# Is there Biblical support for the concept of Hell? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 23, 2005, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320 "2005-08-23T20:24:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2005, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320/81 "2005-08-25T23:19:43Z")
**the raindog screws up again…** > [@](#): > > If it is not literal, why is it more believable that Lazarus will be on fire _for eternity_ than us getting comfy with Abraham? _ **Lazarus** _ on fire for eternity? _Nonsense!_ ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2005, 11:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320/82 "2005-08-25T23:34:00Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > They already have been taken into account. Read the thread. I’ve read the thread quite carefully, thanks. very much. As you clearly gathered since you read **my** post carefully, I am not disputing that hades (sheol, whichever) is temporary, or that the more permanent Gehenna follows it. I am not making any statement whatsoever about the status of Joe average in Gehenna, except to point out that _somebody_ in there is still conscious and having a lousy time (which may-or-may-not contradict the definition you’re tagging to it, as a place where everybody’s been destroyed). I did not make any statement at all over wether Sheol is broken in half is some wierd way (though I will now note that _some_ sort of literal divide _is_ described in the parable). The question **I** was approaching specifically was the question of wether people were believed to be conscious and potentially suffering during their temporary stay in sheol. You seem to agree that at least somebody had this opinion around-or-before that time, and the use of such a concept in the parable indicates that the concept may have been quite familiar in the time and place the Jesus was making that parable in. And, since Jesus was the one actually making the parable, this could be counted as at least slight biblical support for the idea that, in hades/sheol, people are conscious and bad people are being tortured. You clearly are of the opinion that this opinion was not held by those people who were writing the bible, as you insisit that the writers meant Sheol to refer to the rather different state of being dead and insensible. I ask again, is there compelling evidence to think that the writers of the bible did not hold this view, in the face of the fact that a parable was given that directly alludes to this concept? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2005, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320/83 "2005-08-25T23:46:57Z")
**I** never said people in Sheol were insensible. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2005, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320/84 "2005-08-26T00:00:22Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > **I** never said people in Sheol were insensible. Okay, fair enough. I’m sure somebody’ll come around and defend that position to me sooner or later. ---
**Author:** ![Bible\_man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@Bible\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bible_man)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2005, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320/85 "2005-08-26T01:18:15Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > The Luke story says Hades in Greek, not Hell. > > There are three words in the Bible that are commonly translated as “Hell” and none of them refer to the Christian concept of a place of eternal torment. Those words are: > > 1. _Sheol_. A Jewish concept of an underworld simolar to the Greek Hades. Tjis was a place where _everyone_ went, not just bad people and it was not regarded as permanent. It was only sort of a holding tank for the dead until the day of judgement…the day that all the dead would be physically resurrected and judged. After Israel was occupied by Greeks, it began to acquire some Greek ideas about punishment/reward in _Sheol_. That influence manifested itself in the idea that _Sheol_ was divided into a good part (called the "side (or bosom) of Abraham) and a bad part where bad people may have been punshed. But this punishment was not eternal. All people good and bad were to be resurrected for a day of judgement. At that time, good people would get eternal life and the bad people would be annihilated. > > 2. _Gehenna_, or the Valley of Hinnon, a real valley outside of Jerusalem which was used as a garbage dump and a disposal site for the carcasses of animals along with (sometimes) the bodies of criminals. People burned fires more or less continuously there in an attempt to control the stench. Gehenna was also believed to have been a site of human sacrifice by ancient Canaanites and so was basically considered to be forsaken by God. Gehenna eventually came to be a symbol for ignoble death, and a figurative site for where bad people would be annihilated on judgement day (that’s _annihilated_, not tortured). Gehenna is a word that Jesus uses several times in Matthew and which often gets translated as “Hell.” > > _Hades_, the Greek underworld, as cited above in Luke. In the New Testament (which was written in Greek) Hades basically amounts to a Greek translation of _Sheol_. > > The Christian concept of Hell as a place of eternal, conscious torment, is not in the Bible Amazing as it might be to some, I agree with everything in the Cynics post, although the last sentence might be rephrased to read “The majority of Christians believe hell is a place of eternal, conscious torment, but this is not supported by the Bible.” Doctrinal errors creep into the church for two major reasons: 1. whenever the authority of the Scriptures is rejected and 2. whenever the scriptures are misinterpreted - and most problems with interpretation occur when only certain scriptures are embraced while leaving other clariifying scriptures out. (We live by every Word which comes from the mouth of God.) The correct Biblical doctrine of Hell can only be formed by assembling all the Scriptures that mention it, and then interpreting those scriptures without leaving any of them out. When considering the scriptures which deal with hell, final judgement, and eternity it will be seen that although the fire of judgement and its effects are eternal, those who are cast in are permanently consumed. Jesus said, “Fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matt10:28), Paul said, “Such people will pay the penalty and suffer the punishment of everlasting destruction” (2Thes1:9) and, “the wages of sin is death” (Rom6:23). All these speak of the Final Judgement while the period of time before that Day is best dealt with by Christ’s story of the rich man and Lazarus: The righteous dead before Christ’s ressurection went to a place of waiting called “Abraham’s bosom” (after the ressurection they go directly to be with Christ (2Cor5:8 and Acts7:59)). The spirits of the unrighteous dead always go to Hades (Luke16:23) to await final judgement. This is not a place of physical torment because their bodies are left behind. But all the things of the world that they found pleasure and satisfaction with are now gone and their is no hope after they consistently rejected and disregarded the things of God in their lifetime. Like Esau, they traded the eternal things of God for a temporal bowl of stew. Their hopeless condition is verified by the rich man’s request for the symbolic drop of water to be given to him. The water symbolizes the Word of God and its refusal verifies that the unrighteous dead have no hope after a lifetime on earth of rejecting the testimony of the Law and the Prophets (nowdays they also reject the testimony of Someone who came back from the dead (Luke16:31)). If someone believes they have a scripture that won’t fit into the above brief synopsis of the doctrine of Hell, let me know. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2005, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320/86 "2005-08-26T08:13:17Z")
> [@Bible man](#): > > The correct Biblical doctrine of Hell can only be formed by assembling all the Scriptures that mention it, and then interpreting those scriptures without leaving any of them out. Yes but that is where the trouble _starts_. The Christian (or NT) concept of ‘Hell’ differs from the (OT) Jewish concept of _sheol_ and _gehenna_. It is further complicated by the fact that the words ‘Hel’ and ‘Hades’ were already used for yet another concept of the afterlife. The simple translation of _sheol_ to Hades/Hel is not correct IMHO. _sheol_ being a temporary place where everyone goes after death, awaiting judgment, while Hel/Hades was where those who didn’t die in battle went to stay, forever and in oblivion. Our modern, mainstream Christian concept of Hell seems to be a mix of Hel/Hades with _gehenna_ plus a bit of Dante and Milton . It is doubtful if the writers of the NT had this concept in mind when they wrote down the word _Hades_. ---
**Author:** ![Bible\_man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@Bible\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bible_man)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2005, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320/87 "2005-08-26T14:29:05Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Yes but that is where the trouble _starts_. The Christian (or NT) concept of ‘Hell’ differs from the (OT) Jewish concept of _sheol_ and _gehenna_. > It is further complicated by the fact that the words ‘Hel’ and ‘Hades’ were already used for yet another concept of the afterlife. The simple translation of _sheol_ to Hades/Hel is not correct IMHO. _sheol_ being a temporary place where everyone goes after death, awaiting judgment, while Hel/Hades was where those who didn’t die in battle went to stay, forever and in oblivion. > > Our modern, mainstream Christian concept of Hell seems to be a mix of Hel/Hades with _gehenna_ plus a bit of Dante and Milton . It is doubtful if the writers of the NT had this concept in mind when they wrote down the word _Hades_. The best source for the Truth about any concept is Jesus Christ Himself who came to reveal the Truth to us. Through his story of the rich man and Lazarus He reveals that there is a place where the spirits of the unrighteous are placed awaiting their final judgement and destruction. It also reveals that there was a place called “Abraham’s bosom” (also called Paradise) but this was done away with after Christ’s death when He descended there and “led captivity captive” (Eph4:8-10) Without Christ’s teachings we would have nothing but a mish mash of all kinds of various ideas of what the afterlife consists of. ---
**Author:** ![Twin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/85f322/32.png) [@Twin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Twin)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2005, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320/88 "2005-08-26T14:44:38Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > For someone with a “literal” bent, I am perplexed with some of your answers. Perplexed because some of your sites simply don’t say what you imply. > > For example, does **Luke 23:43** say, “Jesus died, he descended into hell and led those souls who were waiting for him in paradise?” or anything close to that? In fact, **Luke 23:43** says _this:_ > > _43 And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today you will be with me in Paradise.”_ > > Is this not the account of the repentent sinner who was executed next to Jesus and who had shown both humility and repentence? Isn’t this Jesus’s response to this man? > > In what way should we infer your comment, _“Jesus died, he descended into hell and led those souls who were waiting for him in paradise”_ from these words? We are _required_ to _impute_ both meaning and words that both the author and Jesus didn’t say! You are correct in pointing out that Luke 23:43 does not refer to Jesus descending to hell and led those souls who were waiting for Him in paradise up to heaven. But these verses do carry that meaning (IMHO): Luke 16:26 - Great gulf fixed between paradise and hell Ephesians 4:8-10 - Speaks of Jesus leading captivity captive, first descending into the earth (literal location of hell) Isaiah 5:14 - Hell hath enlarged herself, grew to take place of the void left by paradise > [@the reaindog](#): > > Further, is there any text, _real or implied_, at **Luke 16:23** that states that there is a division within hades for both the righteous, and unrighteous? In fact, the words “afar off” imply Abraham is in the heavens rather than in hades [locally]. In any event, there is nothing in these texts to support your belief that _“hell was originally split into two parts: hades (place of the damned) and paradise (place of the faithful, also known as Abraham’s bosom), separated by a great gulf.”_ With all due [sincere] respect, it just doesn’t say that. > > Do the words “afar off”—and just those 2 words?!— imply that hell was originally split into 2 parts…? Further, are there any _other_ scrpitures in the 800,000 word bible that support something as significant as this? Would you hang your faith on the **2** words “afar off?” See the scriptures I mentioned above. I believe there are some additional ones, but I cannot remember them off the top of my head. Regardless, I am willing to accept that my belief is not widely accepted, but I do not believe it damages my case against hell being an eternal place of torture. > [@the raindog](#): > > ]I referenced **Ec 9** as it speaks to Solomon’s view as to the status of the dead. He’s pretty specific, right? How in the world could you ascribe symbolic or parabolic qualities to these verses while insisting the account at **Luke 16** is literal? (To wit, you are not—you are clearly picking and choosing within this account which is symbolic and which is literal) Let’s see what Solomon says in Ecc 9:5 and 10 \*Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. \* Gill notes: This is not to be understood of their separate spirits, and of the things of the other world; for the righteous dead know much, their knowledge is greatly increased; they know, as they are known; they know much of God in Christ, of his perfections, purposes, covenant, grace, and love; they know much of Christ, of his person, offices, and glory, and see him as he is; they know much of the Gospel, and the mysteries of it; and of angels, and the spirits of just men, they now converse with; and of the glories and happiness of the heavenly state; even they know abundantly more than they did in this life: and the wicked dead, in their separate spirits, know there is a God that judgeth; that their souls are immortal; that there is a future state; indeed they know and feel the torments of hell, the worm that never dies, and the fire that is not quenched: but this is to be interpreted of their bodily senses now extinct, and of worldly things they have now nothing to do with; they know not any thing that is done in this world, nor how it fares with their children and friends they have left behind them; see Job\_14:21; nor therefore are they to be prayed unto, and used as mediators with God. The Targum is, "and sinners know not any good, so that they do not make their works good while they live; and they know not any good in the world to come;’’ \*Ecc 9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. \* This verse tells us to do all we can while we are alive, because after our death, there is no more that we can do for God. We are judged for what we have done in this life, not what occurs afterward. Gill notes: this, and not then, is our working time; good men at death cease from their labours in the grave, as the night in which no man can “work”, Rev\_14:13; then the liberal man can no more “devise” liberal ways and means of doing good; his purposes of doing good are broken off; and no more plans can be laid, or designs formed, for the glory of God and the good of fellow creatures: and no more “knowledge” of objects to do good unto; nor any improvement in any kind of knowledge, natural or spiritual: nor “wisdom” and prudence in the management of affairs, to answer some good ends and purposes; nor opportunity of attaining that wisdom by the Scriptures, and by the ministry of the word, which make men wise unto salvation: and now, since every man is going to the grave, his long home, the place appointed for all living, and this, is the way of all flesh; and every step he has taken, and does take, is a step to the grave; therefore it is incumbent on him to do all the good he can in life. > [@the raindog](#): > > It’s absolutely clear to me how **you** can see how other people might see it as a parable, as you treat it as one yourself [partially]. I don’t believe you are being disengenuous, but it appears to me that you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. > > In the same account, you ascibe both literal and figurative (parbolic) qualities. It’s simply inconsistent. > > And what was your reason? That Abraham’s bosom is not literal!! > > Tell me clearly; > Are those going to heaven going to reside on Abraham’s literal chest? > > If that is not literal, is it not figurative and parabolic? > > If it is not literal, why is it more believable that Lazarus will be on fire _for eternity_ than us getting comfy with Abraham? > > Why is it not inconsistent on your part to insist that this is not a parable while ascribing some parabolic qualities to the account? > > How is it not inconsistent to insist that Abraham’s bosom is symbolic, while Lazarus’s condition is not? > > Lastly, do you know of any other parables of Jesus’s where he clearly mixed both figurative and literal qualities in such a haphazrd and confusing way? I believe I did not clearly explain when I referred to Abraham’s bosom as paradise. Abraham was definitely there (as he spoke to the rich man) and I am sure he comforted Lazarus. I have also heard paradise (next to hell) referred to as Abraham’s bosom. I believe Jesus descended to paradise and led those souls to heaven who were waiting for the promise of his coming, but who had died before he came. They then went to heaven, the home Jesus mentioned that he was preparing for the disciples. I do not believe paradise and heaven are the same place. However, as I said, regardless of my views of paradise, my view of hell still stands. Also, I am confused by your reference to Lazarus being on fire for eternity, as I assume you mean the rich man. > [@](#): > > So, this part is literal? If so, can a spirit person be burned? Is it his literal flesh being burned? More importantly, is it reasonable that your-run-of-the-mill greedy person will burn in agony for trillions of trillions of trillions of years? Is that consistent with God as described to you in the bible? I am not privy to how the actual tormenting process occurs. The rich man claims to be tormented in the flames. In Revelation 20:10, it refers to the devil being tormented day and night for eternity in the lake of fire and brimstone. To your latter question about reasonableness of God sending people to hell eternally, the answer is yes. God is a God of love, and has given us free will to accept Him. If we reject Him, we are rejecting all that is good, and are choosing sin. God is also a holy God. He cannot abide sin. Those who have never been saved have never had their sins blotted out by the blood of Christ. > [@the raindog](#): > > Bingo! From the context, starting with **verse 1** , this is clearly a lesson to his disciples and a stinging rebuke to the greedy Pharasees, both of which were present. It is a lesson of compassion, humility, and greed. The disciples were to _learn_ from the example of the Pharasees. The Pharasees were being publicly reproved in a parable. It was direct, and less than subtle. Everyone got the message. I do not agree it was just a lesson against greed though. Jesus clearly condemned the Pharisees for justifying themselves before men. They were like whited sepulcheres: looked good on the outside, but were full of dead mens bones (wickedness and sin). Those who try to earn there way to heaven on their own merits (as the Pharisees were doing) then had their fate described to them in the lesson Jesus gave. > [@the raindog](#): > > You continue to confuse me, frankly. The most literal, compelling, explanation for this account is just what is desribed: Jesus had an occasion to lecture/teach his followers. They were in close proximity with the Jewish leaders who both knew and reviled Jesus. Jesus used the occasion to accomplish 2 things: to teach his disciples a lesson, and to rebuke the Pharasses. > > And now you have ackowedged twice that "It does carry the meaning of your [my] latter description. " It is clearly a parable—a means of teaching that lesson! I do not see it as a parable. Why does it have to be a fake story to teach a lesson, when a real story would be just as (if not more) effective? > [@the raindog](#): > > Yet, you insist it is a literal account of what happens when we die, and seem to blithely dismiss Abraham’s bosom as symbolic of something else (paradise) while insisting no such symbolism exists as to Lazarus. Can you see why I’m confused? Yes, and I hope I have clarified my point above. > [@the raindog](#): > > I appreciate your witnessing, and sincerity. However I submit that after death you will not be relieved. You will be dead. Unconcious. > > At some point, you will be called to account for yourself. You will either reach this paradise of which you speak, or you will reach Gehenna. In the former, you may experience some relief. In the latter, you will experience nothing. I respectfully disagree(I know that comes as a shock). However, even if I throw out everything I have said and accept Luke 16 as a parable, this is not the only evidence of an eternal torment in hell. Several verses that I have already referred to (Mark 9:43-48, Rev 14:9-11, Rev 20) are evidence of an eternal hell. I haven’t even mentioned 2 Peter 2:4 (which uses the Greek _tartaroo_, referring to Tartarus). ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2005, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320/89 "2005-08-26T14:44:59Z")
> [@Bible man](#): > > The best source for the Truth about any concept is Jesus Christ Himself who came to reveal the Truth to us. Through his story of the rich man and Lazarus He reveals that there is a place where the spirits of the unrighteous are placed awaiting their final judgement and destruction. It also reveals that there was a place called “Abraham’s bosom” (also called Paradise) but this was done away with after Christ’s death when He descended there and “led captivity captive” (Eph4:8-10) Without Christ’s teachings we would have nothing but a mish mash of all kinds of various ideas of what the afterlife consists of. Alas, Jesus of Nazereth didn’t write anything down about his teachings on the Truth. All we have is a collection of third-hand accounts, written way after the events. So yes, all we have is a mish mash of ideas, not only about the afterlife but about just about anything. ---
**Author:** ![Bible\_man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@Bible\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bible_man)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2005, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320/90 "2005-08-26T18:46:09Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > Alas, Jesus of Nazereth didn’t write anything down about his teachings on the Truth. > All we have is a collection of third-hand accounts, written way after the events. > So yes, all we have is a mish mash of ideas, not only about the afterlife but about just about anything. You have raised a fundamental disagreement you have with the authorship and authority of the Scriptures. You don’t accept them as being inspired by God and therefore a completely reliable source of Truth. Lacking that belief you therefore have no foundation for a workable belief system other than a conglomeration of disjointed human opinion that must be sorted through and pieced together. But Christianity is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets and Jesus Christ as the Cornerstone (Ephesians2:20). The importance of recognizing the Scriptures (Old and New Testament) as being inspired by God and merely penned by men is a stumbling block for many but it’s the only foundation God endorses and allows to be built upon. Everything else will end up like the tower of Babyl - confused, broken down, and dispersed. The Bible is a supernatural book, inspired by God and relevant to every aspect of our lives, including giving us a working knowlege of the Truth. I hope you change your mind someday. Some relevant verses: 2Peter1:21 First you must understand this, that no Scripture is a matter of any personal or private or special interpretation. For no Scripture ever originated because some man willed it but as men spoke from God who were borne along by the Holy Spirit. John10:35 The scriptures cannot be broken Mark13:31 Heaven and earth will pass away but My Words will never pass away John17:17 Your Word is Truth Matt7:24 Whoever hears My Words builds upon the rock 1Peter1:25 The Word of God endures forever ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2005, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320/91 "2005-08-26T19:47:36Z")
The question of wether the Bible is true is off-topic. What the bible (true or not) says on the subject of the afterlife (if any) of insufficiently good people, is. Reviewing the above posts, what I’ve gotten so far is that, biblically, there are two ‘stages’: Sheol and Gehenna. Sheol comes first and is temporary. Gehenna comes second (after the final judgement) and is permanent. Apparently, if you don’t happen to be the devil and/or the beast & false prophet, you will be annihilated up entry to Gehenna. Or is it, you get tortured for a while, proprtionate to your evil, and then get annihilated? Do we know what the opinion was? There doesn’t seem to be concensus regarding wether the original authors believed there to be consciousness in Sheol. On the ‘no’ side, you have Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Some other things have been said, some tenuous (God can’t burn you forever?), but the above verse seems pretty darned clear. Of course, with no torture in Sheol and no torture in Gehenna, why be good? You won’t be punished regardless in any way that you’ll care about at the time. On the ‘yes’ side, you have the parable of the rich man & lazarus, which is dismissed as storytime by the ‘no’ side. The parable comes with a great deal of additional information if you presume it to have been meant literally. This camp seems to dismiss Ecc 9:5 on the presumption that it was not, um, literal. Or that the flat statements about the behaviour of the dead were actually meant to elucidate people about the behavior of corpses, which is not something that you’d think would need clear elucidation. As one who doesn’t have an original copy of the bible on hand (and it’d be all greek to me anyway) I find the ‘no consciousness in Sheol’ side to have more credibility so far (based on what has been presented in this thread). Not to be demanding, but if either side wishes to provide support for their theory, I’d be interested to hear it. Dispel my ignorance and all that. Any takers? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2005, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320/92 "2005-08-26T20:08:14Z")
> [@](#): > > You don’t accept them as being inspired by God and therefore a completely reliable source of Truth. Lacking that belief you therefore have no foundation for a workable belief system other than a conglomeration of disjointed human opinion that must be sorted through and pieced together. I have no idea what **Latro** ’s beliefs may be, but you have chosen to characterize Christian belief in a way that is not actually held by many Christians. I certainly believe that the scriptures are inspired by God. I simply do not believe that God whispered in the ears of various authors to write down various things in a literal fashion from God’s lips to their papers (with God whispering _contradictory_ messages to different authors in the deatils of their stories). That you appear to hold that belief is fine for you, but it is an error to claim that that is how “Christians” believe. It _is_ something that _some number_ of Christians believe. Barring an actual statement by **Latro** regarding his or her beliefs, you are presumptuous to attempt to describe them (or their lack). ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2005, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320/93 "2005-08-26T20:49:29Z")
> [@Twin](#): > > You are correct in pointing out that Luke 23:43 does not refer to Jesus descending to hell and led those souls who were waiting for Him in paradise up to heaven. But these verses do carry that meaning (IMHO): > > Luke 16:26 - Great gulf fixed between paradise and hell > Ephesians 4:8-10 - Speaks of Jesus leading captivity captive, first descending into the earth (literal location of hell) > Isaiah 5:14 - Hell hath enlarged herself, grew to take place of the void left by paradise > > See the scriptures I mentioned above. I believe there are some additional ones, but I cannot remember them off the top of my head. Regardless, I am willing to accept that my belief is not widely accepted, but I do not believe it damages my case against hell being an eternal place of torture. Listen, I don’t think you get it. I have no problem accepting symbolism and metaphor. None. However, you have staked your claim _as a literalist._ As to the question of Lazarus, Abraham, and the rich man I can think of NO account this side of the book of revelation that is so clearly a parable. I can think of no account that is as rich in symbolism and imagery. Those facts, coupled with the simple fact that the author literally (pun intended) spoon feeds us the context (with the disciples and the ‘money loving’ Pharasees in tow) makes this clearly a parable, and both a lesson to the disciples and a rebuke to the Pharasees. _And you’ve conceded as much!_ Yet when pressed, you take refuge in imagery and parabolic medley; all from the same mouth that says, "the Bible must be taken **literally** unless it absolutely cannot be taken literally. " :smack: > [@](#): > > Let’s see what Solomon says in Ecc 9:5 and 10 > > \*Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. \* > > Gill notes: > This is not to be understood of their separate spirits, and of the things of the other world; for the righteous dead know much, their knowledge is greatly increased; they know, as they are known; they know much of God in Christ, of his perfections, purposes, covenant, grace, and love; they know much of Christ, of his person, offices, and glory, and see him as he is; they know much of the Gospel, and the mysteries of it; and of angels, and the spirits of just men, they now converse with; and of the glories and happiness of the heavenly state; even they know abundantly more than they did in this life: and the wicked dead, in their separate spirits, know there is a God that judgeth; that their souls are immortal; that there is a future state; indeed they know and feel the torments of hell, the worm that never dies, and the fire that is not quenched: but this is to be interpreted of their bodily senses now extinct, and of worldly things they have now nothing to do with; they know not any thing that is done in this world, nor how it fares with their children and friends they have left behind them; see Job\_14:21; nor therefore are they to be prayed unto, and used as mediators with God. The Targum is, > > "and sinners know not any good, so that they do not make their works good while they live; and they know not any good in the world to come;’’ > > \*Ecc 9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor > device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. \* > This verse tells us to do all we can while we are alive, because after our death, there is no more that we can do for God. We are judged for what we have done in this life, not what occurs afterward. > > Gill notes: this, and not then, is our working time; good men at death cease from their labours in the grave, as the night in which no man can “work”, Rev\_14:13; then the liberal man can no more “devise” liberal ways and means of doing good; his purposes of doing good are broken off; and no more plans can be laid, or designs formed, for the glory of God and the good of fellow creatures: and no more “knowledge” of objects to do good unto; nor any improvement in any kind of knowledge, natural or spiritual: nor “wisdom” and prudence in the management of affairs, to answer some good ends and purposes; nor opportunity of attaining that wisdom by the Scriptures, and by the ministry of the word, which make men wise unto salvation: and now, since every man is going to the grave, his long home, the place appointed for all living, and this, is the way of all flesh; and every step he has taken, and does take, is a step to the grave; therefore it is incumbent on him to do all the good he can in life. I rarely dodge a quote, but this borders on offensive. I don’t know who Gill is, but are you aware that this is one long run-on almost incomprehensible, disjointed, scattered sentence? If this is a cut and paste thing, shame on you for not vetting it and cleaning it up. If this is your work, I would expect you to show more consideration for the vitality of your argument than posting this incoherent rambling. If you wish to repost this, I’d be glad to respond. But if you’re not willing to show us more intellectual respect, we won’t take the time to sort through this wreck. I think you need to stay away from Gill. He’s not helping you. > [@](#): > > I believe I did not clearly explain when I referred to Abraham’s bosom as paradise. Abraham was definitely there (as he spoke to the rich man) and I am sure he comforted Lazarus. I have also heard paradise (next to hell) referred to as Abraham’s bosom. I believe Jesus descended to paradise and led those souls to heaven who were waiting for the promise of his coming, but who had died before he came. They then went to heaven, the home Jesus mentioned that he was preparing for the disciples. I do not believe paradise and heaven are the same place. However, as I said, regardless of my views of paradise, my view of hell still stands. I respect those beliefs, however: You provide no cites to support the beliefs; and the ones you provided earlier were misapplied and irrelevent. And… They rely heavliy on symbolism and imagery; both of which you apparently reject. > [@](#): > > Also, I am confused by your reference to Lazarus being on fire for eternity, as I assume you mean the rich man. Hmmmm. In **post #76** I incorrectly said that _Lazarus_ was buried. I even cited the exact verse, which of course, mentions the rich man having been buried. It seemed to me somewhat petty and juvenile that you would mention that in **#Post 77** , given that it was an obvious typo, especially since I had not only cited the verse, but had posted the whole account! But who cares? I let it go. However, lo and behold, I did it again! In **post #79** I said Lazarus would burn forever! Imagine that! First I have him buried, and now I’m BBQing him. I’m such a fool. Given your proclivity to restate the obvious, I cleaned up my own mess, right? > [@](#): > > **Post #81:** > **the raindog screws up again…** > > > [@](#): > > > > \*\* Raindog:\*\* If it is not literal, why is it more believable that Lazarus will be on fire for eternity than us getting comfy with Abraham? > > **Lazarus** on fire for eternity? _Nonsense!_ So, I’m confused also…Did you not read **post #81,** or are you being a jerk? (It’s a pet peave of mine, or I wouldn’t chew up the bandwidth. I’ve always been told that correcting obvious typos, grammar and spelling was juvenile and generally bad netiquette.) > [@](#): > > I am not privy to how the actual tormenting process occurs. Reread Gills notes. It’s a primer on torment. 😉 > [@](#): > > I do not see it as a parable. Why does it have to be a fake story to teach a lesson, when a real story would be just as (if not more) effective? You acknowledged it was a parable for Pete’e sake! And when pressed for an answer for the obvious problem of all of us taking residence on Abraham’s chest you take refuge in the obvious fact it’s a parable. > [@](#): > > I respectfully disagree(I know that comes as a shock). However, even if I throw out everything I have said and accept Luke 16 as a parable, this is not the only evidence of an eternal torment in hell. Several verses that I have already referred to (Mark 9:43-48, Rev 14:9-11, Rev 20) are evidence of an eternal hell. I haven’t even mentioned 2 Peter 2:4 (which uses the Greek _tartaroo_, referring to Tartarus). It’s my view that the bible has continuity throughout. You would probably agree. However, those accounts cannot be used to directly buttress your argument at Luke 16, other than the tangential point that the bible is consistent. (a valid consideration to be sure) I would be glad to discuss other texts that [purporedly] support a burning hell. But it does not seem to me that you are able to make your case on Luke 16. Should I be any more confident that you can make that case? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2005, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320/94 "2005-08-26T21:25:45Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > Reviewing the above posts, what I’ve gotten so far is that, biblically, there are two ‘stages’: Sheol and Gehenna. Sheol comes first and is temporary. Gehenna comes second (after the final judgement) and is permanent. > > Apparently, if you don’t happen to be the devil and/or the beast & false prophet, you will be annihilated up entry to Gehenna. Or is it, you get tortured for a while, proprtionate to your evil, and then get annihilated? Do we know what the opinion was? One problem with the way this discussion has played out has been that it has apparently conveyed the idea that there was a single set of beliefs that we have somehow lost and that we need only tease them out to discover what _they_ “really” believed. The reality is closer to that of the present, with some groups of larger or smaller populations holding various interpretations at different times. That even continues today. There have been a couple of instances where Jewish posters to this board have disagreed with each other whether Judaism teaches that there is or is not an afterlife, at all. _Sheol_ originally represented a pretty close equivalent to the Greek _Hades_ as a place of drab, semi-existence for those who had died. It was more a failure to accept personal extinction than a fully thought out notion of what would happen to a person after death. _Gehenna_ was originally a middden and trash-heap, with a pre-history as a legendary location of the sacrifice of children. As such, it was used, first, as a metaphor for a disgusting place where the bodies of evil persons would be shamefully thrown, later becoming a metaphor for the the sort of shame and pain that would be inflicted upon the unjust in the afterlife. Between the 2d century B.C.E. and the 1st century C.E., a number of works were written that elaborated upon the actual destination of the “souls” of those who had died. In the book of Enoch that I mentioned earlier, the angels who have rebelled against God are described as suffering eternally while the humans who are unjust are shown suffering punishment and then being destroyed. Other books and commentaries drew other conclusions, including the idea that an evil person would be punished for a time commensurate with his or her actions, then destroyed or punished for up to one year and then destroyed. Some works had elaborate schemes of reward and punishment that would have made Dante jealous and other works offered basic “up or down” judgments with little elaboration. Any attempt to declare “ **this** is what they believed” will fail, because you need to identify who believed it. By the time of the first century, C.E., we had Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, and any number of other groups. There were strong Jewish communities in Palestine, in Alexandria, in Mesopotamia and each group could develop _slightly_ different views regarding any given theological point The information we have discovered regarding Essene beliefs seem to demonstrate several contradictory positions at different times. The _internal_ arguments that the Pharisees carried out regarding what _they_ believed eventually led to the creation of the wonderful Talmud with its penchant for reviewing every issue from every conceivable direction. Beyond that, as we wander into what the Christians believed, we have to recognize that not all Jewish ideas translated directly to Gentile beliefs. It is entirely possible that some ideas that were held by the majority of Jews were brought directly into Christianity, but reshaped by the Gentile experience in ways that rendered them unintelligible to the original Jewish believers. It is also possible that there were Jewish beliefs that were prevalent, but not held by any large majority, that were picked up as core beliefs by the nascent Christians. And, while it was probably not a major factor, we need to recognize that _some_ Jewish beliefs may have crossed over into Christianity and then been rejected by the Jews as examples of Christian heresy. Reconstructing what the Jewish community _in toto_ belieed in the first century and how much of that was brought to Chrsitianity and how much of _that_ survived unchanged will provide fun labor for scholars for years to come. Presenting what “really” happened on a message board is an exercise in futility. The best that we can do is point to known works that we still possess (or the commentaries on lost works), and say that the author of this work believed in this way, then try to reconcile that work with all the other similar and contradictory works. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2005, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320/95 "2005-08-26T21:53:08Z")
I’m a taker…A little pressed for time, but I’ll start. **begbert2 said:** > [@](#): > > Reviewing the above posts, what I’ve gotten so far is that, biblically, there are two ‘stages’: Sheol and Gehenna. Sheol comes first and is temporary. Gehenna comes second (after the final judgement) and is permanent. Agreed IMO. Best as I can tell, scholars have found the original word **“sheol/sheohl”** 65 times in it’s original form; \*\*“hades”/haides \*\* 10 times, and “gehenna/geenna” 12 times. Some bibles (American Standard) render both “sheol” and “hades” in their original form, while using “hell” for “gehenna.” Unfortunately, there is **tremondous** inconsistency, _even within a single translation._ My reading consistently shows **“hades”** associated with death and with the grave. **Luke 16** , the account **Twin** and I have been wrestling over is clearly a parable, and full of symbolism and imagery. All of my reading indicates that early followers did not fear a burning hell, and saw death as a step towards a final judgement _via resurrection._ Further, the bible clearly states that hades/sheol would be emptied, and that even Jesus was in hades for a time. Job, in his misery saw hades (death) as a relief; one that God would remember him from and draw him out of. The most compelling use of both **sheol** and **hades** in their original use was one of death and the grave, and one that is temporary. Gehenna is always represented as final, and even holding sway over sheol and hades. That gehenna would ultimately do away with hades/sheol and what they represent:death. Essentially, the final death is death itself! > [@](#): > > Apparently, if you don’t happen to be the devil and/or the beast & false prophet, you will be annihilated up entry to Gehenna. Or is it, you get tortured for a while, proprtionate to your evil, and then get annihilated? Do we know what the opinion was? The bible is rich in imagery and symbolism. It is sometimes difficult to understand when someting is symbolic and when it is literal. Nonetheless, a careful study of the bible, and thoughtful consideration of it, is effective in sorting it out. While there is rich imagery about gehenna (and sheol/hades) it is clear IMO that there no suffering in hell–no matter the flavor. In short, when you die you die. You’re dust. Plant food. Your death was the result of your sinful condition, inherited from Adam. And that _would_ be the end of the story… But… Christ’s sacrifice lifted this “curse” and made the promise of “salvation” (as you perceive it) possible. So…you go ahead and live your life; excercisng free will and making _choices._ At some point in the future “judgemet day” comes for you. At judgement day, you are rewarded (via God’s grace and mercy) with either [eternal] life, or [eternal] death. > [@](#): > > There doesn’t seem to be concensus regarding wether the original authors believed there to be consciousness in Sheol. On the ‘no’ side, you have Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Some other things have been said, some tenuous (God can’t burn you forever?), but the above verse seems pretty darned clear. Of course, with no torture in Sheol and no torture in Gehenna, why be good? You won’t be punished regardless in any way that you’ll care about at the time. There are certainly more scrpitures that indicate that death was perceived to be non sentient. many More. Further, it is a valid point that a loving, just God won’t BBQ you for a bazillion years for a [comparitively] brief moment that is your human life here. It’s inconsistent with his stated sense of justice. (while admittedly an indirect response to the question of a burning hell) As to being “good”, it’s just this simple: Do you want to live? Or do you want to die? If you wish to live, are you willing to submit yourself to God’s requirments? It’s up to you. You have _choices._ It’s OK to say “no!” Throughout human history god has encouraged humans to se the benefit to follow Him, but has NEVER forced anyone to that. He’s pleaded: 17 This is what the LORD says—your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: I am the LORD your God, who teaches you what is best for you,who directs you in the way you should go. 18 If only you had paid attention to my commands,your peace would have been like a river, your righteousness like the waves of the sea. **Isa 48:17** He’s warned: 26 See, I am setting before you today a blessing and a curse- 27 the blessing if you obey the commands of the LORD your God that I am giving you today; 28 the curse if you disobey the commands of the LORD your God and turn from the way that I command you today by following other gods, which you have not known. **De 11:26** (and there are hundreds of scrpitures supporting this) But ultimately he’s never taken from us our greatest gift: Free Will. No Stupid Pet Tricks in the sky that force feed worship/obedience. No booming directives. Consider the facts. Look around you. Do the research. Choose your life course, and accept the consequences. I submit that one should do good----not because of being burned forever—but because of a Love and appreciation of God and His attributes, personality and qualites. My children respect me, and are obedient (within childlike reason) because they love me and respect me—not because I might punish them. Should it be any different with out Creator? > [@](#): > > On the ‘yes’ side, you have the parable of the rich man & lazarus, which is dismissed as storytime by the ‘no’ side. The parable comes with a great deal of additional information if you presume it to have been meant literally. This camp seems to dismiss Ecc 9:5 on the presumption that it was not, um, literal. Or that the flat statements about the behaviour of the dead were actually meant to elucidate people about the behavior of corpses, which is not something that you’d think would need clear elucidation. As stated, there is many more scrpitures that support death as being just that: death. Further, the [comparitively] few scrpitures that imply a burning hell stand in direct contrast to the many, many scrpitures that suggest that death is just death. Once careful consideration is given to these image rich texts, they do not fare well to scrutiny. It would seem to me that Twin et al often have a predisposition to believe in a burning hell and go looking for it’s justification, no matter how many square pegs must be pounded into round holes. Once the true origins of these beliefs are investigated, it becomes clear that many times the doctrines are peversions of bible. IMO Dante and Milton have done more to shape many people’s view of hell than they realize. > [@](#): > > As one who doesn’t have an original copy of the bible on hand (and it’d be all greek to me anyway) I find the ‘no consciousness in Sheol’ side to have more credibility so > far (based on what has been presented in this thread). Not to be demanding, but if either side wishes to provide support for their theory, I’d be interested to hear it. Dispel my ignorance and all that. Any takers? I have provided considerable information in this thread about what the bible actually says, including many factiual items regarding the historicity of the issue of hell, including dozens of references to the word “hell” and how it is used in translations. I would be glad to make the case—using the bible—that the bible characters did not subscribe to a buring hell. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2005, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320/96 "2005-08-26T21:59:29Z")
> [@](#): > > “Throughout human history god has encouraged…” I know it’s a typo, but it needs to be corrected. **G** od with a capital **G** ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2005, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320/97 "2005-08-26T23:26:28Z")
Thanks, **tomndebb** , for your reasonable reply. Clearly, there were a lot of people back in the good ole’ days and each and every one of them had their only slightly different perspective on religion (and everything else, for that matter). Also clearly, there were piles of different sects and whatnot, and one should keep that in mind when trying to figure out what was believed by whom. Of course, it does seem reasonable to assume that the bible, itself, does not represent a full sampling of the beliefs of the era. Presumably whoever was compiling it at any time wouldn’t have included anything that seemed totally wrong to him, and would have filtered accordingly. So, while presuming there was some sort of concensus at the detail level might be foolhardy, one could presume that _most_ things in the bible would _mostly_ agree with one another, because overly contradictory stuff would have been removed at each compilation. You’d think, then, that you could reasonably expect to get a rough feel for the opinions of the compilers, at least, by reviewing the total body of work (assuming the compilers read the stuff they were compiling.) Or you could simply come into it believing that the bible is a cohesive work crafted directly or indirectly by God to (if obliquely) convey a cohesive message. That works pretty well too. 🆒 Of course if you come at it from this angle you’ve got a little more work ahead of you. Either way, you’d expect a certain amout of concensus in the content, which I really think that everybody can agree is there in a broad sense. As for the details… Coming at it from the scholarly perspective you don’t have to try and reconcile everything. Different authors, different times, (slightly) different beliefs. Done deal. For everybody else the attempt at reconciliation continues. Personally I find it fascinating how different people come to **totally** opposite conclusions about the content of the same work, both claiming to be incorporating the totallity of the content. Of course, if I say more along those lines, I’m gonna be accused of pulling up an armchair… :eek: Thanks for the respone, **raindog**. Just to get your take on it, are you saying that by your read of the bible, _nobody’s_ going to be writhing, at all, ever? Even the fallen angel types? Why the occasional reference to fiery punishment, then? ---
**Author:** ![Bible\_man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@Bible\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bible_man)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2005, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320/98 "2005-08-26T23:43:50Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > I have no idea what **Latro** ’s beliefs may be, but you have chosen to characterize Christian belief in a way that is not actually held by many Christians. I certainly believe that the scriptures are inspired by God. I simply do not believe that God whispered in the ears of various authors to write down various things in a literal fashion from God’s lips to their papers (with God whispering _contradictory_ messages to different authors in the deatils of their stories). That you appear to hold that belief is fine for you, but it is an error to claim that that is how “Christians” believe. It _is_ something that _some number_ of Christians believe. > > Barring an actual statement by **Latro** regarding his or her beliefs, you are presumptuous to attempt to describe them (or their lack). Your definition of inspiration is the problem here. The Biblical view of inspiration is that God did speak to men and they wrote (or spoke) the message to those intended to hear it (2Peter1:21). But your definition is different and much broader and would categorize works like Moby Dick, the Mona Lisa, etc. as being equally inspired, which they clearly are not (correct me if I’m wrong about your definition). Further, I will categorically state and will defend against all comers that there are absolutely no contradictions in the Bible, that’s what makes it a supernatural book. Sixty six books written by 40 authors over a period of 1500 years and none of them disagreed or contradicted each other, the reason is that the communication was from God and only penned by them. I grant you that there are paradoxes that to the natural mind appear to be contradictions, but when resolved, Truth is revealed ( It’s the glory of God to hide a matter and the glory of kings to seek it out (Prov25:2)). A brief sample of some of those paradoxes: -How can Christ be the Lamb of God and also the Lion of Judah? -How can Christ say, “I go to prepare a place for you.” and also say, “I am with you always, even to the end of the world.” -How can someone who is hung on a cross as a criminal be declared to be The Wisdom of God and the Power of God (1Cor1:24)? -How can the holiest human be reported to have become sin for us? -How can the Old Testament predict the Messiah will be a suffering servant in some scriptures and characterized as a conquering king in others? And sorry if I might have offended Latro with a blunt declaration of Truth but according to the Bible there is only one God, one Truth, and one Way, and God only communicated to us in one Book; all others being declared counterfeits. (I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no one comes to the Father except by Me. All who came before Me are thieves and robbers (Jn10:8,14:6)). Therefore, by definition, any belief system outside the Bible’s parameters is false. Having said that, it doesn’t mean that I don’t have respect for what a person believes but I do encourage them to examine their beliefs and consider what the Bible has to say . ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2005, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320/99 "2005-08-27T00:24:35Z")
**begbert2 said:** > [@](#): > > Thanks for the respone, **raindog**. Just to get your take on it, are you saying that by your read of the bible, _nobody’s_ going to be writhing, at all, ever? Even the fallen angel types? Why the occasional reference to fiery punishment, then? That’s _exactly_ what I’m saying. Now **Diogenes** and I may not agree on every single point on this topic, but he has done an admirable job of explaining the history of much of what makes up the origin of this (faulty imo) belief, and clarified the language. Even the “fallen angels” will be _destroyed, annihiliated._ As to the “fiery” references, they are rich in imagery and symbolism, and rightfully are interesting to read. What gets ignored is the mundane research that shows the various translation took such liberties with the translations of words like hades/sheol and gehenna. What gets overlooked is the many many texts like Job under great duress who prays to God to die—to be sent to hades----because death would be respite for him. Lost is the same word being used by the author in Acts refering to Jesus in hades. Lost are the many references that show bible characters that show no awareness of a burning hell. What is so totally amazing is the complete dearth of bible characters talking about a burning hell----can you find one? How many characters die(by name) ? Hundreds! Achan, Jezebel, Saul, Samson, Goliath, Judas ----the list goes on and on and on. Is it not incongruous that no mention is ever made of them going to hell; even when the executioner is God himself? Rememeber the guy who grabbed hold of the Ark of the Covenent? They are all said to be _dead._ As to the fiery references themselves, \*\*Luke 16 \*\*is as good as any. Did you find **Twin** ’s explanation compelling? Did it make sense to you? One need not become a scholar (I am certainly not) to understand these texts. I would submit that careful consideration and research is needed. An internet message board will not suffice. I submit that there is a perfectaly acceptable explanation for the reference for suffering at **Luke 16** that is readily provided right in the account. Start with **verse 1** ; it will take 5-7 minutes (tops) to consider the account. Is it compelling----from the context—that Jesus used this illustration to rebuke the Jewish leaders? Given all the other uses of the word hades, is it reasonable that this account is literal? Decide for yourself. The same level of scrutiny is needed to consider the other texts to decide whether the bible supports a burning, eternal hell. _After reading the account for yourself,_ \*\*(Luke 16)\*\*if you find the ‘burning hell’ doctrine to be dubious, look up the other texts to see if perhaps they have been interpreted in modern culture more by Dante than by the bible itself. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2005, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320/100 "2005-08-27T00:57:20Z")
> [@](#): > > The Biblical view of inspiration is that God did speak to men and they wrote (or spoke) the message to those intended to hear it (2Peter1:21). Not really. That is your interpretation of a specific line, cherry picked from a specific work, to support your _beliefs_. > [@2 Peter 1:](#): > > **19** We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: > **20** Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. > **21** For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. This can clearly be read that the specific books of prophecy were inspired directly by God. It says nothing about the Law or the Psalms and at the time it was written there was no Christian “scripture” (and no New Testament work is identified as “prophecy” except Revelation). Beyond that, “moved by the Holy Spirit” is not the same as “transcribed God’s word.” God could easily move Isaiah to condemn the inhabitants of Jerusalem for failing to protect the widows and orphans _without putting specific words in Isaiah’s mouth_. Now, you can argue against that reading based on your _beliefs_, but you cannot claim that your reading is the only possible understanding of the verse. It simply is not. The way you come to that understanding is to look to people who have preceded you and who have established a tradition of understanding for the verse. (Beyond that, we can have a whole separate discussion regarding the ways that prophecy–or the Word of God, in general–is _expressed_ and whether it has to have some literal component in every presentation, but with the first hurdle of your cherry-picking of Peter, we do not need to move on to the larger issue of _presentation_.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-biblical-support-for-the-concept-of-hell/318320.md?page=6)