• CeeBee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hell is not in the Bible.

    The words often translated as hell are She’ol and Ge’henna.

    She’ol is translated 31 times as hell, 31 times as grave, and 3 times as pit in the King James version.

    The word itself is derived from sha’al which means “ask” or “request” because “the grave is always asking for more”. Implying that death is always waiting. (Death in this context being the state of death, not “Death” the horseman, which itself is figurative).

    She’ol is not a specific grave, but rather the “common grave of mankind”. It refers to the state of being dead. As in “everyone goes 6ft under”.

    It doesn’t refer to a “place of hell” and sure as hell (heh) doesn’t refer to a place of torture.

    Ge’henna is a short form for “Valley of Hinnom”. It was a place outside of Jerusalem where Kings Ahaz and Manasseh engaged in idolatrous worship which included child sacrifices. Those Kings and their followers were executed and had their bodies dumped in that valley, left to rot and not buried, so that carrion eaters would desecrate their bodies and deprived from an honourable burial. And then the place was turned into a garbage dump to further dishonour them.

    Jeremiah 7:31 - “They have built the high places of Toʹpheth, which is in the Valley of the Son of Hinʹnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, something that I had not commanded and that had never even come into my heart.”

    So saying someone went to Ge’henna was akin to saying someone displeased God so badly that they will not be honoured by Him and he finds their actions “detestable”.

    Nothing to do with a place of torture.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is all opinion and if you read writers who natively spoke these languages and were much closer to the dates when it was written they disagree with you. There are descriptions of hell in the Talmud, I trust Rabbis to know more about Judaic beliefs of the time they are living in vs someone 20 centuries later who is not even Jewish.

      People know what they believe and just because you can take a word and find it’s entomology doesn’t mean you know how the word was used or the ideas it represented. When I say Dartmouth to you do you think “mouth of the Dart river” or do you think of the famous school there? Does your answer change if someone of a different religion from you 20 centuries later argues that “really what they meant to say is”?

      • CeeBee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is all opinion and if you read writers who natively spoke these languages and were much closer to the dates when it was written they disagree with you.

        It’s not opinion. It’s based on historical studies and historical linguistics. This is not something I came up with out of thin air. It’s been studied and verified by experts from around the world.

        Even the Wikipedia page about She’ol states “Within the Hebrew Bible, there are few – often brief and nondescript – mentions of Sheol, seemingly describing it as a place where both the righteous and the unrighteous dead go, regardless of their moral choices in life.”

        That’s something Jesus said about birth the righteous and unrighteous. It’s the figurative “place” where everyone goes when they enter the state of death.

        The site myjewishlearning.com says of hell in the Talmud:

        “there is generally no concept of judgment or reward and punishment attached to it. In fact, the more pessimistic books of the Bible, such as Ecclesiastes and Job, insist that all of the dead go down to Sheol, whether good or evil, rich or poor, slave or free man”

        People know what they believe and just because you can take a word and find it’s entomology doesn’t mean you know how the word was used or the ideas it represented.

        That’s partially true. But there are many many supporting scriptures, old manuscripts like the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as other historical texts that do not support the notion of eternal torture, hell, or an “evil” afterlife.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          And now you are goalpost moving. Sheol is not geheniham and never was. There is about 800 years of thought you are condensing into a single time period, a time period that we know there were arguments about this. At the supposed time of Jesus there were at least three versions of the afterlife floating around. What you are doing now is making those three into one and pull stuff from 800 years prior and saying that is part of it as well. Do you agree with every single idea people had in 1223 AD?

          Yes you are right about one thing but what you are right about doesn’t matter. The 8th century BC Jews didn’t really have a concept of judgement in the afterlife. That however tells us nothing about 1st century Jews.

          • CeeBee@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I’m not moving the goalpost at all. The discussion is about the definition of the word that in some English translations is rendered “hell”.

            The discussion about She’ol and Ge’henna is that it’s those words translated into “hell”.

            So to discuss what “hell” is, the original meaning of those words need to be considered.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yes and the original 1st century meaning to those early Christians you are quoting it meant a very bad place you burn forever in. It doesn’t matter that 8 centuries prior the word didn’t even exist.

              I gave you a specific example, Dartmouth, before and you are not acknowledging it. A word means what it means when it is spoken, the entymology is interesting but not the definition the word has forever.

              • CeeBee@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Then how did the 1st century Christians interpret Ecclesiastes 9:5?

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

                And how about all the times that Jesus referred to those who have died as being asleep? The comparison between death and sleep isn’t a coincidence. When sleeping we kinda cease to exist temporarily. The part that’s “us” goes away. Aside from dreams (which actually accounts for only a small portion of time unconscious, and we only remember a tiny fraction of dreams anyways) we don’t think, feel, or even care about anything.

                Your example of Dartmouth is irrelevant. The colloquial definition of a word in common language doesn’t factor in, because we are looking at the scholastic definitions. And doing so would give us context of the origins of the word Dartmouth, the region it refers to, and how it was used later on. And that way we get a full understanding of what the word used to mean and how it’s used today.

                Doing the same thing for the word “hell” gives us that important context. So your example is irrelevant.

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Then how did the 1st century Christians interpret Ecclesiastes 9:5?

                  The same way they understand that their Messiah was supposed to be named Emanuel but wasn’t and that he was supposed to be from Bethlehem not Nazareth and that he was supposed to usher in the last days but didn’t. Christianity isn’t really big on consistency.

                  And how about all the times that Jesus referred to those who have died as being asleep? The comparison between death and sleep isn’t a coincidence. When sleeping we kinda cease to exist temporarily. The part that’s “us” goes away. Aside from dreams (which actually accounts for only a small portion of time unconscious, and we only remember a tiny fraction of dreams anyways) we don’t think, feel, or even care about anything.

                  Not relevant.

                  Your example of Dartmouth is irrelevant. The colloquial definition of a word in common language doesn’t factor in, because we are looking at the scholastic definitions. And doing so would give us context of the origins of the word Dartmouth, the region it refers to, and how it was used later on. And that way we get a full understanding of what the word used to mean and how it’s used today.

                  Incorrect. Very relevant. You are defining words with a 8th century understanding for a 1st century people.

                  • CeeBee@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Christianity isn’t really big on consistency.

                    It is, but not when citing ad-hoc scriptures.

                    he was supposed to be from Bethlehem not Nazareth

                    He was born in Bethlehem. His family then moved to Nazareth. His birthplace is Bethlehem, so saying “from Bethlehem” and “Jesus the Nazarene” are both correct.

                    he was supposed to usher in the last days but didn’t.

                    He wasn’t supposed to while on earth.

                    Not relevant.

                    Just because you don’t care for the analogy doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It’s entirely relevant. Again, this isn’t something I came up with. It’s been agreed upon by many Bible scholars.

                    Incorrect. Very relevant. You are defining words with a 8th century understanding for a 1st century people.

                    How is that not relevant? How is understanding the basis and origin of a word and the evolution of its entomology not relevant?

                    Btw, the understanding of those words go back even further than the 1st century. It’s simply been reinforced and ratified by 1st century texts and newer manuscripts.

                    The origins of the word Ge’henna, for example, are not disputable. The intent and usage of the term are also clear once you have the context.

                    Edit: etymology, not entomology