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?

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 311 by otseng]


*** SOUL [nephesh/psūchê]***

Most of these quotes about souls are referring to the person or individual animal as separate things by the figure of speech called metonymy, ie, the substitution of the name of an attribute or adjunct for that of the thing meant, for example suit for business executive, or the track for horse racing. It does not prove the soul is a separate entity.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 311 by otseng]


*** SOUL [nephesh/psūchê]***

Most of these quotes about souls are referring to the person or individual animal as separate things by the figure of speech called metonymy, ie, the substitution of the name of an attribute or adjunct for that of the thing meant, for example suit for business executive, or the track for horse racing. ...

Thank you. So are you saying that an animal is not a soul just as a track is not a horse? The "soul who eats" is refering to what? The kitchen?

Could you produce an example where a figure of speech is not being used and where soul is refering to what a soul literally is for us to compare the two uses?



Thanks,

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

Some more verses that indicate some part of the person surviving after death:

[2Co 5:8 KJV] 8 We are confident, , and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

[Luk 23:43 KJV] 43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

I think again you are bringing your confirmation bias to the text. The above verses confirm two things #1) that an individual can die. #2) That that same individual can subsequently be with Christ (who also at some point died). There is not indication how this will come about. ie whether that be from a biblical resurrection or from the individual essentially surviving his own death.


JW



RELATED POSTS


Further reading: What hope is there for the dead?
https://www.jw.org/en/publications/book ... -the-dead/

[marco]

So how would you explain the word SOUL being in Genesis 1:24 and what relationship does the word SOUL have to the animals there mentioned? When God commanded Let the earth bring forth living souls according to their kind, was he refering to animals as souls? If so would that not mean that animals are "biblical" souls?

A better rendering would be "living things". I have never heard of the word soul being applied to animals so one would translate not as soul, which is one possible meaning, but as something more appropriate. Man, animals, plants are all living things but if we read on in Genesis we can find a distinguishing feature.



"Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.�


The god-like element is what we are discussing. Man has a soul that makes him like God and this deserts the body on death. I see no problem with any of this. Words can have a variety of meaning: we choose the appropriate one when we translate. I have seen pine tree use for boat and sometimes grape is used for wine. This is metonymy. Language is beautiful - we mustn't strangle it with inappropriate rules. Thus we translate soul according to context and we do not form a theology on one of the meanings.

[JehovahsWitness]

So how would you explain the word SOUL being in Genesis 1:24 and what relationship does the word SOUL have to the animals there mentioned? When God commanded Let the earth bring forth living souls according to their kind, was he refering to animals as souls? If so would that not mean that animals are "biblical" souls?

A better rendering would be "living things".

Well when you produce your translation I look forward to reading it, in the meantime what do you think the "living things" that were created to "reproduce according to their kind" is refering to ? Animals? If so would that not mean that biblically SOUL (Nephesh) is applied to animals? ie for the bible writers an animal is a NEPHESH (soul).

[marco]

Well when you produce your translation I look forward to reading it, in the meantime what do you think the "living things" that were created to "reproduce according to their kind" is refering to ? Animals? If so would that not mean that biblically SOUL (Nephesh) is applied to animals? ie for the bible writers an animal is a NEPHESH (soul).

Nephesh has a variety of meanings. We choose the one that's appropriate. If nephesh means "living creature" then that applies to an animal. If nephesh means a life force, then we can use the word soul. I've already indicated good reasons for suggesting man is clay endowed with spirituality, having been made in the likeness of God. And I know the word soul is also used to mean human being.


Your difficulty seems to arise because you want "soul" to mean exclusively a living body. Language doesn't work like that.

[JehovahsWitness]

Well when you produce your translation I look forward to reading it, in the meantime what do you think the "living things" that were created to "reproduce according to their kind" is refering to ? Animals? If so would that not mean that biblically SOUL (Nephesh) is applied to animals? ie for the bible writers an animal is a NEPHESH (soul).

Nephesh has a variety of meanings.

Indeed and in the context of Genesis 1:24 is its meaning being applied to animals? If not what is the writer applying it to? In short these "living beings" that are to reproduce according to their kind in this verse, would they be human beings or animal "beings" ? Or alien beings? Or is it in your opinion impossible to tell from the context what is being refered to?

GENESIS 1:24

And God said, Let the earth bring forth living souls after their kind, yea, work beasts, and reptiles, or creeping beasts, and unreasoning beasts of the earth, all after their kind; and it was done so - WYC

NUMBERS 31:28
And levy a tribute unto the LORD of the men of war which went out to battle: one soul of five hundred, both of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep - KJVA

[marco]

Indeed and in the context of Genesis 1:24 is its meaning being applied to animals? If not what is the writer applying it to? In short these "living beings" that are to reproduce according to their kind in this verse, would they be human beings or animal "beings" ? Or alien beings? Or is it in your opinion impossible to tell from the context what is being refered to?

Is this a quiz or a quest for knowledge you don't have? Did God make other beings on another planet? A living creature is a human or an animal, so nephesh can be used in this way. God made clay into a nephesh and for some poetic reason called the clay Adam. God implanted a soul into the clay, to make man in his own likeness and this too is a nephesh. Again, poetry. The real manufacturing process may have taken place East of Heaven.

[2timothy316]

Your difficulty seems to arise because you want "soul" to mean exclusively a living body. Language doesn't work like that.

Then the simple answer would be to produce a verse from the Bible where an angel is called a soul.

Your difficulty seems to arise because you want the 'soul' to mean whatever you want. Language doesn't work that way either.

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5315.htm

Uses for soul. Angel is not listed. Spirit is not listed either. It is used most for the term 'life' and the rest of the words relate to a physical being. Soul can even refer to a 'corpse' but never to a spirit body.

any (1), anyone (2), anyone* (1), appetite (7), being (1), beings (3), body (1), breath (1), corpse (2), creature (6), creatures (3), dead (1), dead person (2), deadly (1), death (1), defenseless* (1), desire (12), desire* (2), discontented* (1), endure* (1), feelings (1), fierce* (2), greedy* (1), heart (5), heart's (2), herself (12), Himself (4), himself (19), human (1), human being (1), hunger (1), life (146), life* (1), lifeblood* (2), lives (34), living creature (1), longing* (1), man (4), man's (1), men* (2), mind (2), Myself (3), myself (2), number (1), ones (1), others (1), ourselves (3), own (1), passion* (1), people (2), people* (1), perfume* (1), person (68), person* (1), persons (19), slave (1), some (1), soul (238), soul's (1), souls (12), strength (1), themselves (6), thirst (1), throat (2), will (1), wish (1), wishes (1), yourself (11), yourselves (13).

[William]

@

eta:


William: The thing about this is that one still has to realize that those who gave the poem did not say exactly what the poem means. What they did say is what Jesus told them in private was not for the public to know.
Thus, what Jesus told them about the poem, they did not reveal to the public.
Therefore, the Church can only tell others what they were told the poem meant, not actually what the poem meant.


RightReason: The Church does not say she is not going to tell her people what Christ reveals. On the contrary, the Church speaks to her people on a daily basis. I really have no idea what you are talking about.

William: You misunderstand what I wrote. The Church cannot tell her people anything which has not been revealed to the Church.
Clearly, the Church was not shown everything...indeed, it was shown very little.
The Mysteries of The Kingdom of Heaven, are one of those things kept hidden from the Church.
That is why the Church has little to say about the secrets of The Kingdom of Heaven (Metaphysical Universe) and why it is still mostly a mystery...The Church actually tends to turn individuals away from finding out for themselves, although the Church has not been tasked with that responsibility.


RightReason: The Church teaches her children what God wants her to teach her children.

William: I wasn't arguing otherwise, although it would be accurate to say that the Children to whom the Church is responsible, only want to hear about certain things, and in parables and with symbolism.
The Church is not responsible for producing Disciples out of her Children...

Matthew: We asked Jesus why he spoke to the people in parables and he told us that The Knowledge the Secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven were for Us, not for them. @


RightReason: Yes, there are some things that God has not revealed even to His Church.

William: To be fair, there are a huge number of things GOD has not revealed to the Church.

John: There are many more things that Jesus did which we have kept from you. So many that we don't suppose there would be enough room in the world for all the books which could be filled with that information. @


RightReason: But we have Christ’s promise that we know what we need to know.

William: Of course. What those Children need to know is exactly what those Children want to know.
For those one's, the very little that the Bible reveals is a HUGE thing which requires that they somehow 'get the right meaning' from regarding all the symbolism and parables which conceal any obvious actual meaning.


RightReason: There are clear Church teachings. Pick up a catechism of the Catholic Church, a rather large book, to read all about them.

William: For me personally, I am not drawn to picking up books which tell me nothing of the Knowledge of the Secrets of The Kingdom of Heaven.
That Knowledge comes from elsewhere, and as I said, the Church is not tasked with providing anyone with said knowledge, so I wouldn't expect to find it there anyway. What I expect to find from the Church, are snippets of fragmented information about 'heaven' and 'hell' and perhaps some 'in-between' stuff - but nothing at all revealing in terms of what there is to experience and what the individual can expect - apart from these main two or three things.

RightReason: This simply is not true.

William: Of course it is true. The Bible even confirms that this is true!

RightReason: It is true that none of us know exactly what heaven or hell will be like, but that does not mean we know nothing about them.

William: You are making an argument which is no aligned with what I actually wrote!
I did not say that the Church knows nothing about The Secrets of The Knowledge of The Kingdom of Heaven.
Rather what I did actually write was that the Church has;

"snippets of fragmented information about 'heaven' and 'hell' and perhaps some 'in-between' stuff - but nothing at all revealing in terms of what there is to experience and what the individual can expect - apart from these main two or three things."

RightReason: We do know only 144,000 in heaven was not a literal statement. We can know this by what has been revealed to us via the Bible and the Church.

William: Because 'symbolism', correct? But it is not something you can know. It is something you can believe.
The Bible and the Church reveals very little. The Christ reveals HUGELY more

RightReason: We do know that the soul is immortal and heaven and hell are eternal.

William: More symbolism. It is not 'knowledge' but rather 'belief'. The Church teachers her children to believe that the soul is immortal and heaven and hell are eternal.

Jesus did not teach his Disciples to believe. He taught them how to enter into the knowledge of where their belief leads them...

The Disciples KNEW about the Secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven because Jesus showed them how to experience the Kingdom of Heaven.
The Church does not have access to those things which Jesus showed his Disciples.

RightReason: It would be heretical to propose new theology like annihilation and soul sleep. These teachings were not taught by Christ or His Church and therefore it would be wrong to believe them.

William: Superstitious nonsense when one understands that The Christ works directly with any individual who permits that.
The Church was set up for individuals who require medium between The Christ and them.
Not all individuals require indirect medium, and thus not all individuals require the Church.
I certainly do not consider the judgment of any member of the Church that I am a "heretic" to come legitimately from The Christ, especially when I have clearly shown that member that The Christ did not reveal to the Church, the Knowledge of the Secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven!
As to "annihilation" and "soul sleep" the former is the ultimate 'safe place' and the latter, not a bad 'safe place' although one misses out on experiencing so much of unfolding Secrets because one chooses to sleep (miss out on the knowledge) instead.

The Churches role was mainly to infiltrate Roman Rule and establish Jesus as its centerpiece and from that the Church was then required to establish The Kingdom of GOD on Earth.
Some believe that this has been accomplished. One only has to observe the world presently to understand that this is not at all the case...

RightReason: I think you may not fully understand the role and purpose of the Church.

William: My depiction of it, says differently.


RightReason: The Church’s role is to be Christ’s voice on earth.

William: No it is not...or rather, only in that which Jesus told his Disciples to tell the Church. As I showed in my writing.
I do not expect The Christ to use the Church as an instrument to mediate for The Christ in matter regarding The Knowledge of The Secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven.
These are shown directly TO the individual directly BY The Christ.

RightReason: Her role is to safeguard Sacred Scripture, which she has been entrusted with.

William: I have not argued otherwise. It was through that method that the Church was enabled to infiltrate Roman Rule and establish Jesus as its centerpiece.


RightReason: Her role is to teach all that Christ has taught...

William: Bearing in mind, that this was in relation to what The Christ chose to reveal to the Church. As I have been pointing out, that was not much in comparison to what The Christ is able to teach the individual. It say's so right there in the bible!
It appears that the Church - or at least individual members of the Church, conflates 'all that Christ taught the Church' with 'All That Christ taught/teaches'.
There is a HUGE difference between the two positions.

RightReason: ...to baptize in the name of the Father and the Son, and the Holy Spirit and spread the Good News.

William: What these things do is allow for a place to be created in The Kingdom of Heaven whereby the Shepard has made the sheep safe.
In Earth years, this represents a HUGE amount of folk are confined within the safe zone.
Jesus created this system as a means of funneling souls away from the horrific situations former beliefs had placed some within.

Effectively this amounts to a sorting system Jesus created, for those who require 'sorting'.

RightReason: The Church is Christ’s bride. Scripture itself refers to the Church as the pillar and foundation of truth. She is not a political entity, like you reduce her to.

William: You conflate my telling the Truth about what the Church has been doing - which is historically documented - as the church 'being political' - The Church is a spiritual instrument interacting with a political instrument. It is hardly my fault if you chose to see that as somehow a stain on the dress of The Christ’s Bride.
She is told what she wants to hear...what she chooses not to hear, is not her Husbands concern. He need not waste breath trying to explain anything She does not wish to know.
Regardless, He Loves Her. He knows that as her children depart the mortal Kingdom, they get to know a little bit more about The Knowledge of The Secrets of the Kingdom of Heaven...with the added bonus of having access to that knowledge...as each Child decides to want to know.

The important thing is, that Their Children are in a safe place.
In That, The Wife performing her role, is helpful to that process.