Hell - A misunderstood word

[MissKate13]

The English word hell appears twenty-three times in the King James Version of the New Testament. “Hell” actually represents three different terms in the Greek New Testament.

The first is “ade.” It is translated hell ten times in the KJV. Many new versions use the word Hades instead of hell. There are several ways Hades is used in the NT. The best way to determine its use is by context. In some places Hades is defined as the abode of departed spirits.

Gehenna (geennan), on the other hand, seems to be a place of torment, one to be avoided. Gehenna originates from two Hebrew words meaning “Valley of Hinnom.” The Valley of Hinnom, in the mind of the Jews, was detestable, disgusting, sickening, entirely unpleasant, and a place to be avoided. That was exactly what Jesus wanted to get across each time he used the term geennan.

Tartarus occurs only one in the New Testament (2 Peter 2:4). Here, it is used of the abode of evil angels prior to their banishment to Gehenna, their ultimate destiny (Mt. 25:41). It denotes that area of Hades in which both rebel men and angels are punished prior to the day of judgment. 2 Peter 2:9 supports this: “the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment unto the day of judgment”

“Hell” is not the grave. In the New Testament there are three words that refer to the grave. They are taphos, mnema, and mnemeion. Taphos is used seven times and is translated sepulcher six times and tomb once.
Mnema is translated as tomb twice, grave once, and sepulcher four times.
Mnemeion is used five times as tomb, twenty-nine times as sepulcher, and eight times as grave.

Mt 5:22 geennan
Mt 5:29 geennan
Mt 5:30 geennan
Mt 10:28 geenne
Mt 11:23 adou
Mt 16:18 adou
Mt 18:9 geennan
Mt 23:15 geennes
My 23:33 geennes
Mark 9:43 geennan
Mark 9:47 geennan
Mark 9:47 geennan
Luke 10:15 adou
Luke 12:5 geennan
Luke 16:23 ade
Acts 2:27 aden
Acts 2:31 aden
James 3:6 geennes
2 Peter 2:4 tartarōsas
Rev 1:18 adou
Rev 6:8 ades
Rev 20:13 ades
Rev 20:14 ades

Your thoughts?

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #89]

I would like to focus on the idea that you are no longer in the physical universe reality, but in some after-that-life reality, where you told me that you would expect to be punished for things you did in your prior reality experience.

In that, - re fairness - I would like you to tell us what type of punishment you would expect to receive, and for how long you should be punished.

If god can get me every time I do something, all he needs to do to achieve fairness is give me my licks for what I did and nothing else. I would expect to experience the kind of suffering I inflicted for however long I inflicted it. If that doesn't happen then it's not fair to anybody I hurt, and it's not fair to all the people who wanted to hurt someone and decided not to.

You have already said that you think it would be fair that you were told of the fate of the man who raped your wife.

You also stated that it would be fair to you if you were able to punish the rapist.

Do you think that you should be the one to punish the rapist in the next experience, or that you would be satisfied that fairness occurred by you simply being told that the he was punished?

Depends on if I think whoever's telling me is lying. I'll spare you the particulars of how I assess that but I'll give you that if you told me, I'd probably believe you. Ideally I'd like to see it.

I think what I said about the rapist is that if the universe is unfair and doesn't provide us with any direction toward fairness, we can do whatever we want and one of those things is trying to create fairness. But if you think it's unfair that I yank the rapist's guts out, tell me why. Note that I didn't say moral. I understand that morally I can't hurt someone just because they hurt me or anyone else. And I do understand we live in a moral society and I can't do it for moral and legal (which is just codified moral) reasons.

But as for fairness, I don't think that requires an authority. And if he hurts somebody, he gets hurt. If you think that's unfair tell me why. I might agree.

[William]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #91]

If god can get me every time I do something, all he needs to do to achieve fairness is give me my licks for what I did and nothing else.

Shall we agree for the time being, that a 'god' is not involved?

I would expect to experience the kind of suffering I inflicted for however long I inflicted it. If that doesn't happen then it's not fair to anybody I hurt, and it's not fair to all the people who wanted to hurt someone and decided not to.

Lets just say then, that this is what immediately occurs to you in this next experience.

That is to say, there is no trial, no witnesses, et al to establish your guilt because you accept your guilt unreservedly.

From what you have said, the reader could take it that your punishment would exactly equal your crime and it is you yourself who places sentence upon yourself and no one else is directly involved with that.

Is there fairness in that scenario?

But as for fairness, I don't think that requires an authority. And if he hurts somebody, he gets hurt. If you think that's unfair tell me why. I might agree.

This is what I am getting at. The only 'authority' that is required is one's own, in the sense that you know what you have done and instantly pay the penalty, without their being any outside 'authority' making it so.

In that, I am suggesting that the nature of the next experience automatically responds to everything you have done to wrong/hurt etc others and reflects that back on you, for you to now experience, and therein justice is achieved.

In that, such happens to all, not just you, and thus, will happen to your wife's rapist as well.

From what I can gather, at some point you will need to see justice also happening to others in order for everything to be fair in your estimate.

Am I understanding you correctly?

[Purple Knight]

Shall we agree for the time being, that a 'god' is not involved?

I would expect to experience the kind of suffering I inflicted for however long I inflicted it. If that doesn't happen then it's not fair to anybody I hurt, and it's not fair to all the people who wanted to hurt someone and decided not to.

Lets just say then, that this is what immediately occurs to you in this next experience.

That is to say, there is no trial, no witnesses, et al to establish your guilt because you accept your guilt unreservedly.

From what you have said, the reader could take it that your punishment would exactly equal your crime and it is you yourself who places sentence upon yourself and no one else is directly involved with that.

Is there fairness in that scenario?

Other people are involved regardless of whether you want them to be. That's what fairness means. Everyone is involved. If I'm punished for when I punched Charlie, but he also punched me and is not punished, then my punishment is unfair. It's also unfair to anyone who wanted to punch and didn't.

There are some things I believe I've done wrong unequivocally and will accept punishment, but some things that if I expect everyone else gets away with it I will not want punishment.

For example, I'll only accept that me saying something mean to somebody is something I need to be punished for if it's something everybody needs to be punished for, because I was taught that other people have the right to do that to me and I should just eat it if I feel bad. If the people who taught me that are wrong so be it. I'll accept that. But I won't accept it alone. You're saying the universe's punishing of me rides on my accepting that I did something bad? Well my acceptance that I did something bad rides on (in many cases) whether it's also bad and deserving of punishment if other people do it. If it's not bad - deserving of punishment - when Sally calls me a retard, then it's not bad that I called her a bitch.

In other words, I'm not saying I make the rules. But I am saying I deserve equal treatment by the rules and I will fight for that.

This is what I am getting at. The only 'authority' that is required is one's own, in the sense that you know what you have done and instantly pay the penalty, without their being any outside 'authority' making it so.

In that, I am suggesting that the nature of the next experience automatically responds to everything you have done to wrong/hurt etc others and reflects that back on you, for you to now experience, and therein justice is achieved.

In that, such happens to all, not just you, and thus, will happen to your wife's rapist as well.

From what I can gather, at some point you will need to see justice also happening to others in order for everything to be fair in your estimate.

Am I understanding you correctly?

Yes. Now, if the universe behaves as you describe, and I have already inflicted some of the suffering the rapist deserves on him, the universe now owes him fewer licks, right?

Now, if it's about only what you think you did wrong, and he doesn't think he did anything wrong, then I don't think I did anything wrong either. If he's an inanimate post just blown through people by the wind, blameless for the bloody wounds he leaves in them, then so am I.