Major1, I am not a debator nor do I like trying to push an agenda, but I like a good discussion.
1. Did God say it?
That answer depends if we are absolutely positive about the particular translation of words ascribed to Him.
2. Can God lie?
No, but in the big picture of the bible, He does often say something at one point then seem to say the opposite of it later to prove a point. Like when the law says that the blood of the animal sacrifice takes away ones sin but then later He says that He is not pleased with the blood of goats but He rather wants simple obedience.
3. Is hell real?
I would say Sheol, Hades, Gehenna and Tartarus must be real, but to quantify all 4 under the banner of the old English term "Helle" which Dante's Divine Comedy depicts doesn't make them a place of unending torture. Folklore from numerous civilizations have their own stories of this horrible place that God will send bad children to. The ancients probably had problems with kids and unruly citizens too, so they would use this idea to scare them into obedience.
I think if they would have interpreted Sheol as a dark place, Hades as a prison, Gehenna as a touch stone and Tartarus as being chained up, we would not even have the same mental picture of these places.
I appreciate your comment and they are good ones.
1.
If God said anything then it is the truth and is not open for debate.
Question: Why does each bible contain italics, brackets or footnotes? The King James version does it for only
one reason, according to the translators. The facts are that there is not an English word for every word in Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic. To help bible statements make sense in English, the translators added words that were italicized. It wasn’t a secret. The words in italics are a signal to the reader that those particular words were not in the text the Bible was translated from. However, these italicized words were inserted for the benefit of our clear understanding of God’s word. The reader will also note that these words only appear once in a while and are rarely more than three or four words (if that many).
Not all bible publishers say the same thing about these matters. Their purpose was not to clarify a verse as much as it was to
question a verse. The use of either brackets around a portion of a verse or an asterisk to force the reader to look at the bottom of the page usually carries with it the statement that certain portions of Scripture aren’t in the “older and more reliable” manuscripts of the Word. One version simply puts a dash after a verse of Scripture without any explanation. No text appears after the dash.
2.
NO! God can not lie. You see my friend if it is proven that God lies then He would be a sinner and you and me would still be trying to figure out what we must do to be saved. When there is a discrepancy it is the lack of study on our part to find our what we missed or did not know.
Allow me to show an example with what you just said.................
"Like when the law says that the blood of the animal sacrifice takes away ones sin but then later He says that He is not pleased with the blood of goats but He rather wants simple obedience."
Now that appears on the surface to be a good question, but when we do the work we find out that the statement is WRONG.
The book of Leviticus discusses many of the sacrifices performed by the Levitical priests. In some places, it seems to claim that a particular offering could remove sins.
Lev. 4:20............
"And he shall do with the bull as he did with the bull as a sin offering; thus he shall do with it. So the priest shall make atonement for them, and it shall be forgiven them."
Yet the book of Hebrews explicitly states that animal blood could not take away sins.
Hebrews 10:4............
"For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins."
So then, is there a contradiction there that you may point to as such?
NO!
It is simply our lack of deep study and learning.
This is fairly simple to resolve as are all the examples we can put forward.
Now watch this my friend
...........Nowhere in the Old Testament is it ever claimed that sins were “taken away” (i.e., completely removed) by animal sacrifices.
The root of the Hebrew word translated “atonement” in the Old Testament is
kaphar, which has the idea of
“covering,” not total removal. This same Hebrew word is also used to refer to how Noah’s ark was to be
covered with pitch.
Genesis 6:14...............
"Make yourself an ark of gopherwood; make rooms in the ark, and
cover it inside and outside with pitch."
Tens of thousands of animals were ceremonially slaughtered by Jewish priests for centuries, the spilling of their blood vividly illustrated the deadly seriousness of sin. However, these sacrifices were essentially like a bandage, only acting as a covering for sin.
They did not, and could not, remove sin, as Hebrews 10:4 clearly states.
They also pointed forward in time to the only One that could remove sin—
Jesus Christ who shed His precious blood to accomplish that purpose.
Hebrews 10:10-12.................
"By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God."
The phrase “take away” in verse 11 is translated from the Greek root
periaireo, which does convey the idea of removal. This is consistent with the use of “atonement” in the Old Testament, as the Levitical sacrifices foreshadowed the final sacrifice of Christ.
Animal sacrifices could only cover sins; they could not remove them. The passage from Hebrews 10 draws a contrast between the animal sacrifices and Christ’s sacrifice. The former could never take away sins, but when Christ shed his own blood, it was a once and for all sacrifice that removes sins.
In this alleged contradiction, the solution is found by simply understanding the context and the proper meanings of the words employed within the text.
3.
It is unfortunate that there are several names for the same place. But regardless of the name, there is a real place where the lost are tormented eternally .
Please note that there is a difference between “hell” and the “lake of fire.” When the unsaved die they go immediately to a place called hell/Sheol/Hades or any other name you choose to call this temporary place for the wicked lost. Later, the Bible indicates that those in Hell are given up and cast into the
lake of fire.
The common word for hell in the Old Testament is “Sheol” which which is the Hebrew and means “the grave” where people go when they die. In the King James Version, Sheol is translated “hell” thirty-one times and “pit” three times.
When both saved and unsaved died, they were said to go to Sheol, the place of the departed dead. The Hebrew word “Sheol” was translated into Greek as hadees (hades). Hades or Sheol is the place the Old Testament unsaved went.
GEHENNA is the word that appears only twelve times in the New Testament and is translated “hell.” The Lord Jesus used this term eleven times. The name is probably related to the Valley of Hinnom. During the reign of Ahaz, Israel participated in the worship of the false god Molech.
The Lord Jesus used the word
gehenna to describe the place of eternal punishment because it was a place of filth and stench, a place of smoke and pain, a place of fire and death which would be an example of the Lake of Fire.
