| Click on part # to go to that # = One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven |
|
HELL Part 1
The Lake of Fire
"HELL"
[Hebrew: sheol translated—"pit" and "grave"]
The word “hell” is found in most modern language Bibles. This was not
always so. There are numerous translations, which do not contain the
word “hell” even once. Why is this? Furthermore, new translations are
dropping the word hell from their versions. Do you know why this is
happening?
The teaching, that when wicked people die they go to a place of eternal
torture in fire is a pagan/heathen belief and doctrine. This teaching
far antedates the Christian era, and the Old Testament knows nothing of
a place of eternal torture in fire upon death. And so it is impossible
to believe that the ancient pagans borrowed the concept of an “eternal
hell of punishment by fire” from the Christian Bible? Is that where the
pagans and heathens learned of this supposed fate of the wicked? Or
rather, did some Christian translators borrow this damnable doctrine
from the pagans, and attempt to make it sound Biblical?
It is astonishing how much of Christian theology is pagan in origin. Job
was inspired by God’s Spirit to write, “Shall MORTAL man be more just
than God?” Job 4:17). It is dead people who are raised in the
resurrection, not cadavers which once belonged to living people
(I Cor. 15:51-54). Did the Old Testament patriarchs believe in the
“immortality of the soul?” No. Did Paul believe in the “immortality of
the soul?” No.
Did the pagan Egyptians believe in the “immortality of the soul?” Dah!
Have you ever heard of the pyramids? The pyramids were the supposed
launching pads for the Pharaohs’ IMMORTAL souls to be transported into
the heavens! First Century Christians never believed their souls went
into the starry firmament of heaven at death—it was the PAGANS AND
HEATHENS that believed in such mythological nonsense. God brought Israel
out of Egypt, but it doesn’t look like the paganism of Egypt ever came
out of Israel.
ARE THE DEAD, DEAD?
How is it possible to teach Christian indoctrinated people the Truths of
God? Well, of course, without the spirit of God it is completely
impossible for them to understand. When people cannot even wrap their
minds around the truth that “dead people are really DEAD,” there is
little one can do to help them. Dead people do not “GO” anywhere. Good
dead people do not go to heaven to float on clouds and walk streets of
gold, and bad dead people do not go to a place called hell to be
tortured in fire for all eternity. Dead people are dead and will remain
dead until the “Resurrection from the DEAD,” and that resurrection is
yet FUTURE.
Just one Scripture from God Himself, and we will move on. When people
die, are they dead?
“Now after the DEATH of Moses the servant of the Lord, it came to pass,
that the Lord spoke unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ minister, saying,
MOSES MY SERVANT IS DEAD…”
(Joshua 1:1-2).
When Moses died, God Himself said that Moses was dead. God didn’t say
that Moses’ “body” died, but that Moses was still alive with the Lord,
at His side. NO. The Lord said, “Moses My servant is DEAD.” When
the dog “Rover” died; he died ALL OVER. And when Moses died; he too,
died ALL OVER. Physically alive people can be spiritually dead, but
physically dead people can not be spiritually alive!
When I tell people that when we die, we’re DEAD, they call me a heretic.
When I talk to theologians about the “resurrection of the DEAD,” they
don’t know what I’m talking about. The “Resurrection of the DEAD” has
absolutely no place in Christian theology. Amazing… absolutely amazing.
The entire 15th chapter of I Corinthians deals with the
resurrection of the dead!
Paul tells us that if there is no resurrection of the dead, then our
faith is vain and we don’t have a Saviour. Yet the Church teaches by her
heathen doctrines that the resurrection of the dead is less than USELESS
when it comes to living forever in a place they call heaven. They tell
us that all believers go to heaven (ALIVE) at DEATH, and this
“resurrection of the DEAD” stuff that Paul talked about is totally
unnecessary for eternal life in heaven. Well, what can I say—they lie.
And there are hundreds and hundreds of Scriptures which speak of
“judgment,” yet the Church teaches that people by the BILLIONS are sent
to an eternal hell of fire and are not even judged before they go there.
Another Scriptural doctrine (judgment) bites the dust of Christian
heresy.
Who ever heard of sentencing something to life in prison without even
being judged guilty of anything? But, according to Christendom, it
happens thousands of times a day all over the world, and the sentence
isn’t for a short number of years, but for all eternity.
Whenever we refuse to BELIEVE THE SCRIPTURES we become hopelessly lost
in a maze of theological confusion that has no end.
Is there a Scripture that states that man is “immortal” or has an
“immortal soul” as the Egyptians taught and believed. No. Does
Christendom believe that man has an “immortal soul?” Yes, absolutely.
Is there a Scripture that states when a man dies, he is DEAD? Yes. Does
Christendom believe that when a man dies, he is DEAD? No, of course not.
Is there a Scripture that states when a man dies, he is still alive? No.
Do Christians believe when we die we are still alive, albeit it a
different geographical location (heaven or hell)? Yes, of course.
Are the fundamental doctrines of Christendom based on the Scriptures?
I’ll not ask any more foolish questions—read the rest of this Series!
HELL IS A WORD AND A DOCTRINE
Hell is not only a word found in many Versions; it is also a doctrine
based on that word. The doctrine of hell is an invention of men and is
nowhere found in the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts. As the King James is
the most well known of all versions, and because Christendom as a whole
embraces the pagan doctrine of “eternal torture in a place called hell,”
it behooves us to deal with this subject in some detail.
Protestant theologians cringe at the accusation that their beloved
“inerrant” King James Bible owes much to Jerome’s Catholic Volgate, and
to the Latin language as well.
Much of the King James is “Latin” and not “English.” It is from the
Latin that our Bibles contain such words as substance, redemption,
justification, sanctification, perdition, perish, punish, torment,
damnation, dispensation, predestination, revelation, priest, minister,
congregation, propitiation, disciple, parable, eternal etc.
Although not found in Scripture, the word trinity is also Latin.
That is not to say that theses are not perfectly fine words, they are,
but we must be aware that the meaning of words change, and when words
change to the very opposite of what they meant hundreds or
thousands of years ago, it behooves us to take note of those changes as
I am doing in this paper. The Latin aeternum and eternalis
(from which we get “eternal”) never meant “endlessness” or “without
beginning and end” in the first century AD. Neither did the common use
of the word hell back in Old England, mean a place where living
people are tortured in literal everlasting fire.
But make no mistake about it; the King James Bible is “Catholic” in many
ways. Anyone with a copy of the 1611 King James Bible knows that it
contains the fourteen books of the Apocrypha still retained by Catholic
Bibles to this day. Protestants who teach the “inerrancy” and
“flawlessness” of the King James have a difficult time explaining why
fourteen whole books have been cut out of this “inerrant” Translation.
Those of us who try to teach the proper use of just two King James
errors (hell & eternal) are met with frightening
opposition. Yet they drop FOURTEEN WHOLE BOOKS from their own Bible
without a blush.
TWO DEFINITIONS OF HELL
First the “hell” of four centuries ago:
Webster’s Twentieth Century Dictionary:
“hell, n. [ME, helle; AS, hell, hell, from
helan, to cover, conceal.]”
Second the “hell” of the 21st Century:
The American Heritage Collegiate Dictionary:
“The abode of condemned souls and devils... the place of eternal
punishment for the wicked after death, presided over by Satan… a state
of separation from God… a place of evil, misery, discord, or
destruction… torment, anguish.”
If the English word “helan/helle/hell” had retained its
Middle English/Anglo Saxon meaning, of to “hide,” “cover,” and
“conceal,” it might still be an acceptable (albeit it not the best)
translation of “sheol/hades.” But as this word has long
since taken on the meaning of the pagan teachings concerning the realm
of the dead and the supposed evils contained therein, it is absolutely
out of place as a translation of any Hebrew or Greek word found in the
manuscripts.
My how times have changed. Tell a person to “go to hell” today, and it
is an insult of the highest level. Tell a person back in the dark ages
of England to “go to hell” and he would probably go to a cool cellar and
bring back some potatoes for dinner. For that is where they stored
potatoes—in hell.
One more definition—the word “grave:
American Heritage Collage Dictionary:
“grave 1. An excavaion for the internment of a corpse. b.
A place of burial."
Remember that the Hebrew word sheol and the Greek word hades
are both translated into the two English words “hell” and “grave.” Are
you following this? The Hebrew word sheol is translated “hell” 31
times and is also translated “grave” 31 times—the SAME Hebrew word.
But are “hell” and “grave” the SAME word? NO. Do they both have the same
meaning? NO. Then WHY are they both the translation of the ONE Hebrew
word sheol?
There is something sinfully wrong here.
Sheol is translated: “grave—an excavation for the internment of a
corpse, a place of burial”
AND:
Sheol is translated: “hell--the abode of condemned souls and devils...
the place of eternal punishment for the wicked after death, presided
over by Satan… a state of separation from God… a place of evil, misery,
discord, or destruction… torment, anguish.”
So how can the word “sheol” (and “hades” in the New Testament) have for
a definition and for a translation two words that have TOTALLY OPPOSITE
AND TOTALLY DIFFERENT MEANINGS? Well, in honest scholarship and honest
translating, THEY CAN’T AND THEY DON’T!
IS HELL FIRE A LITERAL FIRE IN A LITERAL PLACE?
It is this latter definition of hell that most of Christendom believes
to be a doctrinal teaching of Jesus Christ. The idea that Jesus spoke of
a place where people will be tortured with literal fire, can be totally
negated by examining just two verses of Scripture used by our Lord. We
will see whether the Words of Jesus regarding "hell" can possibly be
taken literally or not.
First though, I found the following statements on the web site:
GotQuestions.org:
QUESTION:
"Can/Should we interpret the Bible as literal?"
ANSWER:
Not only CAN we take the Bible literally, but we MUST take the Bible
literally. This is the only way to determine what God really is trying
to communicate to us." (CAPS taken from their site)
"Literal, literal, literal," shout Christian theologians—"the Bible is
literal!" One of my "literal only" detractors (with whom I had a few
email exchanges) provided the two Scriptures I will use to destroy this
damnable doctrine of an eternal hell of torture in fire. In the
following email my detractor presents to me the Scripture, which he
claims proves my teaching on Judgment is wrong, and that judgment does
not produce anything of value, but rather is nothing more than the
inflicting of insane pain on sinners for all eternity in a place called
"hell fire."
Ray, "Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off,
and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt
or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet TO BE CAST INTO
EVERLASTING FIRE. And if your eye offend thee [cause you to sin],
pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for you to enter into
life with one eye, rather than having two eyes TO BE CAST INTO HELL
FIRE, (Matt. 18:8-9)…"
From: Douglas(CAPS are mine).
Dear Douglas: "Surely you don’t take all the words in this Scriptural
quotation from Jesus regarding "hell," LITERALLY, do you?
Sincerely, Ray
Ray, "I surely do take these Scriptures literally. They were given to be
taken literally. These were not examples, stories, analogies or
parables. These were warnings. You surely don’t believe the Bible. You
have decided that your god wouldn’t do that. You’ve made a god you’re
comfortable with, and that makes sense to you. You are an idolater. No
idolater will enter the kingdom. Repent…"
From: Douglas
Here is God’s answer to Douglas, and to all pastors, teachers,
professors, theologians, and Christians worldwide who also believe that
Jesus’ words regarding "hell" are LITERAL:
For all those who insist that these verses are to be taken literally, I
merely ask them to:
"Show me your missing EYES; show me your missing HANDS; show me your
missing FEET."
Have not your "hands" ever offended you? Your "feet" ever offended you?
Your "eyes" ever offended you? Seeing that: "For all have sinned,"
(Rom. 3:23)!Well?
How is it then, as you believe all the teachings of Jesus regarding
"hell" are literal, that all of you STILL HAVE your HANDS,
and your FEET, and your EYES? I submit that your
literal eternal hell theory once more bit the dust. You have not
a leg to stand on even though you have not cut off either one of them.
If you claim these verses are literal, but you still retain your eyes,
hands and feet, I submit that you are defenseless in your claim that the
"fire" of hell is literal, anymore than the method Jesus presents in how
to avoid this Judgment is literal.
Well, here, of course, is where a billion professing Christians and
their leaders begin to shuffle their feet, and play with their hands,
and turn up their eyes (all of which were supposed to be cast from
them), and they try to back pedal their way out of their self-inflicted
enigma. They will all have to modify their unscriptural, and
blasphemous, and hypocritical stance on this subject by stating
something like this:
"Well, maybe, not ALL, that Jesus said is literal concerning hell. Only
this part, or that part, or the other part, but not these parts or those
parts… well… ah… really… just whatever parts I say are literal are
literal."
Now before any of my readers head for the kitchen drawer and a huge
butcher knife, let me boldly state that: THE WORDS OF JESUS ARE NOT TO
BE TAKEN LITERALLY. You are not to literally, cut off your feet or your
hands or pluck out your eyes. The words of our Lord are figurative,
symbolic language, which have to do with a higher spiritual truth, but
have nothing to do with literal dismemberment of your physical body.
And NO, we will NOT enter the Kingdom literally "lame and maimed"
with missing hands, or missing feet, or missing eyes, but rather we will
have spiritually amputated the lust and sin in our HEARTS. Those who do
not meet this qualification in this life, will be brought into the Great
White Throne/Lake of Fire Judgment were these sins will be eradicated,
but not with physical, literal, eternal torturing fire, but through the
"CONSUMING FIRE" of God’s Spirit and His "FLAMING MINISTERS"
(Heb. 12:29 & Psalm 104:4).
WHAT ‘LITERAL’ MEANS
American Heritage Collegiate Dictionary: "literal, adj.
1.
Conforming or limited to the simplest, nonfigurative, or most obvious
meaning of a word or words."
Webster’s collegiate Dictionary: "literal, adj.
1a:
According to the letter of the scriptures b: adhering to fact or
to ordinary construction or primary meaning of a term or expression:
actual c: free from exaggeration or embellishment…"
I am well aware that many just hate it when I get specific, factual, and
exact. (I receive many emails stating such). They prefer nebulous
explanations and beliefs. They prefer things that cannot be nailed-down
or stated as actual fact. And I also understand why: It is very
difficult to continue exalting heresy when one sticks to Biblical facts.
So what does all this mean? It means that one cannot take the words of
Jesus regarding how to avoid "hell" (regardless of what hell actually
means, for the moment), as being literal. Jesus plainly states (albeit
in figurative language) that if one wants to avoid hell fire, he must
"CUT OFF his hands and feet and PLUCK OUT his eyes."
But our Lord’s words are not to be taken literally, as we have just
demonstrated. Yet, that is what the Scripture literally says (Matt.
18:8-9). And as no one on earth does this, it is clear that no one on
earth actually and factually believes that these words of Jesus are to
be taken literally. I could right here and now, rest my case. But I
won’t.
CAN HANDS AND FEET AND EYES LITERALLY OFFEND?
Let’s examine these two verses a little closer: Matt. 18:7:
"Woe unto the world because of offences! For it must needs be
that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence comes!"
Verse 8—Wherefore if your hand or your foot OFFEND you…"
My King James center reference says for "offend"—"causes you to sin."
Even this phrase of Jesus is "figurative," and not literal. How, pray
tell, can a member of your body such as an eye, hand, or foot, "cause"
one to sin? Seriously, can your "foot" cause your heart and mind to sin?
This is nonsense if we take it literally. An appendage of our body
absolutely cannot cause us to offend. Jesus Christ tells us plainly were
offences come from:
"For out of THE HEART
[not the eye or the hand or the foot] proceeds evil thoughts,
murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies…"
(Matt. 15:19).
This is figurative language so simple that a ten-year-old can understand
it, but theologians with six doctorates cannot (or will not).
Are you getting the picture? It is the HEART that is the seat of emotion
and desire that is to be blamed.
And so literally, an eye or a hand or a foot, does not and cannot
"offend God" unless it is first motivated to do something evil by the
heart. Therefore it is the heart that offends, but the physical
appendages of our body do not have the ability to offend. Hands and feet
do not have a consciousness of their own.
So what does all this prove? It proves the words of Jesus regarding
"hell fire" are not to be taken literally.
CAN CUTTING OFF YOUR HANDS FORGIVE OFFENSES?
"Wherefore if your hand or your foot offend you, CUT THEM OFF…"(Matt.
18:8).
Someone tried to contradict what I teach on this verse by suggesting
that if we would repent of our offenses, then we don’t need to cut off
our hands and feet. My point exactly. But if taken literally, repentance
is not an option. Repentance is only an option if these words are NOT
taken literally.
Jesus didn’t "literally" say a word about "repentance." The literal
words of Jesus say, "cut them off and cast them from you." The
word "repent" is nowhere found in these verses. But you say, "Well, no,
but that is what it means." Well, if these words are never meant to be
understood literally, then why does the Church demand that the "hell
FIRE" part of the very same verse, is literal fire? All I am trying to
establish at the moment is that the first half of this verse is not
figurative while the other half is literal.
Absolutely nothing regarding this first statement of Jesus is literally
even possible:
Your literal eyes, hands and feet cannot "cause offence."
Christians who claim that these words are literal do not literally obey
them.
If one literally "plucked out his eyes," how could he see to find
a knife to cut off his feet? If he literally "cut off his hands,"
how could he then pluck out his eyes or cut off his feet without any
hands?
And if one were to "cut off his hand," how pray tell could he
literally "cast them" away. Once you were to cut off your hands,
you wouldn’t have hands to cast away anything.
But, do those who teach this heresy that Jesus was speaking literally,
really care if these things are not literally possible? No. Will they
now see the light and stop teaching this "literal, literal, literal"
heresy? No. Do they care anything at all about the Truth? No.
THE GOSPEL THAT NO ONE UNDERSTOOD
"From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, ‘Repent for the
Kingdom of Heaven is at hand'"
(Matt. 4:17).
Did anyone know what Jesus was talking about? No. Did anyone know what
"repent" really meant? No. Did anyone have even a clue as to what Jesus
meant by "The Kingdom of Heaven?" No. The "Kingdom of Heaven" was
the gospel that Jesus preached. But did anyone really know what it was?
How many even today know what "the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven"
really is? Do you know? Could you teach a class on exactly what the
Kingdom of Heaven really is?
One will never know what Jesus preached until they understand how Jesus
preached.
When will we begin believing what Jesus taught us concerning the words
He used to teach? If you will pay heed to what Jesus taught, you will
learn more in five minutes than you would otherwise is 50 years. Listen:
After reading parable after parable, beginning in Matt. 13, we read
this:
"And great multitudes were gathered together unto Him… and He spoke many
things unto them IN PARABLES…"
(Verses 2-3).
"Another parable put He forth unto them…"
(Ver. 24).
"Another parable put He forth unto them…"
(Ver. 31).
"Another parable spoke He unto them…"
(Ver. 33).
"ALL these things spoke Jesus unto the multitude in PARABLES; and
without a parable spoke He not unto them"
(Ver. 34).
"And with many such parables spoke He the word unto them, as they were
able to hear it. But without a parable spoke He not unto them: and when
they were alone, He expounded
[‘explained’ John 10:6] all things to His disciples" (Mark
4:33-34).
"These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs
[Gk: ‘figurative language’]: but the time comes, when I shall no more
speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of the Father"
(John 16:25).
Remember that John 16 is recording the last words of our Lord before the
crucifixion the following day. So up until that very last night with His
disciples He had spoken His own public ministry in proverbs and
parables—figurative language, symbols and signs. And we have a further
verification of these statements when Jesus said: "…the WORDS that I
speak unto you, they are SPIRIT…" (John 6:63)! Has anyone ever heard
of a seminary which teaches these truths of Scripture?
BETTER TO ENTER LIFE HALT OR MAIMED
Jesus said that it would be:
"…better for you to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having
two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting
[eonian] fire"(Matt. 18:8).
We have seen that our Lord’s instructions to cut off an offending hand
or foot, or to pluck out an offending eye is not literal, but
figurative, spiritual, symbolic language. It is really the offenses of
the heart, which are to be cast off, not our physical limbs. Well then,
can it be true that any actually will enter into life "halt or maimed"
if the halting and maiming itself is not literal. Of course not. Imagine
living an eternity with God maimed and crippled like some wartime
amputee? What kind of a heaven would that be? It is hard to believe that
Christians (and even professional theologians), pay little or no
attention to the many many words that contradict their heretical
doctrines. But in their crazed addiction for their "literal, literal,
literal," interpretation, they become scholastic fools.
Okay then, as the "cutting off of hands and feet" is not literal,
and the "entering into life halt and maimed" is not literal, by
what law of logic or language should the "everlasting fire" be
considered literal?
There is nothing in the context of these two verses that would suggest
in any way that part of the verses are figurative, symbolic language,
and part are literal. However, that does not mean that what Jesus said
is not true. Of course what He said is true, but it is not literally
true; it is figuratively, symbolic, and spiritually true.
If this "fire" of which Jesus speaks is literal, then the only
literal way to stay out of this literal fire according to these two
Scriptures is to literally cut off your literal hands and feet and pluck
out your literal eyes whenever they offend you. And, since not one
single Christian in two thousand years has done this, I submit to you
that this teaching is not literal, but figurative and symbolic and
spiritual. It cannot be both ways.
By what laws of grammar or language are we to figuratively cut off our
hands and feet and pluck out our eyes, to stay out of a literal fire of
hell?
Notice how Jesus taught in parables:
"And why behold you the
[figurative—not literal] mote [tiny, tiny speck] in your
brother’s [figurative—not literal] eye, but consider not the beam
[huge plank] that is in your own [figurative—not literal]
eyes?" (Matt. 7:3).
Or are you so na�ve
as to believe that a plank of lumber could literally fit into any human
eye? Clearly a spiritual novice can instantly discern that Jesus is not
speaking of a literal plank or beam, mote, or even a literal eye. He is
speaking of large and small defects of character in the heart.
Excuse me, but is this not the SAME Jesus Who is: "Jesus Christ the
same yesterday, and to day, and forever" (Heb. 13:8)? Then how is it
that Jesus consistently speaks of a "plank, mote, and eye" being
figurative, and the "hand, foot, and eye," being
figurative, but then changes in mid verse to the "everlasting fire"
being literal? The Truth is that Jesus does not change the way He
teaches in the middle of a verse. This is all unscriptural, human
speculation and conjecture.
As the "cutting off of hands and feet" is figurative language, so
likewise, staying out of this "fire" is also figurative language.
WHAT IS "HELL" TRANSLATED FROM?
I think most of my readers realize that Jesus did not speak Archaic King
James English. And most also realize that the King James Bible is not
the one that the Apostles used. There were no "bibles" during Christ’s
ministry; there were only the Hebrew Scriptures, and a popular Greek
translation of those Hebrew Scriptures called the Septuagint. What we
call the New Testament was not even written until near the end of the
first century, and was not put into book form untill much later, and was
not printed until many centuries later.
The word "hell" is an Old English word that was used to translate
several words found in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. What words? And
why did they choose to use the Old English word "hell" as a translation?
We shall see that it had absolutely nothing to do with scholarship, but
everything to do with forcing pagan religion into the teachings of Jesus
Christ. You don’t have to take my word for it; you will be able to judge
for yourself as we go through it.
Here are the words for which "hell" was inserted as a "translation" into
English:
The Hebrew word sheol (31 times)
The Greek word gehenna (12 times)
The Greek word hades (10 times)
The Greek word tartarus (1 time)
That’s it.
Every time the word "hell" is found in the King James Bible it is
translated from one of these four words. We find the word "hell" 31
times in the KJV Old Testament and 23 times in the KJV New Testament for
a total of 54 times. Later we will look at all 54 verses containing the
word "hell," plus the 31 times that sheol is translated as
"grave."
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT POINTS OF THIS WHOLE SERIES
Listen to what I am about to say very very carefully: If the word "hell"
is the most accurate and correct English word available to translate,
the Hebrew word sheol, and the Greek words gehenna,
hades, and tartartus, then these four words must
all have the same meaning. But in reality only two of these four words
have the same meaning.
The Hebrew word sheol and the Greek word hades
are synonymous in meaning.
And here is the proof from the Scriptures and the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit that the Hebrew sheol and the Greek
hades are identical in meaning:
Acts 2:27: "Because You will not leave My soul in hell [Gk:
hades], neither will You suffer your Holy One to see corruption"
is quoted from:
Psalm 16:10: "For You will not leave My soul in hell [Heb:
sheol]; neither will You suffer your Holy One to see corruption."
And so the inspiration of the Spirit of God proves that the Greek word
hades is the right and proper translation of the Hebrew word
sheol.
Whatever "hades" means, "sheol" means the same, and whatever "sheol"
means, "hades" also means the same.
We know for a fact that the Hebrew word sheol is
translated "hell" 31 times in the KJV of the Bible. But… BUT, we also
know for a fact that the same Hebrew word sheol is
translated "grave" 31 times in the KJV Bible.
Why is this? Why should this be? Why is there a 50/50 split on the
translation of this word? Ask any theologian or your pastor if the words
"grave" and "hell" mean the very same thing in the Bible, and see what
they will say. They will tell you, NO, that they are NOT the same, that
they are very much different. Then I have a childish question for them
all: "Why, oh, why then are both "hell" and "grave" translations of the
very same Hebrew word, "sheol"? Which should it be?
And let me frankly state that neither will their "context, context,
context" theory solve this dilemma for them. It will take wholesale
lying and deception to extricate them out of this theological box---or
maybe I should say, "can of worms." Not only is there absolutely no
justifiable reason to translate sheol 31 times as "hell,"
but there is no justifiable reason to translate this word as hell, not
even once!
As we go through the 31 Scriptures in which the KJV uses the word
"grave," it will become abundantly clear that "grave" is the proper
translation. But when we come to the 31 times that KJV uses the word
"hell" to translate this same Hebrew word, it will also become
abundantly clear that word, "GRAVE" should have been used in all of
those 31 verses as well. Yes, the "context" will show that "grave" or
its literal meaning of "the UNSEEN" can be consistently used in all 62
verses without jeopardizing or violating the context.
While it is true that a number of verses use sheol—the unseen,
the grave, in a poetic or figurative sense, absolutely nowhere is
sheol used to represent a place of life, consciousness, fire,
or torture—nowhere, absolutely nowhere.
About once a year I find something useful in a Bible Dictionary. Well
here’s one of them. After discussing numerous problems with translating
sheol as both "grave" and "hell," my Wycliffe Bible
Dictionary says on page 1573:
"Sheol is much used in poetry and often parallels ‘death’ or the
‘grave.’ A uniform translation ‘grave’ would solve several problems of
interpretation."
Those "several problems," however, are not to be thought of as minor.
They are in reality, the most major problems in all theology.
Recently I pointed out to one of my detractors, numerous contradictions
between what he said and what the Scriptures say. He retorted: "They
don’t contradict; they COMPLEMENT." Translating sheol 31
times "grave" and 31 times "hell" is not a contradiction to theologians;
it is a complement. How can one even talk with people like that? How?
You DON’T! Admitting to this contradiction would destroy their damnable
doctrine of eternal torture, and I don’t believe the powers that be in
today’s Church will allow that to ever happen.
ALL OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES ON HELL
In the Old Testament of the King James Version of the Bible we find the
word "hell" 31 times. All 31 times it is translated from the very same
one, Hebrew word, sheol.
Therefore, it would seem logical to assume that "sheol" means "hell."
That "hell" is in fact, the right and proper English translation for the
Hebrew word sheol. Wrong. Not true. Not even close.
Why is that? Because although "hell" is always the translation of the
word sheol, sheol is not always translated "hell." No sir. In
fact, sheol is also translated 31 times as "grave." And just for
good measure, the Hebrew sheol is translated 3 times into English
as "pit." Is there any rhyme or reason for this nonsense? No, none.
Try to keep the following straight in your mind as we go through all of
these Scriptures. Remember that every time we come across the word
sheol (no matter how it is translated in the particular verse we
are examining), it is the same word and never changes from that same
word, whether the translators render it "pit," "grave," or "hell."
If the word sheol can be properly and accurately
translated by the English word "hell," then there must be present in
each and every verse some form or semblance of the definition of the
word "hell." Am I going too fast for anyone? Am I overstepping the
bounds of sane scholarship? Is this too logical and rational to be good
theology? Have I violated any Scriptural principle? Then let’s proceed.
Here is every verse of Scripture in which we find the Hebrew word
sheol, translated in the KJV as either "pit," "grave," or
"hell." Judge for yourself what this word means.
SHEOL TRANSLATED "PIT"
The word "pit" is found 77 times in the Old Testament, but only 3 times
is it translated from the Hebrew word sheol:
1. "If these men DIED the common DEATH of all men, or if they be visited
after the visitation of all men; then the Lord has not sent me. 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
[Heb: sheol]; then ye shall understand that these men have
provoked the Lord."(Numbers 16:29-30).
2. "And it came to pass, as he had made an end of speaking all these
words, that the GROUND clave asunder that was under them: 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
[Heb: sheol] , and the EARTH closed upon them: and they
PERISHED from among the congregation"(Numbers 16:31-33).
Now then, what can we learn from this word "sheol" in these verses? We
learn that sheol
is in "the GROUND… under them."Korah and his men all "died"
an uncommon "death" in this sheol--pit. And it says that
"they PERISHED."
While the ground was "opened up," it was a PIT. After the ground closes
up the pit, it was a GRAVE. This whole episode was a supernatural "mass
burial in a mass grave," and nothing more. All these men are "dead
and perished."
What does the word "perished" signify? Are they lost for all eternity,
because God caused them to "perish?" No, not at all. Even righteous
people "perish."
"The righteous perish and no man lays it to heart…"
(Isa. 57:1).
Also consider, if sheol is a hell of torture in fire, did
you notice that God consigned the "houses" of Korah and his men
to this same fate. Do we reckon that the "houses" of Korah and
his men will also be "tortured in the fire of hell for ever?" Good, so
we are making progress—two down and 61 to go.
3. "If I wait, the GRAVE
[Heb: sheol] is mine HOUSE: I have made my
BED in the DARKNESS. I have said to CORRUPTION, You are my father; to
the worm, You are my mother, and my sister. And where is now my hope? As
for my hope, who shall see it? They shall go down to the bars of the
PIT
[Heb: sheol] , when our REST together is in the DUST" (Job
17:13-16).
Wow. See anything wrong with this picture of "sheol" being an "eternal
hell of torture in fire?" What I see here is: "grave, house, bed,
darkness, corruption, worm, pit, rest, and dust." There are all
kinds of problems with these verses if we desire to pervert them into an
"eternal hell of fire."
A "grave" is in the ground. A "house" is an abode, not a
place designed for torture in fire. A "bed" is where one sleeps,
and God likens death in the grave [sheol] to "sleep" "…lest I
sleep the sleep of death" (Psalm 13:3).
"Darkness"
is something that is found in a grave beneath the earth, not something
you would find where there is a huge fire present."Corruption" is
what happens when a corpse decays in a relatively short period of time,
not something that is never accomplished in even an eternity of burning
in the fabled Christian hell.
"Worms"
live in the ground in dead bodies, and in garbage where they continue to
live and multiply as long as there is food present, but they don’t do
very well in literal fire.A "pit" is "a hole in the ground"
according to Webster’s Dictionary. We would hardly be at
"rest" if we were being eternally tortured by literal fire. And
"dust" is what bodies return to when they are dead. God formed man
from the "dust of the ground," not from "eternal hell fire."
Besides all this proof, does anyone think that God would eternally
torture Job (apparently the most righteous man on the face of the earth
in his day) in literal fire when he died?
This completes the 3 times that sheol are translated "pit."
SHEOL—TRANSLATED "GRAVE"
1. "And all his sons and all his daughters rose up to comfort him; but
he refused to be comforted; and he said, For I will go down into the
grave
[Heb: sheol] unto my son mourning. Thus his father wept for
him" (Gen. 37:35).
Here "grave" (sheol) is used figuratively. Jacob did not
literally go into the grave of his son Joseph, seeing that Joseph was
not even "literally" dead at this time.
2. "And he
[Jacob] said, My son [Benjamin] shall not go down with you;
for his brother [Joseph] is dead [Jacob thought Joseph
was dead], and he is left alone: If mischief befall him by the way in
the which you go, then shall you bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to
the grave [Heb: sheol]" (Gen. 42:38).
Gray hairs can only figuratively "sorrow." And "hair" does not do well
in fire.
3. "And if you take this also from me, and mischief befall him, you
shall bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to the grave"
(Gen. 44:29).
Once again, Jacob uses the word "grave" (sheol)
figuratively, and there is no mention of fire. 4. "…and thy servants shall bring down the gray hairs of thy servant our father with sorrow to the grave [Heb: she |