What is the Biblical view of hell?

[otseng]

The concept of Hell is one of the many unmarketable, embarrassingly unbelievable religious concepts that has been recently swept under the altar in the severely diluted quasi-belief system that passes for Christianity in certain circles.

In fact, I think this is why Christianity invented eternal punishment in hell. They started to realize that just plain dying wouldn't be compelling. So instead they invented the concept of "Everlasting Punishment" for those who refuse to comply.

Questions for debate:
What is the Biblical view of hell?
What concepts do we have of hell that are not in the Bible?

[bluegreenearth]

Eisigesis is completely avoidable so long as we take the entire Bible into account. These so called 'corruptions' are easy to root out if we consider the Bible in its entirety. I have been able to study the Bible contently without the need for eisegesis, so I know the statement "eisegesis is unavoidable" is not true. Those that say eisigesis must be used is pushing their own agenda..

When you take the entire Bible into account, you only compound the problem. This is because the entire Bible didn't exist until the 4th century and is a compilations of heavily embellished copies of earlier texts which were never intended to be merged into a single canon. Then, after being merged, they were further edited and manipulated by scribes and theologians to better align with their biased perspectives. As already explained, the problem of eisegesis is inescapable for any single Biblical text and compounded with compilations of Biblical texts. You can certainly try to mitigate for eisegesis to whatever maximal extent is possible but will never completely eliminate it. At best, what you are left with is an irreversibly corrupted Biblical cannon. There is no point in citing scripture because, even if you can demonstrate no personal bias in your interpretation, the scripture itself is already a biased interpretation of an original text now lost to history.

[otseng]

[Replying to post 511 by bluegreenearth]

Please note the Guidelines for the TD&D subforum. TD&D does not allow for the challenging of the authority of the Bible.

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 511 by bluegreenearth]

Please note the Guidelines for the TD&D subforum. TD&D does not allow for the challenging of the authority of the Bible.

That guideline unfairly forces a blatant bias into the debate rendering the entire process pointless. You can keep your bias, and I'll assume I've won the debate. Good bye.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 497 by bluegreenearth]

I agree with much of what you say, however I think that we do have very early manuscripts that we can compare with later ones and detect corruptions in many cases. One example is I John 5:7. Earliest manuscripts do not show what the KJV says there: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." This was an addition later on, as later manuscripts attest, because these words were not present in the earliest versions (which read: "For there are three witness bearers:" and then goes straight into verse 8---"the spirit and the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.")

Therefore we ARE able to discern the corruption in most of the verses that seem to contradict other verses that, for example, clearly state that Jesus did not claim to be God. It is possible to learn what the writers were undoubtedly trying to get across to us.

As I said previously, when we take the time to study the Scriptures, really scrutinizing them, we can become apprised of the facts surrounding "hell." We can see that the KJV takes at least three different words with three different meanings and renders them all as "hell." When we know that the words are actually "Gehenna," "Hades," and "Tartarus," we can make informed decisions as to what "hell" actually is. We can see that it was a big mistake to translate all three of those words as "hell."

It's rather a cop-out to dismiss any possibility of understanding the Bible because we can't know what the writers were trying to say. We CAN know, and it is up to each one of us to search it out.

The first complete copy of a New Testament book appears around 200 A.D., and the earliest complete copy of the New Testament cannon (the Codex Sinaiticus) doesn't show up until the 4th century. Even if we just consider the manuscript from around 200 A. D., more than 150 years transpired since the events described by the text are supposed to have taken place. If you think a 150 years is not enough time for the original account to have been embellished, consider how much the UFO story from Roswell changed in just a 30 year time span after the first eyewitness reports were published. It went from a mediocre story about the discovery of wreckage from some unknown aircraft in 1947 to claims about extra-terrestrial alien bodies being autopsied by 1978. It is even more astonishing when we consider the Roswell story occurred at time when the actual eyewitnesses were still alive to be interviewed directly and at a time when photograph technology was already widely in use. Nevertheless, a vast majority of people (including myself) remain unconvinced by the Roswell claim which only occurred recently. However, we are supposed to be compelled to believe a less credible story written over 2,000 years ago?

The point was that we have the earliest manuscripts that exist saying something different than later manuscripts. This is a mightily compelling argument for the corruption of the verses in those copies of the Bible books. The earliest manuscripts (mss) do not have anything that hints of a Trinity, yet mss many centuries later say "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost....blah blah blah." (I John) Your insisting that the Bible books are worthless because they were written 200 years or more after the facts is beside the point.

[2timothy316]

When you take the entire Bible into account, you only compound the problem. This is because the entire Bible didn't exist until the 4th century and is a compilations of heavily embellished copies of earlier texts which were never intended to be merged into a single canon.

I have encountered so such problem. Before it was called the 'Bible' it was called the "Law and the Prophets". It was the Hebrew Bible which makes up the majority of the Bible. People call it today the Old Testament. I prefer calling it the Hebrew scriptures. It actually makes up most of the Bible. The New Testament or Greek Scriptures are much shorter and actually repeats all of the principles of the Hebrew scriptures.

The "entire Bible" was known well before the 4th century. Along with the Hebrew Scriptures that had been around for centuries, the writings of the 1st century Christians were being passed around from congregation to congregation and recognized as scriptures or Holy Writings as well. Those in the 4th century already had most of their work done for them. So those that are telling people that the Bible didn't exist prior to the 4th century are in error.

Then, after being merged, they were further edited and manipulated by scribes and theologians to better align with their biased perspectives.

Yes some of that did take place. However, thanks to the older manuscripts that have been uncovered in the past 100 years, just about all of those manipulated text have been identified. Many Bibles have corrected those errors. Some keep the errors in there for the sake of their dogma. Yet we are not bound to just one translation of the Bible in trying to figure out the Bible's message.

As already explained, the problem of eisegesis is inescapable for any single Biblical text and compounded with compilations of Biblical texts. You can certainly try to mitigate for eisegesis to whatever maximal extent is possible but will never completely eliminate it. At best, what you are left with is an irreversibly corrupted Biblical cannon. There is no point in citing scripture because, even if you can demonstrate no personal bias in your interpretation, the scripture itself is already a biased interpretation of an original text now lost to history.

While eisegesis is certainly a flawed way to use the Bible. I have had no problems understanding the message of the Bible due to a few corrupted Bible translations.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to post 511 by bluegreenearth]

Please note the Guidelines for the TD&D subforum. TD&D does not allow for the challenging of the authority of the Bible.

That guideline unfairly forces a blatant bias into the debate rendering the entire process pointless. You can keep your bias, and I'll assume I've won the debate. Good bye.

Technically since the rules of the forum were ignored you lost the debate. Not being able to back your argument with any authoritative reference other than yourself is not a winning stance here. You're correct that it is biased. It is on purpose and those that post here actually enjoy not having to fight people on the authority of the Bible. The folks in this forum have moved past the elementary debates of the Christianity and Apologetics forum. However, many enjoy them, so perhaps that forum would be better suited for your discussions?

(On a side note, it was the creator of this website that quoted you the forum rules.)

[onewithhim]

Hell is a world created for people which includes pain, scare, sadness, boredom and everything that people are usually afraid off.

If you did a bit of research you would find that the Greek word "Hades" is equivalent to "hell," and Christians understand it to mean the grave. There is no consciousness in the grave (Ecclesiastes 9:5).

Translators got people all confused when they equated "Hades" with "Gehenna," and translated BOTH as "hell." "Gehenna" was the term used by Jesus to refer to the total annihilation of wicked people, just like trash was totally consumed in the garbage dump called "Gehenna," or, "the valley of Hinnom."

[otseng]

Hell is a world created for people which includes pain, scare, sadness, boredom and everything that people are usually afraid off.

That might be commonly held perception. But, the actual Biblical view of hell is quite different. That's the purpose of this thread is to show that most of what people believe about hell are wrong.

[Difflugia]

If you did a bit of research you would find that the Greek word "Hades" is equivalent to "hell," and Christians understand it to mean the grave. There is no consciousness in the grave (Ecclesiastes 9:5).

If you did a bit more research (within this very thread, in fact), you would find that not all Christians believe that, because some correctly note that some New Testament references to Hades include conscious torment (Luke 16:23 is explicit). Jehovah's Witnesses do indeed handwave this particular verse away:

The remaining text in which Hades is used is found at Luke 16:22-26 in the account of “the rich man” and “Lazarus.” The language throughout the account is plainly parabolic and cannot be construed literally in view of all the preceding texts. Note, however, that “the rich man” of the parable is spoken of as being “buried” in Hades, giving further evidence that Hades means the common grave of mankind.
—Insight on the Scriptures, "Hades"

That's hardly evidence, though, that all Christians harmonize it that way (assuming that you didn't mean it in the less-than-ecumenical sense of real Christians).

Whether Hades and Gehenna are intended as different places, pretending that Luke didn't actually mean Hades to be a place of torment is only one way to harmonize his Gospel with the other Synoptics (John mentions neither Hades nor Gehenna). To dismiss all other potential harmonizations out of hand smacks of hubris.

Translators got people all confused when they equated "Hades" with "Gehenna," and translated BOTH as "hell." "Gehenna" was the term used by Jesus to refer to the total annihilation of wicked people, just like trash was totally consumed in the garbage dump called "Gehenna," or, "the valley of Hinnom."

It's not just the translators that are getting people confused. While the reference (at least as Mark uses it) is to physical corpses, it refers to their lack of being consumed so that they may be a perpetual monument to what happens to those that defy God. The description of Gehenna in Mark 9:48 is a direct reference to Isaiah 66:24 (as a nearly word-for-word quotation of the Septuagint). Isaiah 66:15-16 describe how Yahweh will slay His enemies with divine fire. Verses 23-24 then say that those remaining shall, "from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to another," worship Yahweh and gaze upon the dead flesh of his enemies, eternally burning and eternally corrupted by maggots.

[William]

[Replying to post 511 by bluegreenearth]

Please note the Guidelines for the TD&D subforum. TD&D does not allow for the challenging of the authority of the Bible.

That guideline unfairly forces a blatant bias into the debate rendering the entire process pointless. You can keep your bias, and I'll assume I've won the debate. Good bye.

One has to appreciate reality in order to cope with it. I think you are correct that this particular forum is unsuited to debate. Christianity made itself unavailable to any type of change, a long time ago [relative to human social structure] and there is essentially no debate to be had.

Rather this particular forum is designed more for those who call themselves Christians to debate the various claims regarding biblical interpretation. Therein the debate as it is, is central to that theme.

The best an Atheist can do hereabouts is point out the contradiction between [Christianity] not wanting to change and debating for change.

The best Atheists' can hope to receive from such interaction is the data-base which it provides as real evidence - which altogether paints a solid [real] picture of what Christendom actually is and how Christians play into its devices...

(whether one then chooses to fear and tremble at the real-world consequences of Christendom, or react at all any other way, is entirely the individuals choice.)

.