A Fundamentalist View of Hell

[TurningIntoDavid]

(04-17-2012 05:28 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  

(04-17-2012 04:34 PM)TurningIntoDavid Wrote:  Those verses were mostly for DonB123 because he wanted verses about hell.


My opening point is that in many cases, the word that's translated "Hell" doesn't mean "eternal torment" at all, and in these cases, if it does man place of eternal torment, it causes some excruciatingly embarrassing exegetical problems. These are examples. Basically, every time you see the word Hell in the old testament, it's Sheol, a word that never meant "place of eternal torment."

Which means that the idea of Hell isn't in the Old testament. At all.

I don't really disagree with any of that. I don't have a position on the nature of hell. I think people who do might be reading a tad bit too much medieval thought into the text.

I also agree that sheol of the OT isn't the eternal lake of fire. In fact sheol becomes hades in the NT and hades is cast into the lake of fire. What does that mean? I dunno. I doubt any of us that have not been there can be certain.

Cool Yeah, I kinda have to agree with you on that. I have an intuition that God, at the end of time, will do what's right. In fact, I'm confident of it. I think that that means nobody will be suffering in hell forever. But even if it doesn't mean that, I don't think I'll be disappointed because I will understand all things, including why some people end up in hell. But until God explains that, and in light of the universalist passages and the mistranslations and jury-rigging of verses about hell, I think it's not the case.

Basically, it seems like Gehenna, Sheol/Hades, and Tartarus get mixed in with the lake of fire as being one and the same place - a place where some are tormented for all eternity (weeping and gnashing of teeth and what-not). With the KJV, it's easy to make this look that way - they're all translated, "Hell."

As far as I can tell,

• Sheol isn't a place of eternal torment for humans,
• Tartarus only shows up in reference to fallen angels,
• Hades (where the rich man is and cannot escape from) is tossed into the lake of fire, so the no-escape clause from the story of the rich man and Lazarus doesn't apply,
• Gehenna was the garbage dump where the fire never went out and the worm didn't die, but the verse says only the worm doesn't die and the fire is not quenched, not that the wicked don't ever die there or that their torment is never-ending, which makes it not a place of eternal torment for humans, and
• The lake of fire is not identical with Gehenna.
  

And that's New Testament and Old Testament Hell. There are a number of proof-texts that only work if you allow definitions that are not obvious unless someone tells you that they are there. Smashing together all these concepts that are supposed to all be identical and all be hell really doesn't seem coherent to me.

(04-17-2012 05:44 PM)Presbygirl Wrote:  Hey, y'all, TiD, Donb, dramaturge,

I am cleaning up dinner, thinking about all the posts, and I was wondering, is it probable that Hell isn't mentioned in the OT because no Saviour had come? So, why talk about a topic that doesn't need addressing bc Christ hadn't died?

Just wondering....

Hi Presbygirl! Welcome back!

So my question with that is, what happened to the people who didn't accept Christ or do whatever it takes to be saved from hell prior to NT time? Did they simply not go to hell, or get a second chance after they died, or did they all go to heaven? If any of these are true, it'd suck more to be born after Jesus came than before! Whereas before Christ's sacrifice was efficacious for everyone, after, it's only efficacious for those who believe. Born in 200 BC somewhere far from Israel? Heaven-bound. Born in 200 AD and don't hear about Jesus? Sorry, you're bound for hell. Basically, after Jesus comes, instead of the requirements being less strenuous, they become more so.

God is not unjust.