Hell: Not A Bible Teaching

[DLH]

The English Word Hell

The old English word hell comes from helan, and means to cover or conceal. Similar words coming from the same root have a similar meaning. Hill for example is a mound of dirt or stone that covers the level surface of earth. Hull is the covering of a nut or the covered part of a ship. Heal is the covering of a wound. Hall is a building space which is used to cover people or goods. Hole is an uncovering. Shell.

In the early days to hell potatoes meant to cover them, as to store them in a cellar or underground. To hel a house meant to cover a portion of it with tile. The term heling a house is still used in the New England portions of the United States.

At first the use of hell had no pagan meaning to it. It was simply used as the common grave of man. To go to hell in the old English language meant simply that one was dead and buried. It was in Germany and England that the word began to evolve into the pagan unscriptural meaning of eternal punishment.

Poor Modern Translation

The original meaning of the word hell is not so much a poor translation of the Hebrew sheohl (English Transliteration sheol) and the Greek Haides (English transliteration hades), as much as it is a case of the word having evolved into a pagan meaning; the modern day translation of hell is misleading.

The Catholic Douay Version translates sheohl as hell 64 times and once as death. The King James Version translates sheohl 31 times as hell, 31 times as grave and 3 times as pit. This is common in older translations as well, such as is used by the English Revised Version (1885) where sheohl is transliterated in many cases but most of the occurrences were translated as grave, or pit. Hell being used 14 times. The American Standard Version (1901) transliterated sheohl in all 65 occurrences and haides in all ten of its occurrences, though the Greek word Geenna (English Gehenna) is translated hell.

The Hebrew Sheol

The Hebrew word sheol is the unseen resting place of the dead. It is not to be mistaken for the Hebrew words for individual burial place (qever - Judges 16:31), grave (qevurah - Genesis 35:20), or individual tomb (gadhish - Job 21:32) but rather the common grave of all mankind whatever the form of burial might be.

The Greek philosophical teaching of the immortality of the human soul and hell began to infiltrate Jewish teachings probably around the time of Alexander The Great. The Bible itself, however, is in stark contrast to the teachings of pagan origin regarding the soul, which is not immortal (Ezekiel 18:4) and therefore can't suffer forever in hell. The Bible also teaches that there is no consciousness in hell. (Ecclesiastes 9:4-10).

Sheol corresponds with the Greek Haides, both being the unseen resting place of the dead. It is not a place of fire, but of darkness (Job 10:21) a place of silence (Psalm 115:17) rather than a place filled with tortured screams.

The Greek Hades

The Greek word Hades corresponds to the Hebrew Sheol as is indicated by the apostle Peter's reference to Psalms 16:10 at Acts 2:27-31 where Jesus had fulfilled David's prophecy that Jesus would not be left in hell. Peter quoted Psalms and used the Greek hades in place of sheol. Likewise Jesus himself said that like Jonah, he would spend three days in hell. (Jonah 1:17; Jonah 2:2 / Matthew 12:40)

The Greek word Hades occurs 10 times in the Christian Greek scriptures. (Matthew 11:23; 16:18 / Luke 10:15; 16:23 / Acts 2:27, 31; / Revelation 1:18; 6:8; 20:13-14.

It means the unseen place. In ten of the occurrences of hades it is in reference to death. It is not to be confused with the Greek word for grave (taphos), tomb (mnema) or memorial tomb (mnemeion), but is rather the common resting place of the dead. The place of death.

Jesus also uses hades at Matthew 11:23 and Luke 10:15 in a figurative way to indicate the debasement of Capernaum compared to heaven.

Also see The Rich Man And Lazarus below.

The Greek Gehenna

Unlike the Hebrew sheol and the Greek hades, there is really no excuse for mistaking the Greek Geenna (Hebrew Geh Hinnom - English Transliteration Gehenna) with the notion of any hell, either the old English word meaning covered or the pagan hell of today's Christianity.

The Christian Greek Gehenna is a literal place - a valley that lies South and South-West of ancient Jerusalem. It is the modern day Wadi er-Rababi (Ge Ben Hinnom), a deep, narrow valley. Today it is a peaceful and pleasant valley, unlike the surrounding dry and rocky terrain, and most certainly unlike the pagan / apostate Christian hell.

Modern Day Gehenna (Photo of modern day Gehenna below)



In the days of unfaithful Kings Manasseh and Ahaz idolatrous worship of the pagan god Baal was conducted in the place which was then known as Geh Hinnom, (the valley of Hinnom) including human sacrifices to fire. It is ironic that the pagan custom of burning in fire, as in hell, would have so clearly infiltrated the Christian teachings, considering that this practice was a detestable thing to Jehovah God, and his prophets spoke of a time when this place would be turned into a defiled and desolate place. (2 Chronicles 28:1-3; 33:1-6 / Jeremiah 7:31-32; 32:35).

The prophecy was fulfilled in the days of faithful King Josiah, who had the place, especially the area known as Topeth polluted into a refuse heap. (2 Kings 23:10)

So it was that in the days of Jesus and the early Christian congregations, that the valley was known as a literal place where the carcasses of criminals and animals were thrown, having no hope for resurrection. The refuse there was kept burning with sulphur, which is abundant in the area. When Jesus used Gehenna as a figurative - a symbolic reference to the spiritually dead - the people in the area knew what he was talking about.

The Greek Tartarus

The Greek word Tartarus is found only once in scripture, at 2 Peter 2:4. It is often mistranslated as hell. Tartarus in the Christian Greek scriptures refers to a condition of debasement, unlike the pre-Christian pagan Tartarus (as in Homer's Iliad) which is a mythological prison. The word basically means the lowest place.

Peter refers to the angels who in the time of Noah forsook their original positions and became men in order to have relations with the women of earth. The result was their offspring being giants, the Nephilim, who caused so much destruction God had to bring forth the flood. (Genesis 6:1-4 / Ephesians 6:10-12 / Jude 1:6).

It is interesting that this verse is often mistranslated because when Jesus was resurrected from Sheol / Hades (Hell in some translations) on earth, he first went to tartarus to minister to the disobedient angels whom had been lowered in position - who happened to be in heaven in a position of debasement. This means that if you don't understand the mistranslation you would see Jesus go to hell on earth and then hell in heaven.

The Pagan Hell

The Pagan teaching of hell was adopted by the apostate Christian church. Today's thinking of hell comes more from Dante's Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost, but the teaching of hellfire is much older than the English word hell or Dante and Milton. It comes from Babylonian and Assyrian beliefs of a nether world. A place where gods and demons of great strength and fierceness presided over the damned.

Ancient Egyptian beliefs considered the Other World to be a place of pits of fire for the damned though they didn't think this lasted forever. Islamic teaching considers hell as a place of everlasting punishment. Hindus and Buddhists think of hell as a place of spiritual cleansing and final restoration.

Separation From God

Modern day Christians often try to soften the teaching of hell as a separation from God, but hell (as is often translated from the Hebrew Sheol and Greek Hades) can't be a separation from God, since God is in effect there - it is in front of him. He watches sheol for the time when the dead shall be resurrected. (Proverbs 15:11 / Psalms 139:7-8 / Amos 9:1-2).

Lazarus And The Rich Man - Luke 16:19-31]

Jesus often taught people in a way which was easy for them to grasp. One way of doing this is through parables, or illustration. They are stories, which are not meant to be taken as literal accounts. Such is the case with the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Notice that the Rich man is buried in hades. If this account is to be taken literally then the Bible would contradict itself with all of the information being given in this article, but lets not leave it up to what may be thought to be my own personal interpretation.

Let it also be known that if this account is to be taken literally then that would make Jesus a liar. How so? How could Lazarus be at the bosom of Abraham in heaven when Jesus had already said that no man had ascended to heaven other than himself? (John 3:13).

The Lake Of Fire

The lake of fire is sometimes referred to as hell. The lake of fire is obviously a symbolic reference to everlasting destruction. Since hell itself is thrown into the lake of fire they can't be one and the same. Since death is thrown into the lake of fire and death isn't something that can be thrown literally, the lake is obviously symbolic. The fact that hell and death are symbolically destroyed by fire is harmonious with the end of sin which brought death. Those not thrown into the lake of fire are the meek who will inherit the earth and live forever upon it.

Secular And Religious References To Hell

"Sheol was located somewhere 'under' the earth . . . . The state of the dead was one of neither pain nor pleasure. Neither reward for the righteous nor punishment for the wicked was associated with Sheol. The good and bad alike, tyrants and saints, kings and orphans, Israelites and gentiles - all slept together without awareness of one another." - Encyclpaedia Britannica (1971, Vol. 11, p. 276)

"Hades . . . it corresponds to 'Sheol' in the O.T. and N.T., it has been unhappily rendered 'hell' " - Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Vol. 2 p. 187)

"First it (Hell) stands for the Hebrew Sheohl of the Old Testament and the Greek Hades of the Septuagint and New Testament . Since Sheohl in Old Testament times referred simply to the abode of the dead and suggested no moral distinctions, the word 'hell,' as understood today, is not a happy translation." - Collier's Encyclopedia (1986, Vol. 12, p. 2

"Much Confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheohl 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." - The Encyclopedia Americana (1956, Vol. XIV, p. 81)

"The word ( sheol ) occurs often in the Psalms and in the book of Job to refer to the place to which all dead people go. It is represented as a dark place, in which there is no activity worthy of the name. There are no moral distinction there, so 'hell' ( KJV ) is not a suitable translation, since that suggests a contrast with 'heaven' as the dwelling-place of the righteous after death. In a sense, 'the grave' in a generic sense is a near equivalent, except that Sheol is more a mass grave in which all the dead dwell together . . . . The use of this particular imagery may have been considered suitable here [ in Jonah 2:2 ] in view of Jonah's imprisonment in the interior of the fish." - A Translators Handbook on the Book of Jonah, Brynmor F. Price and Eugene A. Nida, 1978, p 37

[brimstoneSalad]

I'm more interested in metaphysics and philosophy than textualism (I'm still wondering if you'll respond to my challenges on ethics in your intro post and in the post on free will and genesis), but it will be interesting to see the discussion if somebody challenges you on this one.

I think you're dead wrong on Hades, and that pagan notions of the afterlife as a place entered Christianity much earlier than you think they did and confused some of the writers of the new testament. Although, of course, Hades is not inherently a place of torture (it's not Tartarus, although Tartarus might be seen as a part of Hades), so it was probably not an important distinction to them (non-existence vs. a more neutral or even vaguely happy dream-like place of memories, loafing about, and maybe waiting).

So, unless somebody accepts the most modern interpretations over the Jewish concepts of death that could reasonably seem to predate them, it seems ethically more-or-less irrelevant. And since ethics is what I'm interested in, I won't argue the point.

[DLH]

I'm more interested in metaphysics and philosophy than textualism (I'm still wondering if you'll respond to my challenges on ethics in your intro post and in the post on free will and genesis), but it will be interesting to see the discussion if somebody challenges you on this one.

This one has nothing to do with metaphysics and philosophy, and textualism . . . is a bullshit phrase that says that there is something there that you can't see unless you got your head up your ass. And whatever you find there is going to be just fine. Pretty much the same with metaphysics and philosophy.

I think you're dead wrong on Hades, and that pagan notions of the afterlife as a place entered Christianity much earlier than you think they did and confused some of the writers of the new testament.

Uh . . . Moses? 1513 B.C.E. You got some figures prior to that? Before the Greek, actually. So, uh, no.

Although, of course, Hades is not inherently a place of torture (it's not Tartarus, although Tartarus might be seen as a part of Hades), so it was probably not an important distinction to them (non-existence vs. a more neutral or even vaguely happy dream-like place of memories, loafing about, and maybe waiting).

Well, its words, Salad. Its words and how they were used. You know? Who is Morpheus? Is Hades a place or a god? You know? Bullshit and sorting it out is such fun. Hell, Hades, Sheol, Tartarus, The Mall etc.

So, unless somebody accepts the most modern interpretations over the Jewish concepts of death that could reasonably seem to predate them, it seems ethically more-or-less irrelevant. And since ethics is what I'm interested in, I won't argue the point.

That's good, 'cause, ethically nobody gives a rats ass. Even, and I say this with all due respect, even if it were the last rat's ass to be barbecued on a panel of psychotropic aging ambisexual walnuts committee on the moral and ethical unshorn vegan apocalypse who, sadly, were eaten by a grisly bear. And the animal Kingdom did unite itself in praise of the event. Sucked the intellectual bullshit right out of your . . . [ha] . . . empty fucking head.

[brimstoneSalad]

textualism . . . is a bullshit phrase that says that there is something there that you can't see unless you got your head up your ass.

Which is why I'm not interested in textualism. From my perspective, you just seem to be arguing textualism... but it's strange that you criticize it at the same time.

And whatever you find there is going to be just fine. Pretty much the same with metaphysics and philosophy.

What do you mean?

I get the sense that you don't care about or believe in ethics/morality. Which is very unusual for a Christian, but really just emphasizes my point that Christianity is not moral.

Uh . . . Moses? 1513 B.C.E. You got some figures prior to that? Before the Greek, actually. So, uh, no.

Old testament. Not sure what your point is.

I'm saying the Greeks influenced the writers of the New testament; the language and the culture of the time inevitably would.

Well, its words, Salad. Its words and how they were used. You know? Who is Morpheus? Is Hades a place or a god? You know? Bullshit and sorting it out is such fun. Hell, Hades, Sheol, Tartarus, The Mall etc.

"Sorting it out", "reading into it", "interpreting it" All the same thing to me. To me, unless you're using philosophy (which is, hard and rigorous logically, but which you seem to despise) it's all just textualism, and one person is as right or wrong as any other, because there are no clear answers on these matters (we can't ask the original authors). Call it what you will.

How is what you're doing different from anybody else you disagree with, who are all doing the same thing?

That's good, 'cause, ethically nobody gives a rats ass.

Quite the contrary, many people find hell and the question of it to be very relevant to morality/the ethics of the proposed divinity. A being that would create a hell and damn people to it raises many questions.

I'm saying, with regards to those questions, the Greek concept of Hades and simple non-existence don't really register, because neither are torture (which is the most relevant matter).

Sucked the intellectual bullshit right out of your . . . [ha] . . . empty fucking head.

You're clearly not interested in having a civil conversation. Fine example of a Christian you are.

I think I'm done here. Sorry I said you seemed more rational than most Christians; I take that back given your anti-intellectual tirade.

[thebestofenergy]

Sucked the intellectual bullshit right out of your . . . [ha] . . . empty fucking head.

And you are the one that said you wanted civil conversations?
You only want civil conversations when it pleases you, right? You want to receive kindness from others, but you're showing that you don't care about being kind to others.
This is hypocrisy at its finest level.
Insulting like this, not only you show how childish you are, but also that you're no near a rational person that accept critiques.
A rational and intellectual person wouln't let the limbic system take over like you just did.

[TheAgnosticAtheist]

Sucked the intellectual bullshit right out of your . . . [ha] . . . empty fucking head.

Do you realize how pointless it is to "talk the talk" and then throw in an insult? It pretty much destroys your argument, maturity, and inability to have a "peaceful" debate.

And for what? Because someone disagreed with your opinion, opposition, stance, position, idea, etc?

[brimstoneSalad]

Do you realize how pointless it is to "talk the talk" and then throw in an insult? It pretty much destroys your argument,

For using a Spock avatar, you don't seem to know much about logic.

If an argument IS merely an insult, it's not an argument. But adding an insult to an argument doesn't in any way affect the argument itself. Judging the argument based on the temperament of the argumentator is a fallacy.

Insults, if used correctly, can be very useful. In this case, DLH just stuck his foot in it and showed just how much of a typical "Christian" he is. His insult was anti-intellectual, which just demonstrated how he behaves when actually challenged with reason, something he has revealed his true contempt for.

And for what? Because someone disagreed with your opinion, opposition, stance, position, idea, etc?

No, if I merely disagreed, he probably wouldn't have insulted me.

It was because I challenged him to put away the trite textualism and actually engage with logic on matters of genuine philosophy. He isn't up for it, and isn't capable of it, so he took a cheap shot against what he views as sophistry (challenging Christian dogma on grounds of logic, rather than with the Bible) and ran off with his tail between his legs.

He thought it was a witty way to depart. Anti-intellectuals usually think that way.

[DLH]

Which is why I'm not interested in textualism. From my perspective, you just seem to be arguing textualism... but it's strange that you criticize it at the same time.

I just don't take terms like textualism very seriously. If that's what you call what I'm doing, that's fine but don't expect me to answer to it. What I'm doing is discussing the Bible, and Pagan teachings having influenced what people think the Bible teaches.

You keep telling me you are not interested in "textualism" which is the label you put on the topic of the thread you are participating in. It's a topic you are not interested in. OK.

What do you mean?

I mean that, unlike the Bible you can make up philosophy and metaphysics up as you go. Bible interpretation you could do that, I suppose, but you would be held accountable to the Bible. To me, philosophy and metaphysics are head games at best, parlor tricks at least. You know what I'm saying. Sometimes a cigar is a cigar and sometimes it's - well, supposed to be something else.

I get the sense that you don't care about or believe in ethics/morality. Which is very unusual for a Christian, but really just emphasizes my point that Christianity is not moral.

[Sigh] It isn't that I don't "believe" in ethics/morality, it's that I am aware that they are highly subject to interpretation/misinterpretation. Subjective and conjectural. This isn't unusual for me, perhaps because I'm not a Christian. Christianity, on the other hand, is or isn't moral depending upon the eye of the beholder. Perhaps you see those of a different diet than you as a moral failure. Thus the subjective and conjectural.

Old testament. Not sure what your point is.

I'm saying the Greeks influenced the writers of the New testament; the language and the culture of the time inevitably would.

Agreed. The difficulty would be wherein to draw the line of influence. A couple of examples. The Greek Tartarus means, in a basic sense, "the lowest place." It was used in Greek literary terms as a "hell" of sorts, that is a prison located deep beneath the ground. It can be used in other ways. The Bible uses it as a figurative position of debasement. It happens to be in heaven. So you have, in effect, 1. The Lowest Place. 2. The Hellish Prison. 3. The Figurative Debasement. Another example is the Butterfly. The soul, the undead, the life. To the Greeks the word for soul was applied to butterflies because of their metamorphic transition, they thought the soul was immortal. To the superstitious the soul indicates the undead and to the writers of the Bible the soul was the life of a breathing animal or person.

"Sorting it out", "reading into it", "interpreting it" All the same thing to me. To me, unless you're using philosophy (which is, hard and rigorous logically, but which you seem to despise) it's all just textualism, and one person is as right or wrong as any other, because there are no clear answers on these matters (we can't ask the original authors). Call it what you will.

There are two ways to interpret anything. Right and wrong.

How is what you're doing different from anybody else you disagree with, who are all doing the same thing?

Well, unless they are adapting an intellectual way to, in effect, tell me that 1. They don't know what I'm talking about, while 2. Suggesting some method which would marginalize it's importance, then they would be exactly the same as me. Either right or wrong. I don't mind if someone disagrees with me, it's the intellectual dismissal of the subject out of - oh, it could be a fake moral superiority or intellectual dishonesty, that's the part that burns my ass.

Quite the contrary, many people find hell and the question of it to be very relevant to morality/the ethics of the proposed divinity. A being that would create a hell and damn people to it raises many questions.

Okay. I suppose on a philosophical level it wouldn't be at all necessary to establish whether or not said divinity had, in fact, done so, and then you could superimpose that with the possibility that he hadn't, and from there discuss the morality/ethics of the people who either proposed he had in order to either assassinate His character or, perhaps more interesting, the morality/ethics of the people that insist their own divinity in fact had, for their own false moral superiority.

I'm saying, with regards to those questions, the Greek concept of Hades and simple non-existence don't really register, because neither are torture (which is the most relevant matter).

The most relevant matter . . . Interesting. The Greek word for torture would be relevant.

You're clearly not interested in having a civil conversation. Fine example of a Christian you are.

I think I'm done here. Sorry I said you seemed more rational than most Christians; I take that back given your anti-intellectual tirade.

Well, like I said, I'm not a Christian.

[DLH]

And you are the one that said you wanted civil conversations?

I guess to me civil conversations are not necessarily without an occasional imperfect emotional flawed outbreak. In fact, civility can, in some cases, be equally distasteful.

[DLH]

Sucked the intellectual bullshit right out of your . . . [ha] . . . empty fucking head.

Do you realize how pointless it is to "talk the talk" and then throw in an insult? It pretty much destroys your argument, maturity, and inability to have a "peaceful" debate.

And for what? Because someone disagreed with your opinion, opposition, stance, position, idea, etc?

Talk the talk? What talk?