What is Hell?

CoreyD said:

Can you please tell me, on what basis your view is built, if you do not accept the original word usage, and what scriptures you use to support your view?

Click to expand...

what are you talking about? you need to explain your objection and your point of view a little more. Until I understand where you are coming from and your point of view I will not go any further.

As far as word usage are you a Hebrew scholar? My guess is that you are not. As far as original usage goes you did not look at your own link, it has my view plainly written in the discriptieon of the word. under Strongs and Brown-Briggs- & Drivers.

CoreyD said:

Please describe and explain what hell is, using scriptures.
Thank you?

Edit:
All posts not having an explanation, description, and scripture, will be ignored... starting with @Clare73.
Thank you.

Click to expand...

Strong's Definition
Of Hebrew origin ([H1516] and [H2011]);
valley of (the son of) Hinnom;
gehenna (or Ge-Hinnom) a valley of Jerusalem used (figuratively) as a name for the place (or state) of everlasting punishment: - hell.
Matthew 5:22
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, o shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew 23:15
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Mark 9:47 KJVS
And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

James 3:6 KJVS
And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

Strong's Definition
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G1492; properly unseen that is "Hades" or the place (state) of departed souls: - grave hell.
Revelation 1:18
I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.


Strong's Definition
From Τάρταρος Tartaros̄ (the deepest abyss of Hades); to incarcerate in eternal torment: - cast down to hell.
2 Peter 2:4 KJVS
For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

I didn't perform an extensive search. There are many other scriptures which include the word hell. As we see there are several interpretations of the word.

CoreyD said:

Is this just your opinion, or do you have any scriptures to support it?
Can you provide such scriptures if available, please.


Is this just your opinion, or do you have any scriptures to support it?
Can you provide such scriptures if available, please.

Bare in mind, that I am not asking for interpretations, but scripture. Thanks.


Are you saying the damned that will be resurrected, are in hell?


What scripture says these people are made immortal? Or is this your idea?
Whom does "all flesh" that will "go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed" refer to?


I won't. Thanks.

Click to expand...

I supplies

CoreyD said:

Is this just your opinion, or do you have any scriptures to support it?
Can you provide such scriptures if available, please.


Is this just your opinion, or do you have any scriptures to support it?
Can you provide such scriptures if available, please.

Bare in mind, that I am not asking for interpretations, but scripture. Thanks.


Are you saying the damned that will be resurrected, are in hell?


What scripture says these people are made immortal? Or is this your idea?
Whom does "all flesh" that will "go forth, and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed" refer to?


I won't. Thanks.

Click to expand...

I referenced Isa 66. A good idea is to read the whole chapter around the part I posted. All of it will happen as written. What I am seeing this week is too much interpretation around how particular words are used to promote particular (a/some/?) denominations/cults. Take the entire chapter and other chapters around it. The original scriptures weren't presented with chapter divisions bty. Bear in mind there ought not be confusion over the "worm". There is a dual use of the idea of "worm". One is the physical corruption of animal worms feeding upon every dead swimming, crawling, walking, flying creature God made. Disgusting, stinky, to witness happening! The other is an eternal corruption being left in hell forever, even more dreaded and ultimately disgusting since body, soul, spirit left in hell will not return to soil, but be consumed forever. Both were dreaded by such as Job, David, even Jesus asking not to see any corruption those 3 days after the cross. David called himself a worm, as were others. That wasn't those patriarchs identifying as larvae of flies, but considered themselves equally dreaded/hated of peers they failed towards.

CoreyD said:

Thanks.
I'm not sure if you are saying what hell is, because I do not understand what hell is from these, since as you said, there are several interpretations, and they all conflict.
Unless Hades is rendered grave, there is a major confliction in Revelation 20:14. Unless the lake of fire is not Gehenna.

Click to expand...

What I'm saying it is used in several ways. So pick a scripture and look it up.
In Rev 20:14 it is:

Strong's Definition
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G1492; properly unseen that is "Hades" or the place (state) of departed souls: - grave hell.

CoreyD said:

No. I'm taking the Bible's view, but if SDA agree with the Bible's view, that's cool.


So, you agree. The reference did not say that.
There are reasons why the person is not body, soul, and spirit.

• If the soul is the person, or life of the person, which you just said, is the SDA's view, then the person cannot be body, soul, and spirit.
• The Bible says, when God created the man, and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, the man became a living soul - a living person. What made the man live, was the breath of life. What made the being - person (soul) - a man, was the body... Otherwise, the soul could be animal, like a wolf, a cat, or other.
• This is made clear from 1 Corinthians 15:35-40. What dies, is the person (soul). What is made alive, is the person (soul). After which, God gives the person (soul) a body. In the case of those in 1 Corinthians 15, the body given is not flesh, but spirit, and therefore, they are not man, but immortal spirit beings.

The spirit makes the person alive. The body makes the person what they are - man, animal, or spirit being (celestial, angelic).

Click to expand...

the problem is that the word can mean multiple things. it can me, mean a person, or the thing that allows emotion, or the conscious part of the person. it depends on context.

tall73 said:

Some read 2 Thessalonians a different way, depending on how you interpret the ablative with ἀπὸ :

2 Thessalonians 1:9 οἵτινες δίκην τίσουσιν, ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον ἀπὸ προσώπου τοῦ κυρίου καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς δόξης τῆς ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ​

​

2 Thessalonians 1:9 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power​

Usually the preposition has the sense of separation. But sometimes it can have the notion of source, etc.

https://icotb.org/resources/Dana-ManteyGreekGrammar.pdf

See page 101

View attachment 355183

View attachment 355184

Therefore, you could read it as destruction, being away from the presence of God.

Or you could read it as destruction, from the face of God and the glory of His strength, with God's glory being the source of the destruction.

Some of the translations render it in English is such a way to preserve both possibilities, simply translating "from", where others spell out more the idea of separation with things such as "shut out from" or "away from", etc. as they feel that is the more natural and likely meaning, based on the construction, or immediate or larger context.

Click to expand...

Very interesting. It's no wonder why my brother who earned a Master's of Divinity at Luther's Seminary was made to learn Koine Greek and Latin in the persuit of his M. Div. Sometime you have to go straight to the source as there are Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Arabic words (not to mention the old tribal African Chinese, other Eastern languages, and even indigenous American, Inuit, and Mongolian languages. Often between languages, there is not a direct translation word for word. So it would help any Christian to learn Koine, Latin, and Hebrew for a foundation of Biblical interpretation. I am also sure that other languages I mentioned like Swajili, the different Chinese languages, Persian/Arabic and many others.

I am positive that there have been other early Christian writers that had a lot to say. Not all of it is Biblical but I'm convinced there have been other useful writings and prophesies that could be useful.

In other words, it is often prudent to return to the ancients' original languages. We just need to make sure that our English translations are accurate,

Personally, I use the NABRE Bible which is officially endorsed by The Church. Out of curiosity, what is your translation choice? I would be interested in knowing which English translation you find most accurate. Not as a point of debate but as a recommendation of the most accurate English translation. Are you aware of any translations that may have footnotes that explain the different ways that a Greek or Hebrew word could be translated?

rturner76 said:

Very interesting. It's no wonder why my brother who earned a Master's of Divinity at Luther's Seminary was made to learn Koine Greek and Latin in the persuit of his M. Div. Sometime you have to go straight to the source as there are Greek, Latin, Hebrew, and Arabic words (not to mention the old tribal African Chinese, other Eastern languages, and even indigenous American, Inuit, and Mongolian languages. Often between languages, there is not a direct translation word for word. So it would help any Christian to learn Koine, Latin, and Hebrew for a foundation of Biblical interpretation. I am also sure that other languages I mentioned like Swajili, the different Chinese languages, Persian/Arabic and many others.

I am positive that there have been other early Christian writers that had a lot to say. Not all of it is Biblical but I'm convinced there have been other useful writings and prophesies that could be useful.

In other words, it is often prudent to return to the ancients' original languages. We just need to make sure that our English translations are accurate,

Personally, I use the NABRE Bible which is officially endorsed by The Church. Out of curiosity, what is your translation choice? I would be interested in knowing which English translation you find most accurate. Not as a point of debate but as a recommendation of the most accurate English translation. Are you aware of any translations that may have footnotes that explain the different ways that a Greek or Hebrew word could be translated?

Click to expand...

As to translation choice, I like the NKJV, primarily because it uses the Textus Receptus readings, so I don't usually have a situation where someone is reading a verse, and I don't have it, except in a footnote.

At the same time it indicates major variant readings in the Majority text and the United Bible Society/Nestle Aland scholarly text. It also attempts to be word for word, and preserve some idioms. It does not have the deuterocanon, however, Which makes it less helpful for Catholics.

It is not perfect, and comparing different versions if you are wanting to look at some verses in particular is helpful.

As for early Christian writers, I find this tool helpful, as you can look up what early church writers said that referenced, or alluded to, a particular chapter or verse in the Bible:


Regarding a text that gives different understandings, I am not sure regarding that. There are commentaries that deal with reading of the text, but they are usually designed for those who already know the languages, to point out aspects.

However, some of the more popular one-volume study Bibles make an effort to give various interpretations on some controversial passages. They may point out such things, but in broader terms, without the specifics of the language.

For the NT, one that I have found that may at times go into readings of the text, but in a way that does not usually require you to read whole sentences in Greek is the Cambridge Greek Testament Commentary.


But your best bet for finding such insights is to study smaller sections of Scripture, looking at various commentaries, as some will mention one aspect, and some another.

Another one that uses Greek words, but may still give you enough English context to get the point is Robertson's Word Pictures

Similar to that is Vincent's Word Studies:

One that I have not used as much, but duscusses this particular point, is Schaff's Popular Commentary on the NT.

He is known for his various other works, and I might start reading it more.

In this case he argues for both possibilities being related.


This, and the Cambridge text, will give more OT background info as well, whereas the other two may give some, but tend to be more technical.

Here is his discussion of the various elements in this passage:

Comprehensive Overview of the Bible Commentaries available FREELY on StudyLight.org!

Here are some other commentaries. As a general rule, those that focus on a particular section (NT, OT) etc. are going to be more technical than whole Bible commentaries.

so you want to get into translation issues. I guess that means you want to talk about which is the most reliable translation. ABR Associates for Biblical Research has a series By Henry B. Smith. "The Genesis 5 & 11 project, where he reviews the alterations in the Masoretic texts, by the Rabbis. He shows that timelines have been altered as much as 1300+ years and text about the Messiah altered to point away from Jesus. The Masoretic text is one of the most altered texts according to Smith. It was most likely after the temple's destruction in 70 A.D., before the council of Jaminia in 100 A.D. the texts were collected and altered by the Rabbi's.

Adventist Heretic said:

so you want to get into translation issues. I guess that means you want to talk about which is the most reliable translation. ABR Associates for Biblical Research has a series By Henry B. Smith. "The Genesis 5 & 11 project, where he reviews the alterations in the Masoretic texts, by the Rabbis. He shows that timelines have been altered as much as 1300+ years and text about the Messiah altered to point away from Jesus. The Masoretic text is one of the most altered texts according to Smith. It was most likely after the temple's destruction in 70 A.D., before the council of Jaminia in 100 A.D. the texts were collected and altered by the Rabbi's.

Click to expand...

The Orthodox Study Bible has an LXX translated OT, and Deuterocannon, along with a NKJV New Testament if you are wanting to steer clear of the Masoretic.

tall73 said:

The Orthodox Study Bible has an LXX translated OT, and Deuterocannon, along with a NKJV New Testament if you are wanting to steer clear of the Masoretic.

Click to expand...

I am aware.