The word Hell in scriptures.

[CherubRam]

In the original bible text the word (Hell) never accrues. Hell was put in place of the words Sheol and Gehenna. Yahshua came speaking in parables and used the word Gehenna, not Hell.

The word (sheol) never ever translates as Hell.
The word Gehenna never ever translates as Hell.

 

[David]

In the original bible text the word (Hell) never accrues. Hell was put in place of the words Sheol and Gehenna. Yahshua came speaking in parables and used the word Gehenna, not Hell.

The word (sheol) never ever translates as Hell.
The word Gehenna never ever translates as Hell.

Actually, you’re correct on one point. The Bible was never written in English. Hebrew Scriptures use the word Sheol and Greek Scriptures use Gehenna. However, clinging to the word “hell” is missing the point. The point is what Scripture actually says.

When Jesus spoke about judgment, He warned about Gehenna in the strongest terms. He said, “Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” ~Matthew 10:28. He described it as the place “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” ~Mark 9:48. That is not a mild picture. That is a warning from the lips of Christ Himself.

Now step back and think about that. Jesus was not giving a vocabulary lesson. He was sounding an alarm. The language may be Hebrew, Greek, or English, but the warning is the same. There is a real judgment for sin.

The same pattern shows up in the Old Testament. Sheol refers to the realm of the dead, but Scripture still shows a division between the righteous and the wicked after death. In the account Jesus gave, “the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments” ~Luke 16:22-23. Christ did not describe unconscious sleep. He described awareness and torment.

So the question is not whether the English word “hell” appears in the earliest manuscripts. The real question is this. What did Jesus actually teach about the fate of the wicked?

And when you read the passages plainly, the message is unmistakable. Sin brings judgment. God is holy. And Christ warned repeatedly about the place of punishment prepared for those who reject God.

A lot of people today want to soften that message. They want to debate vocabulary instead of facing the warning. But Jesus did not soften it. He spoke about it more than anyone else in Scripture.

That is why the focus here stays simple. Not tradition. Not history arguments. Not word games. What do the Scriptures say? When Christ speaks about judgment, wise people listen.

 

[Emmaus]

In the original bible text the word (Hell) never accrues. Hell was put in place of the words Sheol and Gehenna. Yahshua came speaking in parables and used the word Gehenna, not Hell.

The word (sheol) never ever translates as Hell.
The word Gehenna never ever translates as Hell.

I go with you. The word "hell" is not warranted. But I also understand why the translators used it. When the King James was written there was quite some Roman pressure applied. They also got the word "Ekklesia" translated "Church". It really means "assembly" but that would have devastated the Roman misinformation that God lives in a building made by hands. But now, centuries later, I wonder why no one has corrected that.

In Matthew 13 the Lord turns to parables to explain the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven. In one parable he said that leaven would enter the Kingdom. If we interpret scripture with scripture, leaven is two things; 1. Grievous sin (1. Cor.5) and 2. Corrupted teachings. The Lord Himself said that the Kingdom would be "wholly" leavened. Leaven has another effect. It makes healthy bread more palatable - but it is corrupted nonetheless.

Is it a wonder that we have such things to contend with with?

 

[Emmaus]

The same pattern shows up in the Old Testament. Sheol refers to the realm of the dead, but Scripture still shows a division between the righteous and the wicked after death. In the account Jesus gave, “the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments” ~Luke 16:22-23. Christ did not describe unconscious sleep. He described awareness and torment.

This has puzzled many a student. All judgment is given to Jesus. The Bema, the Throne of His glory and the White Throne are all still future. Who was judge, and at what assize was the rich man judged? All men are judged alive. Why is this man an exception? And mysterious of all is why had Lazarus to be "comforted"? His ailing body was left behind on earth at death.

 

[David]

I go with you. The word "hell" is not warranted. But I also understand why the translators used it. When the King James was written there was quite some Roman pressure applied. They also got the word "Ekklesia" translated "Church". It really means "assembly" but that would have devastated the Roman misinformation that God lives in a building made by hands. But now, centuries later, I wonder why no one has corrected that.

In Matthew 13 the Lord turns to parables to explain the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven. In one parable he said that leaven would enter the Kingdom. If we interpret scripture with scripture, leaven is two things; 1. Grievous sin (1. Cor.5) and 2. Corrupted teachings. The Lord Himself said that the Kingdom would be "wholly" leavened. Leaven has another effect. It makes healthy bread more palatable - but it is corrupted nonetheless.

Is it a wonder that we have such things to contend with with?

You’re aiming your concern in the wrong direction. It’s not theories about translators that have authority. The Word of God has authority. Jesus didn’t leave judgment up in the air. He said plainly, “Fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” ~Matthew 10:28. It doesn’t matter what English word a translator chooses. Christ still gives that warning. Later Scripture reveals the end result of that judgment: “And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death” ~Revelation 20:14. It’s not about semantics. It’s about God judging sin.

Ekklesia is no different. The Word of God already addressed whether or not God resides in a building. Stephen said, “The most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands” ~Acts 7:48. Paul said virtually the same words: “God that made the world and all things therein… dwelleth not in temples made with hands” ~Acts 17:24. God’s people are His gathering, not His building. The Bible itself refutes that.

There is a much larger problem with the leaven passage though. Jesus didn’t teach His kingdom would be leavened until it went bad. Right after that passage He likens the kingdom to a mustard seed that grows from small to great. “The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed… which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs” ~Matthew 13:31-32. Jesus is saying the kingdom will grow from little to large.

Building doctrine then forcing passages to match it is what causes contradictions. The Bible does the exact opposite of that. It defines itself. When you let the text speak for itself, the smoke and mirrors disappear and truth remains.

 

[David]

This has puzzled many a student. All judgment is given to Jesus. The Bema, the Throne of His glory and the White Throne are all still future. Who was judge, and at what assize was the rich man judged? All men are judged alive. Why is this man an exception? And mysterious of all is why had Lazarus to be "comforted"? His ailing body was left behind on earth at death.

I think the puzzle goes away when you allow the passage to say exactly what it says. Jesus is not talking about the final judgment in Luke 16. Jesus is talking about the intermediate state people go after death and before the resurrection and final judgment. The Lord plainly says “The rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments” ~Luke 16:22-23. Take notice to what order these events occurred in. Death came. Burial took place. After that the man was conscious and in torment. There is no court room described there at all.

In fact scripture tells us the order it happens. “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” ~Hebrews 9:27. Death is first. Then comes the judgment.

What Luke 16 describes is what takes place in between.

As for Lazarus being comforted, again it isn’t mysterious if you let the text speak for itself. Lazarus broken body remained in the grave, but Lazarus the man was no longer in pain. Abraham says, “Now he is comforted, and thou art tormented” ~Luke 16:25.

Paul tells us in similar words that when we die we will be “absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord” ~2 Corinthians 5:8. Death does not wipe us out of existence. Instead it takes us away from this world to wait for our resurrection.

Jesus wasn’t attempting to field every question about the afterlife. He was uttering a warning that crash lands into its listeners. When a man dies his situation is made. He can neither use money nor wise up on how to live for God. The rich man begs for relief but Abraham answers “Between us and you there is a great gulf fixed” ~Luke 16:26.

There you have it. This life is where you decide your eternal fate. Once you are dead there is no opportunity to cross over. You simply await the day Christ returns to judge the world with perfect justice. That is why this warning is so relevant to us today. While you can still breathe.

 

[Yesua888]

I'm jumping in a bit late here, maybe : )

In the original bible text the word (Hell) never accrues. Hell was put in place of the words Sheol and Gehenna. Yahshua came speaking in parables and used the word Gehenna, not Hell.

The word (sheol) never ever translates as Hell.
The word Gehenna never ever translates as Hell.

"I go with you. The word "hell" is not warranted. But I also understand why the translators used it. When the King James was written there was quite some Roman pressure applied. They also got the word "Ekklesia" translated "Church". It really means "assembly" but that would have devastated the Roman misinformation that God lives in a building made by hands. But now, centuries later, I wonder why no one has corrected that"

Not sure whether you are actually addressing CherubRam's quoted text (above)?

The Bible does not state that the Romans spread misinformation about God living in man-made buildings. Instead, the idea that God does not dwell in temples made by human hands is taught by early Christian leaders to correct pagan Greek beliefs, not Roman doctrine.

I am not sure what the connection is to "Hell" this example of "Ekkelesia", "church" and "Assemply", unless you are indicating that "Hell never accurs" because "shoel or "Gehenna" were used instead? According to CherubRam, none of these words translate as "Hell"? So I am not sure what you are portraying here?

In Matthew 13 the Lord turns to parables to explain the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven. In one parable he said that leaven would enter the Kingdom. If we interpret scripture with scripture, leaven is two things; 1. Grievous sin (1. Cor.5) and 2. Corrupted teachings. The Lord Himself said that the Kingdom would be "wholly" leavened. Leaven has another effect. It makes healthy bread more palatable - but it is corrupted nonetheless.

Is it a wonder that we have such things to contend with with

Does this mean that scripture is not clear because there are many meanings / translations?

 

[Yesua888]

This has puzzled many a student. All judgment is given to Jesus. The Bema, the Throne of His glory and the White Throne are all still future. Who was judge, and at what assize was the rich man judged? All men are judged alive. Why is this man an exception? And mysterious of all is why had Lazarus to be "comforted"? His ailing body was left behind on earth at death.

Again, I see no relation to what David said, and what you are quoting?
Forgive me if I am wrong, I am trying to keep up ...

 

[Emmaus]

I think the puzzle goes away when you allow the passage to say exactly what it says. Jesus is not talking about the final judgment in Luke 16. Jesus is talking about the intermediate state people go after death and before the resurrection and final judgment. The Lord plainly says “The rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments” ~Luke 16:22-23. Take notice to what order these events occurred in. Death came. Burial took place. After that the man was conscious and in torment. There is no court room described there at all.

In fact scripture tells us the order it happens. “It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” ~Hebrews 9:27. Death is first. Then comes the judgment.

What Luke 16 describes is what takes place in between.

As for Lazarus being comforted, again it isn’t mysterious if you let the text speak for itself. Lazarus broken body remained in the grave, but Lazarus the man was no longer in pain. Abraham says, “Now he is comforted, and thou art tormented” ~Luke 16:25.

Paul tells us in similar words that when we die we will be “absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord” ~2 Corinthians 5:8. Death does not wipe us out of existence. Instead it takes us away from this world to wait for our resurrection.

Jesus wasn’t attempting to field every question about the afterlife. He was uttering a warning that crash lands into its listeners. When a man dies his situation is made. He can neither use money nor wise up on how to live for God. The rich man begs for relief but Abraham answers “Between us and you there is a great gulf fixed” ~Luke 16:26.

There you have it. This life is where you decide your eternal fate. Once you are dead there is no opportunity to cross over. You simply await the day Christ returns to judge the world with perfect justice. That is why this warning is so relevant to us today. While you can still breathe.

Thank you for the reply. I observe that, concerning the "final judgment" that the word "final" implies that there are others that are not final. If the rich man is tormented, somebody with power to administer torment made a decision. My question is Who and When?

You quoted 2nd Corinthians 5. In that very text scripture says that we "groan" in our earthly bodies and that we also "groan" being naked in death. Lazarus might be relieved of his aching body, but a new source of groaning is at hand. You don't think that this would need comforting. The Lord Jesus called it Abraham's Bosom in Luke 16, but calls it "Paradise" after His death. Now, while we observe that there is a Paradise of God in heaven, and now a "Paradise of men" in Hades, there is no such Paradise on earth. Has not our Lord revealed that the "groaning dead" have a source of "comfort" while they are disembodied souls?

As to the the word "hell" being used, is not not a blatant untruth and more than a matter of Semantics. Hades is the place of the dead, but the Lake of Fire is the place of the living. And the word "Tartaroo", which you allow to also be called "hell" in 2nd Peter 2:4, is not a place of torment but a Prison for angels whose true destiny and torment is in the Lake of Fire. Should we not encourage one another to be as accurate as possible with God's Word. Your Forum here is adamant of sola scripture. A wrong or misleading word can only have a mislead ending.

Let us then examine the mustard seed. No private interpretation is allowed. Scripture must explain scripture. So we immediately observe Genesis 1:11-12 where God sets forth the Law of Kinds. This Law is so important because it dictates our rebirth, our new nature in Christ, and even the Deity of Christ - Him being born of the Holy Spirit (Lk.1:35). So the question is; Does a mustard seed produce a huge Tree like that used to depict Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4? No! It does not. It produces a bush containing a piquant fruit. The resulting Nebuchadnezzar Tree of Matthew 13 bears no resemblance to the Mustard Bush. And then, if we observe what Christianity has become, is not Rome with all it wealth and splendor, and its control over 1.3 billion adherents, with its pagan feats and Masonic-like buildings with the "grand master" - a man-invented order of priests, sitting in the east under a sunburst.

And then again, these men-ordained priests have made rule like "no marriage" which 1st Timothy 4 says is a "doctrine of demons". I think brother that you and I should pool our resources to correct every deviation in God's Word that has been placed there by such an entity. The word "hell" is a Roman invention and does not belong in the Bible. In Psalm 138 the Lord declares that He has put His WORD ABOVE His Name. Let us insist on accuracy of that elevated Word.

We are on the same side brother. Let's pool our resources.

 

[Emmaus]

I'm jumping in a bit late here, maybe : )

"I go with you. The word "hell" is not warranted. But I also understand why the translators used it. When the King James was written there was quite some Roman pressure applied. They also got the word "Ekklesia" translated "Church". It really means "assembly" but that would have devastated the Roman misinformation that God lives in a building made by hands. But now, centuries later, I wonder why no one has corrected that"

Not sure whether you are actually addressing CherubRam's quoted text (above)?

The Bible does not state that the Romans spread misinformation about God living in man-made buildings. Instead, the idea that God does not dwell in temples made by human hands is taught by early Christian leaders to correct pagan Greek beliefs, not Roman doctrine.

I am not sure what the connection is to "Hell" this example of "Ekkelesia", "church" and "Assemply", unless you are indicating that "Hell never accurs" because "shoel or "Gehenna" were used instead? According to CherubRam, none of these words translate as "Hell"? So I am not sure what you are portraying here?

Does this mean that scripture is not clear because there are many meanings / translations?

Thank you for your reply. My initial posting was to agree with our brother/sister who said that "hell" is an incorrect translation. The word in the original text is either "Hades" the place of the souls of dead men, "Gehenna" the Valley on the south side of Jerusalem where the cities trash is burned, "Tartaroo" the prison of fallen angels who misbehaved during Noah's time. But hell is a Roam catholic concept depicted in their art of a place where men have their bodies and some great symbol of suffering is at work. Some of us have defended this translation - which is their right. You have to decide if you will allow a word in the English Bible that everybody knows is wrong, or not. Both sides agree that it is not in the original.

 

[Emmaus]

Again, I see no relation to what David said, and what you are quoting?
Forgive me if I am wrong, I am trying to keep up ...

You are right. My posting was a musing. It put forward something for discussion. Consider this.
1. For the rich man to suffer torment, somebody had to decide this.
2. Since all judgment is give to Jesus, when did Jesus judge the man that he is now in torment?
3. The Lake of Fire, not Hades, is the place of suffering
4. Why did Lazarus need to be comforted if he was released from his body

These are just some interesting points for the student of scripture. But here is one more. Is the good part of Hades for good men or believers? I'll tell you why. Abraham is a man of Faith and this section of Hades is called "Abraham's Bosom". But Abraham is reported by scripture to have come from idol worshipers. But God promised Abraham that he would be "gathered to his fathers" at death. If so, Abraham was gathered to idol worshipers - which kinda burdens any argument that where Abraham is has any good men in it. I'm not building a doctrine about Hades. I'm saying that it has some puzzling connotations.

God bless

 

[David]

Does this mean that scripture is not clear because there are many meanings / translations?

No, multiple translations does not equal multiple meanings for Scripture. God didn’t give His Word as a fog. He gave us light. “The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple” ~Psalm 119:130. God’s Word brings LIGHT when it enters our lives. It is not obscured by some spiritual riddle that only scholars can figure out.

In fact, Scripture identifies the problem, not as confusion on the surface of the text, but as hard-heartedness within. Peter cautioned how some will contort what God has said to suit their own agenda. They “wrest… the scriptures, unto their own destruction” ~2 Peter 3:16. Where does this problem happen? Not in the Word, but in the person interpreting it.

Jesus spoke in parables, but the TRUTH did not become unclear. The parables reveal who wants the truth and who doesn’t. “Who hath ears to hear, let him hear” ~Matthew 13:9. Everyone heard the same message, but only some were willing.

Multiple languages or translation do not create multiple truths. It says Sheol in one verse and Gehenna in another. Where does Scripture turn to understand the meaning? The WORD itself. Scripture interprets Scripture.

There is not some moving target when we read the Bible. God has given His WORD, and it is LIGHT. Will people receive what it says, or will they try to manipulate it to say something else?

 

[bobinfaith]

Actually, you’re correct on one point. The Bible was never written in English. Hebrew Scriptures use the word Sheol and Greek Scriptures use Gehenna. However, clinging to the word “hell” is missing the point. The point is what Scripture actually says.

Hello David;

I have a comment and question. First, suppose the Bible had been written back then, solely in English would in my opinion eliminate the Hebrew Aramaic (OT) the Koine Greek (NT) and all the languages that only complicate our understanding of the Scripture.

Sure, there are certain words in the Hebrew and Greek that gave their Scriptural meaning long before English even existed. I also understand back then the Old and New Testaments were authored by Jews and Gentile Christians and would require their specific meanings when translating later to English.

My reason is God knew the English would later be an acceptable translation of the Bible. In defense to the English, it also has multiple meanings to words that have benefitted the Christian student or anyone studying God's Word.

What are your thought?

God bless you and thank you.

Bob

 

[David]

And then again, these men-ordained priests have made rule like "no marriage" which 1st Timothy 4 says is a "doctrine of demons". I think brother that you and I should pool our resources to correct every deviation in God's Word that has been placed there by such an entity. The word "hell" is a Roman invention and does not belong in the Bible. In Psalm 138 the Lord declares that He has put His WORD ABOVE His Name. Let us insist on accuracy of that elevated Word.

We are on the same side brother. Let's pool our resources.

I can’t “pool resources” like you asked. I take my stance on what Scripture DOES say, not on men’s opinions about what they think it should say. The standard is straightforward: “Let God be true, but every man a liar” ~Romans 3:4.

The debate about the English word hell does not remove the reality Jesus warned about. Christ told us there would be “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” ~Mark 9:48. And Scripture plainly declares, “death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death” ~Revelation 20:14.

Multiple paradises is another concept taken beyond the text. Jesus said to the thief, “Today shalt thou be with me in paradise” ~Luke 23: 43 then Paul told us he was “caught up into paradise” ~2 Corinthians 12:2-4 in the presence of God. Scripture merely shows the righteous with God in comfort.

I don’t need to know if the mustard seed theory happened historically. Jesus Himself tells us it simply starts small and grows big ~Matthew 13:32. Making that into a prophecy about Rome inserts something the text never claimed.

We are warned about that in Scripture. “No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation” ~2 Peter 1:20. Adding ideas that the text itself does not state should not be done. God’s Word is not ours to reshape. It must be allowed to stand exactly as it is written.

 

[David]

As to the the word "hell" being used, is not not a blatant untruth and more than a matter of Semantics. Hades is the place of the dead, but the Lake of Fire is the place of the living. And the word "Tartaroo", which you allow to also be called "hell" in 2nd Peter 2:4, is not a place of torment but a Prison for angels whose true destiny and torment is in the Lake of Fire. Should we not encourage one another to be as accurate as possible with God's Word. Your Forum here is adamant of sola scripture. A wrong or misleading word can only have a mislead ending.

What you are presenting here is not simply letting Scripture speak. It is an interpretive system built from speculation about translations, layered theories about the afterlife, and historical ideas that the passages themselves never state.

That approach will not be taught on this message board.

This forum stands on Scripture itself, not on theories about Roman conspiracies, hidden prophetic systems in parables, or reconstructed vocabulary arguments. The standard here is simple: we teach what the text actually says in its context.

Jesus warned plainly about judgment. He spoke of a place “where their worm

 

[David]

Thank you for your reply. My initial posting was to agree with our brother/sister who said that "hell" is an incorrect translation. The word in the original text is either "Hades" the place of the souls of dead men, "Gehenna" the Valley on the south side of Jerusalem where the cities trash is burned, "Tartaroo" the prison of fallen angels who misbehaved during Noah's time. But hell is a Roam catholic concept depicted in their art of a place where men have their bodies and some great symbol of suffering is at work. Some of us have defended this translation - which is their right. You have to decide if you will allow a word in the English Bible that everybody knows is wrong, or not. Both sides agree that it is not in the original.

You said you were agreeing with CherubRam. That is not a good thing. CherubRam was removed from this forum because he was teaching false doctrine and would not submit to what Scripture actually says.

Your argument about the word hell misses the point. The issue is not the English word but the reality Jesus warned about. Christ spoke of a place “where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched” ~Mark 9:48, and Scripture says, “This is the second death, the lake of fire” ~Revelation 20:14.

This board teaches the Word of God as written. We do not promote theories about corrupted translations or interpretive systems built around them. “Add thou not unto his words” ~Proverbs 30:6.

So to be clear: that line of teaching will not be taught here.

 

[David]

You are right. My posting was a musing. It put forward something for discussion. Consider this.
1. For the rich man to suffer torment, somebody had to decide this.
2. Since all judgment is give to Jesus, when did Jesus judge the man that he is now in torment?
3. The Lake of Fire, not Hades, is the place of suffering
4. Why did Lazarus need to be comforted if he was released from his body

These are just some interesting points for the student of scripture. But here is one more. Is the good part of Hades for good men or believers? I'll tell you why. Abraham is a man of Faith and this section of Hades is called "Abraham's Bosom". But Abraham is reported by scripture to have come from idol worshipers. But God promised Abraham that he would be "gathered to his fathers" at death. If so, Abraham was gathered to idol worshipers - which kinda burdens any argument that where Abraham is has any good men in it. I'm not building a doctrine about Hades. I'm saying that it has some puzzling connotations.

I see what you are doing. You frame it as “musings” and “puzzling questions,” but the pattern is obvious. You keep introducing speculative questions to chip away at the plain reading of the passage.

That approach will not go anywhere here.

This forum is not a place for slowly building alternative systems by raising endless hypotheticals. The standard here is the written Word of God itself, taken in its context. Speculation that tries to undermine what the text plainly states will not be entertained or taught here.

If you want to participate, stay with the actual teaching of Scripture. If your approach is going to be continuing to introduce theories and puzzles around the text, then you will need to take that somewhere else.

 

[David]

Hello David;

I have a comment and question. First, suppose the Bible had been written back then, solely in English would in my opinion eliminate the Hebrew Aramaic (OT) the Koine Greek (NT) and all the languages that only complicate our understanding of the Scripture.

Sure, there are certain words in the Hebrew and Greek that gave their Scriptural meaning long before English even existed. I also understand back then the Old and New Testaments were authored by Jews and Gentile Christians and would require their specific meanings when translating later to English.

My reason is God knew the English would later be an acceptable translation of the Bible. In defense to the English, it also has multiple meanings to words that have benefitted the Christian student or anyone studying God's Word.

What are your thought?

God bless you and thank you.

Bob

That is a very good question. The quick answer is no; it would not have been better had Scripture originally been written in English. God never intended His message to belong to one language or one nation.

The gospel was designed from the beginning to reach all people. That is why when the Spirit came upon the people at Pentecost, they exclaimed “every man heard them speak in his own language.”~Acts 2:6. Even then God was revealing that His truth would be proclaimed in many tongues.

So instead of English making things easier, the broader perspective is that God planned for His Word to be translated into every language so that people everywhere could know the truth of Christ.

 

[Yesua888]

Thank you for the reply. I observe that, concerning the "final judgment" that the word "final" implies that there are others that are not final. If the rich man is tormented, somebody with power to administer torment made a decision. My question is Who and When?

You quoted 2nd Corinthians 5. In that very text scripture says that we "groan" in our earthly bodies and that we also "groan" being naked in death. Lazarus might be relieved of his aching body, but a new source of groaning is at hand. You don't think that this would need comforting. The Lord Jesus called it Abraham's Bosom in Luke 16, but calls it "Paradise" after His death. Now, while we observe that there is a Paradise of God in heaven, and now a "Paradise of men" in Hades, there is no such Paradise on earth. Has not our Lord revealed that the "groaning dead" have a source of "comfort" while they are disembodied souls?

As to the the word "hell" being used, is not not a blatant untruth and more than a matter of Semantics. Hades is the place of the dead, but the Lake of Fire is the place of the living. And the word "Tartaroo", which you allow to also be called "hell" in 2nd Peter 2:4, is not a place of torment but a Prison for angels whose true destiny and torment is in the Lake of Fire. Should we not encourage one another to be as accurate as possible with God's Word. Your Forum here is adamant of sola scripture. A wrong or misleading word can only have a mislead ending.

Let us then examine the mustard seed. No private interpretation is allowed. Scripture must explain scripture. So we immediately observe Genesis 1:11-12 where God sets forth the Law of Kinds. This Law is so important because it dictates our rebirth, our new nature in Christ, and even the Deity of Christ - Him being born of the Holy Spirit (Lk.1:35). So the question is; Does a mustard seed produce a huge Tree like that used to depict Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 4? No! It does not. It produces a bush containing a piquant fruit. The resulting Nebuchadnezzar Tree of Matthew 13 bears no resemblance to the Mustard Bush. And then, if we observe what Christianity has become, is not Rome with all it wealth and splendor, and its control over 1.3 billion adherents, with its pagan feats and Masonic-like buildings with the "grand master" - a man-invented order of priests, sitting in the east under a sunburst.

And then again, these men-ordained priests have made rule like "no marriage" which 1st Timothy 4 says is a "doctrine of demons". I think brother that you and I should pool our resources to correct every deviation in God's Word that has been placed there by such an entity. The word "hell" is a Roman invention and does not belong in the Bible. In Psalm 138 the Lord declares that He has put His WORD ABOVE His Name. Let us insist on accuracy of that elevated Word.

We are on the same side brother. Let's pool our resources.

Wow! you have a lot of information here, but no bible verses, that we can refer to. There are many of us here, who are new to the Word. It would be so good if you could bear this in mind, so that it does not become a huge endeavour to verify what you are saying eg. bible verses relating to what you are teaching. Hope you will take into consideration those of us, that are here to learn, and do not know the bible as well as some of you do. Many thanks : )

 

[Yesua888]

Thank you for your reply. My initial posting was to agree with our brother/sister who said that "hell" is an incorrect translation. The word in the original text is either "Hades" the place of the souls of dead men, "Gehenna" the Valley on the south side of Jerusalem where the cities trash is burned, "Tartaroo" the prison of fallen angels who misbehaved during Noah's time. But hell is a Roam catholic concept depicted in their art of a place where men have their bodies and some great symbol of suffering is at work. Some of us have defended this translation - which is their right. You have to decide if you will allow a word in the English Bible that everybody knows is wrong, or not. Both sides agree that it is not in the original.

where can I find more on this ... my enquiring mind needs to know : )