Does Hell Exist?

[Data]

The question for debate is does hell exist? If so, what does the Bible teach hell is?

[2timothy316]

[Replying to Data in post #1]

The word hell is derived from an Anglo-Saxon word meaning “to conceal,” or “to cover” according to the Webster's dictionary.
This word is translated in the Hebrew Scriptures as sheol. In Greek, hades.
All of these words refer to what we call today, the grave.

So, in the strictest sense of the original meaning of the word, hell does exist.
What doesn't exist is a place where dead people (but not actually dead people) burn forever.

Definition of dead according to Webster's: "deprived of life : no longer alive"
Webster's calls alive, "still in existence, force, or operation".

Yet, the majority of people on the earth today think that a dead person is alive somehow. To call a dead person alive is an oxymoron.

What does the Bible say is the condition of the dead?
"For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all." - Ecc 9:5
"His spirit (ftn: 'breath') goes out, he returns to the ground; On that very day his thoughts perish." Ps 146:4

So the truth of the matter is, if a person is in the grave, "sheol, hades, hell" they are dead and buried. Simple as that. False religions will say otherwise.

These are always interesting answers. Does a physical place (xyz) exist. Why, let’s get out the dictionary to see if we can talk ourselves out of the reality by use of definitions.

Do leprechauns exist because there’s a word for them? Do feelings or experiences like having a child not exist because the dictionary has no word that anyone experiencing this can identify as accurate?

The silliness of their argument is obvious to bilinguals and probably difficult for monolinguals. I know there are words in my second language that perfectly describe something powerfully real that you just can’t say in English. There’s no word in English but it still exists.


The dictionary is a very poor counselor when it comes to reality. Words might describe reality but they actually have zero affect upon it.

It's better than believing in hell and leprechauns. Both of which don't exist.
I pity those that don't care about the history of their own language and have credulous beliefs.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Data in post #1]

The word hell is derived from an Anglo-Saxon word meaning “to conceal,” or “to cover” according to the Webster's dictionary.
This word is translated in the Hebrew Scriptures as sheol. In Greek, hades.
All of these words refer to what we call today, the grave.

So, in the strictest sense of the original meaning of the word, hell does exist.
What doesn't exist is a place where dead people (but not actually dead people) burn forever.

Definition of dead according to Webster's: "deprived of life : no longer alive"
Webster's calls alive, "still in existence, force, or operation".

Yet, the majority of people on the earth today think that a dead person is alive somehow. To call a dead person alive is an oxymoron.

What does the Bible say is the condition of the dead?
"For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all." - Ecc 9:5
"His spirit (ftn: 'breath') goes out, he returns to the ground; On that very day his thoughts perish." Ps 146:4

So the truth of the matter is, if a person is in the grave, "sheol, hades, hell" they are dead and buried. Simple as that. False religions will say otherwise.

These are always interesting answers. Does a physical place (xyz) exist. Why, let’s get out the dictionary to see if we can talk ourselves out of the reality by use of definitions.

Do leprechauns exist because there’s a word for them? Do feelings or experiences like having a child not exist because the dictionary has no word that anyone experiencing this can identify as accurate?

The silliness of their argument is obvious to bilinguals and probably difficult for monolinguals. I know there are words in my second language that perfectly describe something powerfully real that you just can’t say in English. There’s no word in English but it still exists.


The dictionary is a very poor counselor when it comes to reality. Words might describe reality but they actually have zero affect upon it.

It's better than believing in hell and leprechauns. Both of which don't exist.
I pity those that don't care about the history of their own language and have credulous beliefs.

Time will tell who was right. If I’m wrong, nothing bad happens. If you’re wrong the worst of all possible outcomes happens. Not sure the pity is going the right direction there.

[2timothy316]

[Replying to Data in post #1]

The word hell is derived from an Anglo-Saxon word meaning “to conceal,” or “to cover” according to the Webster's dictionary.
This word is translated in the Hebrew Scriptures as sheol. In Greek, hades.
All of these words refer to what we call today, the grave.

So, in the strictest sense of the original meaning of the word, hell does exist.
What doesn't exist is a place where dead people (but not actually dead people) burn forever.

Definition of dead according to Webster's: "deprived of life : no longer alive"
Webster's calls alive, "still in existence, force, or operation".

Yet, the majority of people on the earth today think that a dead person is alive somehow. To call a dead person alive is an oxymoron.

What does the Bible say is the condition of the dead?
"For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all." - Ecc 9:5
"His spirit (ftn: 'breath') goes out, he returns to the ground; On that very day his thoughts perish." Ps 146:4

So the truth of the matter is, if a person is in the grave, "sheol, hades, hell" they are dead and buried. Simple as that. False religions will say otherwise.

These are always interesting answers. Does a physical place (xyz) exist. Why, let’s get out the dictionary to see if we can talk ourselves out of the reality by use of definitions.

Do leprechauns exist because there’s a word for them? Do feelings or experiences like having a child not exist because the dictionary has no word that anyone experiencing this can identify as accurate?

The silliness of their argument is obvious to bilinguals and probably difficult for monolinguals. I know there are words in my second language that perfectly describe something powerfully real that you just can’t say in English. There’s no word in English but it still exists.


The dictionary is a very poor counselor when it comes to reality. Words might describe reality but they actually have zero affect upon it.

It's better than believing in hell and leprechauns. Both of which don't exist.
I pity those that don't care about the history of their own language and have credulous beliefs.

Time will tell who was right. If I’m wrong, nothing bad happens. If you’re wrong the worst of all possible outcomes happens. Not sure the pity is going the right direction there.

I don't need time to know. My faith is not credulously based. I have full faith that Ecc 9:5 is correct.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #153]

I will never have to give an answer to Him as to why I comforted evil doers with the denial of the place of eternal torment. If they cry out from pit that so-and-so told them there is no Hell, my name won’t be called as to answer for that. When asked, I responded that Hell is real. Best not go there.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #153]
... If they cry out from pit that so-and-so told them there is no Hell, my name won’t be called as to answer for that. When asked, I responded that Hell is real. Best not go there.

ECCLESIATES

For the living know* that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all...

"Hell" is real, it just means the grave and as Ecclesiates shows there is no torture or suffering there.

..Best not go there.

Then why did the righteous men in scripture expect even pray to go there?

" Who will grant me this, that thou mayst protect me IN HELL, and hide me till thy wrath pass, and appoint me a. time when thou wilt remember me? " -- Job 14: 13 (Catholic Douay Version)

"And all his children being gathered together to comfort their father in his sorrow, he would not receive comfort, but said: I will go down to my son INTO HELL, mourning. " -- Jacob (Genesis 37: 35 - Catholic Douay Version)

"Therefore my heart is glad and my glory rejoiceth; my flesh also shall rest in hope. For thou will not leave my soul in HELL..." -- Good King David's Words (see Psalms 16: 10 King James Version)

[2timothy316]

[Replying to 2timothy316 in post #153]

I will never have to give an answer to Him as to why I comforted evil doers with the denial of the place of eternal torment. If they cry out from pit that so-and-so told them there is no Hell, my name won’t be called as to answer for that. When asked, I responded that Hell is real. Best not go there.

No one is your responsibility and you're not mine.
"So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God." Rom 14:12

Some belief based on a Medieval idea of eternal torture place doesn't phase me.
I welcome Jehovah God's Son as my judge who is as fair as his Father, who always is just and never unrighteous. (Deut 32:4; Col 1:15; John 5:22)

[onewithhim]

So you say that the locusts with womens' hair is literal?

No, but I don't claim that nothing in Revelation is figurative.

You, on the other hand, have claimed that everything in Revelation is figurative and used it as justification for one of your claims:

As for the Bible supporting the lake of fire being symbolic, the whole book of Revelation is symbolic, so why would you think that the lake of fire was not?

If that's not what you meant, then your argumemt carries no weight. My position is that some things in Revelation are meant to be symbolic and some things are meant to be literal. If the 144,000 is meant to be a literal number, then you must believe that, too. Do you?

I too believe that there are things in Revelation that are meant to be literal, and most things are symbolic. (God's word itself says that Revelation was given "in signs" (symbols) to Jesus from God. ("Signified" is also used in some translations.))

[Difflugia]

I too believe that there are things in Revelation that are meant to be literal, and most things are symbolic.

Fine. Your claim, though, is that the Lake of Fire must be a figurative lake of fire rather than a literal one. Your justification is that most things in Revelation are figurative, but not all of them. That's not enough.

So once again, your argument is that because something might be able to be read a particular way if one squints hard enough, it therefore must be read that way.

Do you, by chance, have more than that?

(God's word itself says that Revelation was given "in signs" (symbols) to Jesus from God. ("Signified" is also used in some translations.))

It hardly matters, but the Greek word σημαίνω has roughly the same breadth as "signify" does in modern English. It generally means mundane things like "show," "point out," or "indicate."

[Capbook]

So you say that the locusts with womens' hair is literal?

No, but I don't claim that nothing in Revelation is figurative.

You, on the other hand, have claimed that everything in Revelation is figurative and used it as justification for one of your claims:

As for the Bible supporting the lake of fire being symbolic, the whole book of Revelation is symbolic, so why would you think that the lake of fire was not?

If that's not what you meant, then your argumemt carries no weight. My position is that some things in Revelation are meant to be symbolic and some things are meant to be literal. If the 144,000 is meant to be a literal number, then you must believe that, too. Do you?

I too believe that there are things in Revelation that are meant to be literal, and most things are symbolic. (God's word itself says that Revelation was given "in signs" (symbols) to Jesus from God. ("Signified" is also used in some translations.))

Yes, I also that believe there are things in Revelation that are meant to be literal and symbolic.
Rev 20:10 mentions "lake of fire" I believe it is literal as "fire" in verse 9 devoured the wicked.
But "forever and ever" in verse 10 is just like the "eternal fire" in Jude 1:7 is/are symbolic.
It is defined by Barne's as "destroyed"
I don't believe that Sodom and Gommorah is on fire until now.

[JehovahsWitness]

Rev 20:10 mentions "lake of fire" I believe it is literal as "fire" in verse 9 devoured the wicked.

But it also devoured "death" and it devoured "hell" please explain.


JW