think they are saved. No one can be frightened into Heaven. Hellfire preaching is the gospel of fear used by men like Jonathan Edwards. It cannot save.
The Judgment Day will be a fearful day for the lost [Hebrews 10:26-31]. Maybe more fearful than anything a person has ever known. We will all stand before the judgment seat of God. Those who have not obeyed the Gospel, or have not remained faithful will face God's wrath at the judgment.
Summary: IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO SAY ANY CLEARER THAT EVIL MEN WILL BE KILLED, UTTERLY PERISH, BE UTTERLY DESTROYED JUST LIKE AND WITH THE ANIMALS AND THINGS AT THE END OF THE WORLD. ALL THE RIGHT WORDS, BOTH IN THE GREEK AND IN THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION, ARE USED TO SHOW EVIL MEN WILL DIE, COME TO AN END. IT COULD NOT BE SAID ANY STRONGER OR CLEARER. ON THE OTHER HAND, NONE OF THE WORDS USED SO OFTEN TODAY ARE USED, AN UNDYING SOUL, AN IMMORTAL SOUL TO SAVE, EVERLASTING TORMENT, ETERNAL HELL, YOU ARE GOING TO HELL WHEN YOU DIE, ETC. THESE WORDS, WHICH ARE USED REPEATEDLY FROM TODAY'S PULPITS WOULD BE AN ABSOLUTE MUST TO PROVE TODAY'S TEACHING OF HELL, BUT THEY ARE TOTALLY ABSENT IN THE BIBLE. If you think you could say it better, try it. There are no better words in our language. There is not anything that shows a person will live forever in torment. The parables and metaphors Christ used clearly show destruction, not torment. Did the Holy Spirit do a poor job of choosing words when He was guiding into all truth? Luckily He has some with their theology to help Him out lest the new convert understand the English words the way they are translated. When anyone puts their "theological" meaning into words, as many do, we would need to be inspired to know what God has said to us. Is it not unreasonable to make words in the Bible have a meaning attached to them that is unlike their use in any other book in the world?
"Vengeance belongs unto me, I will recompense and again, the Lord shall judge His people. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God" Hebrews 10:30-31. See Romans 2:1-16; 1 Thessalonians 1:10. The Day of Judgment will be a fearful day to the lost, when they must give an account to God. The theology of many makes it essential that the wrath of God keeps the fire of Hell hot, and forever tormenting the lost in extreme pain and anguish. The Bible does not one time say His wrath will mean He will inflict everlasting pain and anguish on the lost.
1) WRATH OF GOD IN THIS LIFE: MANY OF THE SCRIPTURES ON THE WRATH OF GOD IS HIS WRATH ON THE SINNER NOW IN THIS LIFE [Romans 1:18; 2 Peter 2:9]. Sodom was destroyed. It was totally annihilated with all that were in it. In the flood all life not in the ark was totally destroyed, annihilated, abolished, not tormented. Throughout the Old Testament God's wrath has been on people, cities, and nations that disobey Him. They were destroyed by fire, sword, wars, floods, famines, pestilences, but never forever tormented. Capernaum was thrust down to the grave. It does not exist today.
2) WRATH OF GOD "IN THE DAY OF JUDGMENT." OTHERS SCRIPTURES ARE ABOUT HIS WRATH IS AT THE JUDGMENT DAY "Wrath IN THE DAY OF WRATH and revelation of the righteous judgment of God...but unto them that are factious, and obey not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that worked evil...IN THE DAY when God shall judge the secrets of man" [Romans 2:5-16 American Standard Version].
3) WRATH OF GOD AFTER THE JUDGMENT There is not one word about the wrath of God after the judgment. MANY MIX THE FIRST TWO TOGETHER AND MISAPPLY MOST OF THEM TO THEIR HELL AFTER JUDGMENT DAY which they must prove at all cost. Is it that they want them burning in Hell while we are in Heaven? NOTHING IS SAID ABOUT GOD TORMENTING ANYONE AFTER THE JUDGMENT DAY IS OVER, OR ABOUT HIS WRATH AFTER THAT DAY; BUT IT IS TAUGHT AS IF IT WERE A GOSPEL FACT. God's wrath will be on the Judgment Day [Matthew 16:27; Luke 14:4; John 5:27-29; Acts 17:31; 1 Corinthians 4:5; 2 Timothy 4:1; 2 Peter 3:7; Malachi 4:1-3]. The tares are burned "in the end of the age" [Matthew 13:36-50]. Not "in Hell after the judgment." WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ABOUT GOD'S WRATH AFTER THE JUDGMENT IS OVER? NOT ONE WORD.
The types and shadows all teach death, not an eternal life of torment. The punishment for sin is always death.
1. THE FLOOD 2 Peter 2:5 Eight lived; but for the rest of mankind there was only death in the flood, not a life of torment. Genesis 7:13-23 "And God said unto Noah, The END of all flesh is come before me... AND BEHOLD, I WILL DESTROY THEM WITH THE EARTH...And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to DESTROY all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is in the earth SHALL DIE...And all flesh that moved on the earth PERISHED, [died, King James Version] birds, and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life DIED. Thus, He BLOTTED OUT [was destroyed, American Standard Version] every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were BLOTTED OUT [was destroyed, American Standard Version] from the earth; and only Noah was left [alive] and they that were with him in the ark" [New American Standard Version]. DIED, PERISHED. WAS DESTROYED, BLOTTED OUT, AND NOT LEFT ALIVE WAS LITERALLY THE END OF THEM, ALL IN WHOSE NOSTRILS WAS THE BREATH OF THE SPIRIT OF LIFE DIED. Does anyone think "birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing..." etc., did not perish when they died, and are living in some third world somewhere with these evil men that did not perish when they died? The flood is a type of the judgment. THE WICKED WILL LITERALLY PERISH, DIE, BE BLOTTED OUT, AND NOT BE LEFT ALIVE; AND ONLY THE SAVED WILL "REMAINED" ALIVE. "For this they willfully forget, that there were heavens from of old, and an earth compacted out of water and amidst water, by the word of God; by which means the world that then was, being overflowed with water, PERISHED: but the heavens that now are, and the earth, by the same word have been stored up for fire, being reserved against the DAY OF JUDGMENT AND DESTRUCTION OF UNGODLY MAN" [2 Peter 3: 5-7]. Just as those outside of the ark were all destroyed by the flood and none, animals or man, were left alive and tormented, all those outside of Christ will be destroyed. There is no question or doubt that destroy, perish, die, and end was the end of all life at the time of the flood. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE [type] OF THE JUDGMENT TO COME. ONLY THOSE IN THE ARK [Christ] WILL BE LEFT ALIVE.
2. SODOM AND GOMORRAH Jude 7 "ARE SET FORTH AS AN EXAMPLE, SUFFERING THE PUNISHMENT OF ETERNAL FIRE" [American Standard Version]. GOD "CONDEMNED THEM TO EXTINCTION AND MADE THEM AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IS COMING TO THE UNGODLY " [2 Peter 2:6 New Revised Standard Version]. These cities were literally burnt up, not still burning with the people walking around in torment. THEIR END [EXTINCTION] WAS COMPLETE TOTAL DESTRUCTION AND ETERNAL; AND IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE TOTAL DESTRUCTION THAT IS COMING TO THE UNGODLY AT THE JUDGMENT. SODOM HAS CEASED TO EXIST. SO THOROUGH WAS ITS DESTRUCTION THAT ITS LOCATION IS NOT KNOWN. Some believe it was under what is now the Dead Sea, some that it was other places. THE ANNIHILATION, END, DESTRUCTION, EXTINCTION OF THE UNGODLY WILL BE TOTAL AND ETERNAL, JUST AS IT WAS OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH. THEY WILL CEASE TO EXIST. This is the first use of "fire and brimstone" and the only time it was literally rained on anyone. It was the total destruction of the two cities, and is later used as a symbol of total and eternal destruction. [Psalms 11:6; Isaiah 34:9; Revelation 19:20; 20:10; 21:8]. "By turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction and made them an example of what is coming to the ungodly" [New Revised Standard Version]. That they were reduced to ashes and the fire went out is also a part of the example of what will happen to the ungodly. The fire did no preserve them in eternal torment, but eternity destroyed them. Where does any find the revelation that changes this example of total destruction by a fire that went out when the destruction was complete into an example of destruction that will never be complete and the fire will never go out?
If Sodom and Gomorrah are an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly, how could the ungodly have an eternal life of torment? These cities were both reduced to ashes and when there was nothing more to burn, the fire went out. They are an example of extinction, of total destruction, not of eternal torment.
What is Sodom an example of?
Does anyone think Sodom is now being tormented in Hell today? If it is not, then how is it an example of being tormented in Hell?
WILL THERE BE DEGREES OF PUNISHMENT IN HELL? Christ spoke of the Day of Judgment for lands or cities.
There is no mention of eternal punishment of any individual and no mention of Hell in any of these passages. The punishment spoken of is of cites and takes place IN THE DAY OF JUDGMENT, NOT IN HELL. If the punishment of these cities takes place in the Day of Judgment, then it cannot take place in Hell after the judgment is over. HELL OR ETERNAL PUNISHMENT IS NOT MENTIONED IN ANY OF THESE PASSAGES. Those who believe in Hell read it in. WHEN ARE CITIES AND NATIONS JUDGED? WHEN IS THEIR DAY OF JUDGMENT TO BE? "And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You shall descend to Hades" [Matthew 11:23]. It was a great city but would go down to hades-the grave. Today, there are only a few ruins of Capernaum. They went from greatness to non-existence. From exalted to heaven to the grave [hades].
Nations and cities will not be judged at the judgment at the coming of Christ. Matthew 24 is of the judgment of Jerusalem [Matthew 23:36-38]. ALL THESE CITIES HAVE HAD A DAY OF JUDGMENT AND WERE BROUGHT DOWN TO THE GRAVE. THE DAY OF JUDGMENT FOR THEM IS PAST. The destruction of Sodom was quick and soon over. The destruction of Jerusalem, which saw and rejected Christ was long and drawn out with much more suffering, therefore, much less tolerable. The Day of Judgment for a city or a nation is the time when God will cause it to be destroyed. The Old Testament is full of God's day of judgment of nations and cities.
"Punished by death and destruction, neither Sodom nor Gomorrah ever again became a living city. Rather, the two joined as one became a symbol of total destruction as used by Moses and the prophets (Deuteronomy 29:23; Isaiah 1:9; 3:9; Jeremiah. 49:18; Amos 4:11; Zephaniah 2:9), By Jesus (Luke 17:29), and by the apostles (II Peter 2:6; Jude 7; Romans 9:29)." Homer Hailey, "God's Judgments and Punishments of Nations and Individuals" Page 30.
"From that day until this day, Sodom and Gomorrah have symbolized God's fierce hatred of all immorality...The grave of Sodom and Gomorrah is not covered with fertile soil bearing grass, forests, and crops like other cities of antiquity, No, its grave is covered by the Salt Sea, the Dead Sea...God has utilized this symbol of his wrath over and over throughout the history of the world...Sodom represents brazen evil followed by the judgment of God from which none can escape...Thus, Sodom symbolizes utter ruin and desolation...When God rained 'brimstone and fire' upon Sodom, He literally turned the city 'into ashes.'" Ron Halbrook, "Sodom and Gomorrah..." Page 594, Guardian of Truth, October 3, 1991.
"AS AN EXAMPLE" Jude 7. If they are an example, what do they teach if not that those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire will no longer exist.
A PROBLEM: Some seem to think there will there be a resurrection and judgment of cities? If so, will the individuals of these cities be judged as individuals or as a part of the cities or both? If cities will be judged at the judgment day at the coming of Christ, then God would be condemning people for where they live, not for what they did or did not do themselves. BUT, EITHER WAY (1) If this is God's judgment day on their cities when they were destroyed (2) or even if God did judge cities in the judgment day at the coming of Christ, there is nothing said about an immortal soul or about God tormenting anyone in Hell. Hell is read into it. If the judgment is "in the Day of Judgment," it could not be in Hell after the Day of Judgment is over.
ANOTHER PASSAGE THAT IS SOMETIMES USED TO TEACH THERE BE DEGREES OF PUNISHMENT IN HELL. When will the many or few stripes be? The master "will come on a day when he does not expect him, and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him in pieces" [Luke 12:46]. THIS WILL BE WHEN THE MASTER COMES. Nothing is said about the stripes being in Hell. Hell is read into it. If the stripes will be given forever, the few would last as long as the many, therefore, they would be the same. A few would not be a few if they were given forever; both would be a countless number. There would be no difference in the few and the many for both would last forever and have no end. Many and few are not specific as to how many, but both are a limited number of stripes, therefore could not last forever. Neither Hell nor forever are in this passage but both are read into it.
Anyone must reject many plain statements of the Bible to believe man has an immortal soul that will forever be tormented in Hell. The Bible does not support today's Hell fire preaching. It flatly opposes it.
In his reply to my article "From Where Came Hell" Csonka says, "They [bottles, gold, and sheep...spirits] would be in a state of detriment and not annihilation" [Truth Magazine, 1995, Page 17]. He makes broken bottles, and our spirits after death have the same "state." Will the bottles be "annihilation" after the earth is destroyed, or will they still be in the same "state" as our spirit? Does he think earthly bottles will be in Heaven? All the elements [atoms] in a tree come from the soil, and were created when God made the earth; and when a tree is burnt, the elements go back to the earth. They existed before the tree did, and will exist after the tree unto the end of the earth [Peter 3:12]. Does he think that a tree was a tree before the seed came up? But worst of all, does he think the all wise and all knowing God could not have used symbols that taught what He wanted to teach? He is saying matter cannot be destroyed, not even when it is burnt up, it just changes back to the base elements from which the bottle was made, therefore, the soul can never be destroyed. WHAT BASE ELEMENTS DOES HE THINK THE SOUL [the "immaterial, invisible part of man"] IS MADE OF THAT IT WILL GO BACK TO AT THE DEATH OF THE BODY? WHEN SOMETHING BURNS UP, ARE THE ASHES THAT REMAIN CONSCIOUS AND IN TORMENT? When a bottle changes back to the base elements, it is no longer a bottle. What does he think the soul is if it has changed from a soul to its base elements, and what does he think are the base elements of a soul that he believes has no substance? Is he saying only the materials of which souls are made are in existence? A bottle has substance, but according to today's theology the soul has no substance. He is making a comparison of something he says has no substance with the substance of a bottle that was destroyed. Is he saying only the base element of a soul that has no base element, no substance, is in Abraham's bosom? He has made death be nothing but "a loss of well-being," or "a loss of all the quality of life." Therefore, life can be nothing but "well-being." The elements of tree and the elements that a person are made of existed before the tree or the person and will exist after their death, but they were not a person before his or her birth and are not after his or her death. The elements that make up my body existed from the time God made the earth, but I did not exist before my birth. If a dead body is burned, the smoke and ashes remain but are they still the person? The base elements of all things were made out of nothing and will go back to nothing at the end of the world, therefore, his argument, that nothing can be destroyed is not true for all things will be destroyed. When anyone tries to prove an error, they have to fall back on human wisdom and misusing or changing God's word. With all love and respect, this is one of the most far out arguments I have ever heard. He must have needed something very badly with which to prove his teaching. THE IMPACT OF THE TEACHINGS OF CHRIST IN THESE PARABLES IS SO STRONG THAT SOME WOULD MAKE THE WORDS OF CHRIST BE SAYING NOTHING JUST TO GET AWAY FROM IT. If a tree cannot be destroyed, then Christ the master teacher is saying nothing. They make Christ to be just a "vain babbler," speaking things that cannot be; for if they do not, then their Hell could not be.
The same science that tells us nothing can be destroyed also tells us that nothing can be created out of nothing. This science does not realize that the God that made all things out of nothing can send that which He made out of nothing, back to nothing. THOSE WHO USE THE NOTHING CAN BE DESTROYED ARGUMENT TO PROVE A PERSON HAS A PART THAT CANNOT BE DESTROYED GIVES GOD THE POWER TO CREATE OUT OF NOTHING BUT DENIES HIM THE POWER TO DESTROY WHAT HE HAS CREATED OUT OF NOTHING. If all the elements that were in a person's body existing after his death proves that he is still alive somewhere, it would also prove he was alive somewhere before his birth for all the elements in his body also existed before his birth. The elements are not a body after it's death any more than they were a body before birth. BUT, WHY ARE THEY USING ELEMENTS OF THIS EARTH TO PROVE SOMETHING ABOUT SOULS THAT THEY SAY ARE NOT MADE OF ELEMENTS OF THIS EARTH? This is like a drowning man reaching for a straw.
Csonka says, "five of these passages are parables that do not describe what will literally happen; but, explain in the closest terms the things that will take place in the spiritual parallel." Csonka, Page 16. Unless a tree is tormented, there is no close parallel to the teaching of eternal torment.
Summary: When we burn up something, are the ashes in conscious torment? Skins, bottles that perish [Matthew 9:17], moths destroyed cloth [Luke 12:33], foods that perished [John 6:27] are not in conscious torment after they are destroyed or perished, yet traditionalists use these to prove conscious torment after death because these materials are not annihilated. By using the same logic, the bodies of beasts are not annihilated after their death for all the elements of their bodies still exist, therefore, they are now conscious even though they are destroyed.
We are told "that which think and remembers cannot be matter, therefore, a person must have a soul, which is composed of some other substance." Animals can "thinks and remember," some of them can think and remember very good, therefore, animals "must have a soul, which is composed of some other substance."
The argument of some is that God would not be a just God if He did not punish the sinner. They then jump from justice demands punishment to Hell being the only way God can punish the sinner; most of the time without any kind of an attempt to prove there is a Hell. They are so indoctrinated that they assume the only kind of punishment there could be is their Hell, and are blind to what God does say. The question is how do they know the punishment will be in Hell when there is not one word about it in the Bible? There is much on the punishment being death, but nothing on it being Hell. Death is the worst kind of punishment, but some cannot see it as a punishment because they are so blinded by their Hell theology.
It is almost beyond belief that not one time in any of the major translations of the Bible, made by men who believed in eternal torment, is any of these words ever translated torment. NOT ONE TIME IS IT SAID THAT GOD OR SATAN WILL TORMENT ANYONE FOREVER; BUT IT IS SAID REPEATEDLY, USING MANY DIFFERENT GREEK WORDS, THAT GOD WILL DESTROY THOSE WHO ARE NOT HIS CHILDREN.
Continue to chapter eight, nine and ten
BACK TO INDEX AND CHAPTER ONE Copyright 2006 by William West
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Download and Save the free pdf book at INDEX AND ALL TEN CHAPTERS pdf "Unconditional Immortality Or Resurrection Of The Dead" By William Robert West, Infinity Pub., ISBN- 0-7414-4620-0, 365 Pages, 2008. Third edition: About 475,000 copies downloaded to date of all three editions combined.
Or buy the printed copy FROM BOOKSTORES ON THE WEB:
-----------------------------------
SIGN MY GUEST BOOK AND TELL THE WORLD WHAT YOU BELIEVE ABOUT THIS WEB PAGE Copyrighted 2004, 2006, 2008 by William West. All rights reserved. May be copied or printed for personal use and may be given to others without cost. May not be sold by electronic, mechanical, printed or any means without permission.
