Heaven, Yes...Hell, No

[Tom]

The King James Version also translates what should be "Tartarus" as "hell," which is only used once in 2 Peter 2:4 for the "gloomy caverns" where "sinning messengers" are "kept for chastening judging." (see the attachment)

As another witness, the Aramaic uses the term 'Tahhtayata' meaning 'the deep places'. This Aramaic word has nothing to do with the mythical Greek 'Tartarus'. It is referring to their lowered state, a state of darkness, which chains them (blinds them) from the high places they once inhabited, until the day they are judged.

I agree with your Aramaic interpretation that Tartarus is darkness for the spirits that are "kept for chastening judging" (2 Peter 2:4). I also think Tartarus and hades are both words used to help communicate ideas to Greek speaking folks that they would be familiar with but not intended to promote Greek mythology. 

[gregoryfl]

Yes, I believe that any Greek speaking person reading from the Greek would separate the mythical aspects given to those words and stick with the base meaning of each. I was only pointing out what I did for the benefit of any reading who might look up Tartarus and mistakenly come away thinking that the myth associated with it had any connection with the reality of the semitic thoughtform of the writer Peter.

[Tom]

Yes, I believe that any Greek speaking person reading from the Greek would separate the mythical aspects given to those words and stick with the base meaning of each. I was only pointing out what I did for the benefit of any reading who might look up Tartarus and mistakenly come away thinking that the myth associated with it had any connection with the reality of the semitic thoughtform of the writer Peter.

I understand what you're saying, and I realized that's why you said it when I read it. I also think it was good to say that because it seems some folks get confused by those words in scripture that have been used in Greek mythology. I think it's good to have an Aramaic perspective of scripture, but I also think Greek was chosen to reach the nations who didn't understand Aramaic.

[micah7:9]

Yes, I believe that any Greek speaking person reading from the Greek would separate the mythical aspects given to those words and stick with the base meaning of each. I was only pointing out what I did for the benefit of any reading who might look up Tartarus and mistakenly come away thinking that the myth associated with it had any connection with the reality of the semitic thoughtform of the writer Peter.

Absolutely! I really do not believe Peter used the word, my :2c: is translators. :sigh:

[rosered]

The King James Version also translates what should be "Tartarus" as "hell," which is only used once in 2 Peter 2:4 for the "gloomy caverns" where "sinning messengers" are "kept for chastening judging." (see the attachment)

As another witness, the Aramaic uses the term 'Tahhtayata' meaning 'the deep places'. This Aramaic word has nothing to do with the mythical Greek 'Tartarus'. It is referring to their lowered state, a state of darkness, which chains them (blinds them) from the high places they once inhabited, until the day they are judged.

I agree with your Aramaic interpretation that Tartarus is darkness for the spirits that are "kept for chastening judging" (2 Peter 2:4). I also think Tartarus and hades are both words used to help communicate ideas to Greek speaking folks that they would be familiar with but not intended to promote Greek mythology.

  I totally agree with the both of you in  Knowing     this  part

and the reason Jesus come to bring fire on the earth in   Luke 12 ;49      was to me Dan 7   the fiery stream  coming out of the Throne of Gods law   same as Rev 14     both describing the        lake of Fire or fiery stream  issue ,    flood    the earth and before Him  those  4 beasts   kingdoms that are  apart of the ONE  BEAST SATAN THE DRAGON /SERPENT OF OLD     that wisdom   that is earthly sensual and devilish  opposing Gods wisdom   that is above .

  no one would have power to do anything unless it was given from above .

  the division    Jesus come was to separate the     LAWS       one being  of grace  ,full of mercy   with the other  law  in effect      by force     judgment without mercy

  to divide and separate those still under law   of Moses [correction    and judgment ]     
till they come to Christ or Christ comes to them   , they are spirits in prison    held under the law of good and evil

  this is why     Satan  the opposing  force/spirit  of that law of sin and death was made in Jude     arguing over the Body of Moses    and it would be the Lord Jesus Himself that would rebuke the accusing   spirit [spirits]     
  for Jesus Christ become the      Ruler over  the dead and living    ,  so Satan the opposing force could not touch them any longer

and the fire  of   cleansing       them was    considered  correction

   when we look at whom was thrown in the lake of Fire first      its the false  prophet   and beast   already are   in , this being the liars speaking    against Gods  will
and  the carnal natures of anyone   opposing the will of God  beasts of the earth and seas of humanity        ,  NOT Satan yet  he is allowed to roam   the earth   till the time appointed      By God  to have an end   



  I know this will not make any sense   to some ,  and maybe just for me now , but it blessed me so much to discover  it I could not  help but try and explain  some of this         separation of fire and correction         , it for our own good       and never a bad thing


  God does everything to teach us His righteousness in the earth  now   as it is in heaven     always

[gregoryfl]

Indeed he does Rose  :dsunny:

[eaglesway]

Interesting context.

1 There were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies and even deny the Master who ransomed them, bringing swift destruction on themselves. 2 Many will follow their licentious ways, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled. 3 In their greed they will exploit you with fabrications, but from of old their condemnation has not been idle and their destruction does not sleep.

4 For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but condemned them to the chains of Tartarus and handed them over to be kept for judgment;

Specific punishment for specific sin is reasonably inferred here in the context. I think it is more than a general reference to Sheol.

Personally I believe from the context this is referring to angels who "left their proper domain"(jude 6).


And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day—


Being angels they did not die, and perhaps are incarcerated in a different holding facility.

[dajomaco]

IMO

God has always the very best for each individual at every point of time.
If we are willfully ignorant whatever is happening to us is the
very best God has for us at that point and time.
Being thrown into the lake of Fire is the very best God
has at that point in time for that individual.
Out of the billions of possibilities for each person at any point in time
God has picked the best for that individual. 

[eaglesway]

Yes, I believe that any Greek speaking person reading from the Greek would separate the mythical aspects given to those words and stick with the base meaning of each. I was only pointing out what I did for the benefit of any reading who might look up Tartarus and mistakenly come away thinking that the myth associated with it had any connection with the reality of the semitic thoughtform of the writer Peter.

I seriously doubt that a Greek person speaking Greek would separate out the mythology. I think the effect is the opposite and history has proved that out.

The whole doctrine of eternal torment in "Hades" for instance, is out of the  Greek AND ROMAN mythologies. Inferno was the Roman Hades in the Latin Vulgate. The word Hell wasnt used until the 14/1500s. The Latin Vulgate was the reigning version among Catholics for a millenia. The people did not have the scriptures at all. Thats why the Reformation was concurrent with the advent of the printing press.

ET doctrine has its origins in Greek and Roman myths, and the translations, using those mythological names, were done that way on purpose(imo) to promote those false doctrines of the reigning orthodoxies of the time. Same thing with the King James Version. It was eternal torment in Hades(Greek) but also
the doctrine was eternal torment in Inferno(Latin for Hades).

[rosered]

IMO

God has always the very best for each individual at every point of time.
If we are willfully ignorant whatever is happening to us is the
very best God has for us at that point and time.
Being thrown into the lake of Fire is the very best God
has at that point in time for that individual.
Out of the billions of possibilities for each person at any point in time
God has picked the best for that individual.

  I agree  whole hardheartedly Bro D

   each in the order God deals with    mankind , not as a whole
   because the whole is being dealt with
  but comes individually as the judgments   in ones favor or grace     given to   glorify God    your torment will not be remembered for the glory that is  given you and   the  will of God is   being done in and though Jesus Christ   works of the Father       




   

[rosered]

Yes, I believe that any Greek speaking person reading from the Greek would separate the mythical aspects given to those words and stick with the base meaning of each. I was only pointing out what I did for the benefit of any reading who might look up Tartarus and mistakenly come away thinking that the myth associated with it had any connection with the reality of the semitic thoughtform of the writer Peter.

I seriously doubt that a Greek person speaking Greek would separate out the mythology. I think the effect is the opposite and history has proved that out.

The whole doctrine of eternal torment in "Hades" for instance, is out of the  Greek AND ROMAN mythologies. Inferno was the Roman Hades in the Latin Vulgate. The word Hell wasnt used until the 14/1500s. The Latin Vulgate was the reigning version among Catholics for a millenia. The people did not have the scriptures at all. Thats why the Reformation was concurrent with the advent of the printing press.

ET doctrine has its origins in Greek and Roman myths, and the translations, using those mythological names, were done that way on purpose(imo) to promote those false doctrines of the reigning orthodoxies of the time. Same thing with the King James Version. It was eternal torment in Hades(Greek) but also
the doctrine was eternal torment in Inferno(Latin for Hades).

  Yes   till there sins reach heaven   Rev 18 ...4I heard another voice from heaven, saying, "Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues;


5for her sins have piled up as high as heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities.

6"Pay her back even as she has paid, and give back to her double according to her deeds; in the cup which she has mixed, mix twice as much for her....

  for me that is the continual  waxing worse and worse  and   we sure do see the results of  it   thousands of churches with pushing the     torment of  fire for always   doctrine   

  and the HolY SPIRIT teacher is what makes us  know the difference     

[bushy]

Smith's Bible Dictionary
Hinnom
(lamentation), Valley of, otherwise called "the valley of the son" or "children of Hinnom," a deep and narrow ravine, with steep, rocky sides, to the south and west of Jerusalem, separating Mount Zion to the north from the "hill of evil counsel," and the sloping rocky plateau of the "plain of Rephaim" to the south. The earliest mention of the valley of Hinnom is in (Joshua 15:8; 18:16) where the boundary line between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin is described as passing along the bed of the ravine. On the southern brow, overlooking the valley at its eastern extremity Solomon erected high places for Molech, (1 Kings 11:7) whose horrid rites were revived from time to time in the same vicinity the later idolatrous kings. Ahaz and Manasseh made their children "pass through the fire" in this valley, (2 Kings 16:3; 2 Chronicles 28:3; 33:6) and the fiendish custom of infant sacrifice to the fire-gods seems to have been kept up in Tophet, which was another name for this place. To put an end to these abominations the place was polluted by Josiah, who renders it ceremonially unclean by spreading over it human bones and other corruptions, (2 Kings 23:10,13,14; 2 Chronicles 34:4,5) from which time it appears to have become the common cesspool of the city, into which sewage was conducted, to be carried off by the waters of the Kidron. From its ceremonial defilement, and from the detested and abominable fire of Molech, if not from the supposed ever-burning funeral piles, the later Jews applied the name of this valley --Ge Hinnom, Gehenna (land of Hinnom)--to denote the place of eternal torment. In this sense the word is used by our Lord. (Matthew 5:29; 10:28; 23:15; Mark 9:43; Luke 12:5)

It seems to me Jesus used Gehenna in the same way Peter used tartarus (greek mythology). Though Gehenna was a real place used for burning garbage it had earlier been used for pagan religious reasons. In Jesus time it had come to denote the place of eternal torment (jewish mythology).

[micah7:9]

This one verse cannot be said enough for our understanding......

Joh 6:63  It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, are are life.

[gregoryfl]

I seriously doubt that a Greek person speaking Greek would separate out the mythology. I think the effect is the opposite and history has proved that out.

I am just not as familiar with the Greek understandings as I am with the Semitic, so it was just my educated guess, since the Greek versions do use the words Hades and Tartarus. The reasoning I had was (and this of course is just a guess) that since those words are in the Greek versions, is it possible they used them without the mythological overtones?

Like today, in English when someone describes something that could have happened to someone but did not, they say such a person was 'fortunate'. And then the opposite word 'unfortunate' is also very common, and yet in both instances, those who use the term do not think in terms of the myth behind the word, of Fortunas, the goddess of fortune. I simply do not know and for those who do not accept a semitic original, I am not sure how they reason on the validity of those words otherwise. I hope I am not straying too far from the original posting.

[gregoryfl]

Smith's Bible Dictionary
Hinnom
(lamentation), Valley of, otherwise called "the valley of the son" or "children of Hinnom," a deep and narrow ravine, with steep, rocky sides, to the south and west of Jerusalem, separating Mount Zion to the north from the "hill of evil counsel," and the sloping rocky plateau of the "plain of Rephaim" to the south. The earliest mention of the valley of Hinnom is in (Joshua 15:8; 18:16) where the boundary line between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin is described as passing along the bed of the ravine. On the southern brow, overlooking the valley at its eastern extremity Solomon erected high places for Molech, (1 Kings 11:7) whose horrid rites were revived from time to time in the same vicinity the later idolatrous kings. Ahaz and Manasseh made their children "pass through the fire" in this valley, (2 Kings 16:3; 2 Chronicles 28:3; 33:6) and the fiendish custom of infant sacrifice to the fire-gods seems to have been kept up in Tophet, which was another name for this place. To put an end to these abominations the place was polluted by Josiah, who renders it ceremonially unclean by spreading over it human bones and other corruptions, (2 Kings 23:10,13,14; 2 Chronicles 34:4,5) from which time it appears to have become the common cesspool of the city, into which sewage was conducted, to be carried off by the waters of the Kidron. From its ceremonial defilement, and from the detested and abominable fire of Molech, if not from the supposed ever-burning funeral piles, the later Jews applied the name of this valley --Ge Hinnom, Gehenna (land of Hinnom)--to denote the place of eternal torment. In this sense the word is used by our Lord. (Matthew 5:29; 10:28; 23:15; Mark 9:43; Luke 12:5)

It seems to me Jesus used Gehenna in the same way Peter used tartarus (greek mythology). Though Gehenna was a real place used for burning garbage it had earlier been used for pagan religious reasons. In Jesus time it had come to denote the place of eternal torment (jewish mythology).

It appears as though in this dictionary, there is a mixing of Greek thinking imposed on what Yeshua spoke of. The thinking of the Jews who went into captivity did later involve into incorporating such ideas as belonging for Zorastrianism, for example. I personally reject such thoughts, even though we can see some of them reflected in later Jewish writings. If we simply stick to the historical accounting of the valley of the sons of Hinnom, I see that place used by Yeshua to describe a judgment of his people, (to die and not be properly buried was a very shameful thing) and having nothing to do with any idea of torment that never ended.

[Tom]

Amen, brother.

[Tom]

Smith's Bible Dictionary
Hinnom
(lamentation), Valley of, otherwise called "the valley of the son" or "children of Hinnom," a deep and narrow ravine, with steep, rocky sides, to the south and west of Jerusalem, separating Mount Zion to the north from the "hill of evil counsel," and the sloping rocky plateau of the "plain of Rephaim" to the south. The earliest mention of the valley of Hinnom is in (Joshua 15:8; 18:16) where the boundary line between the tribes of Judah and Benjamin is described as passing along the bed of the ravine. On the southern brow, overlooking the valley at its eastern extremity Solomon erected high places for Molech, (1 Kings 11:7) whose horrid rites were revived from time to time in the same vicinity the later idolatrous kings. Ahaz and Manasseh made their children "pass through the fire" in this valley, (2 Kings 16:3; 2 Chronicles 28:3; 33:6) and the fiendish custom of infant sacrifice to the fire-gods seems to have been kept up in Tophet, which was another name for this place. To put an end to these abominations the place was polluted by Josiah, who renders it ceremonially unclean by spreading over it human bones and other corruptions, (2 Kings 23:10,13,14; 2 Chronicles 34:4,5) from which time it appears to have become the common cesspool of the city, into which sewage was conducted, to be carried off by the waters of the Kidron. From its ceremonial defilement, and from the detested and abominable fire of Molech, if not from the supposed ever-burning funeral piles, the later Jews applied the name of this valley --Ge Hinnom, Gehenna (land of Hinnom)--to denote the place of eternal torment. In this sense the word is used by our Lord. (Matthew 5:29; 10:28; 23:15; Mark 9:43; Luke 12:5)

It seems to me Jesus used Gehenna in the same way Peter used tartarus (greek mythology). Though Gehenna was a real place used for burning garbage it had earlier been used for pagan religious reasons. In Jesus time it had come to denote the place of eternal torment (jewish mythology).

I agree with all the history of Gehenna that I have also read in other places, but, when he gets to his conclusion of it being later considered "the place of eternal torment" by the Jews, I think that is bogus church theology. I have said before, and I agree with what Ronen said, that Gehenna was considered by the Jews to be a dishonorable way to have their bodies disposed of by being burned with the city garbage of Jerusalem rather than getting a proper burial. I'm not a student of Semitic language or custom, but what I've read in the Hebrew and Greek scriptures indicates to me that death is the result of sin not "eternal torment." That is false doctrine from Rome used to control people with fear and is only associated with scripture due to forgery in translation perpetrated to deceive those who read the adulterated versions.

[Tom]

Yes, I believe that any Greek speaking person reading from the Greek would separate the mythical aspects given to those words and stick with the base meaning of each. I was only pointing out what I did for the benefit of any reading who might look up Tartarus and mistakenly come away thinking that the myth associated with it had any connection with the reality of the semitic thoughtform of the writer Peter.

I seriously doubt that a Greek person speaking Greek would separate out the mythology. I think the effect is the opposite and history has proved that out.

The whole doctrine of eternal torment in "Hades" for instance, is out of the  Greek AND ROMAN mythologies. Inferno was the Roman Hades in the Latin Vulgate. The word Hell wasnt used until the 14/1500s. The Latin Vulgate was the reigning version among Catholics for a millenia. The people did not have the scriptures at all. Thats why the Reformation was concurrent with the advent of the printing press.

ET doctrine has its origins in Greek and Roman myths, and the translations, using those mythological names, were done that way on purpose(imo) to promote those false doctrines of the reigning orthodoxies of the time. Same thing with the King James Version. It was eternal torment in Hades(Greek) but also
the doctrine was eternal torment in Inferno(Latin for Hades).

I don't think the authors of the Greek scriptures were teaching Greek mythology. Being an English speaking person who is familiar with the English word "embers," which the King James Version has translated "coals," and you've probably barbecued with "embers," do you think it would be a good idea to dump those "embers" on the heads of folks who are enjoying your barbecue?

"If your enemy should be hungering, give him the morsel; if he should be thirsting, give him to drink, for in doing this you will be heaping embers of fire on his head." (Romans 12:20)

I heard a story about some missionaries who had to prevent some natives from doing that because they had interpreted those words of our language literally. That might seem strange to us, but that's because we have a different understanding of our language than those folks did. I think language can be either literal or figurative, and it's up to us to interpret it even if it contains certain mythological aspects. Maybe the example I gave isn't the best one, but I think the point is that maybe "hades" and "tartaroo" were used to help Greek speaking folks understand the afterlife and the bondage of darkness for some spirits. Paul didn't use either word in his writings, but he did warn against "myths," which the King James Version translates as "fables" (1 Timothy 1:4,4:7; 2 Timothy 4:4; Titus 1:14). I think the idea that "Gehenna," the city dump of Jerusalem, will be used for "eternal torment" is a dark comedy/English myth about dead folks being alive to be burned alive forever, thanks to those folks responsible for forgery in the translation of scripture, and the only "torment" would be if they didn't keep the fire burning because then the rotting corpses and garbage would stink up the city really bad. I read that the idea of the common misconception of "hell" goes back even beyond "Greek and Roman myths," as you say, to Egypt, but I think the intentional confusion of "Gehenna" with "hell" in the popular English versions of scripture is thanks to the twelve places it is done in the King James Version (Matthew 5:22,29,30, 10:28, 18:9, 23:15,33; Mark 9:43,45,47; Luke 12:5; James 3:6). I know some folks prefer to think of "Gehenna" figuratively, but I think it is exactly what I think Jews thought it was when they heard about it and knew its history and Isaiah's prophecy.

"And it will come to be, as often as the new moon comes in its monthly time, And as often as the sabbath comes in its sabbath cycle, All flesh shall come to worship before Me, says Yahweh. And they will go forth and see the corpses of the mortals who transgressed against Me, For their worm shall not die, And their fire shall not be quenched, And they will become a repulsion to all flesh." (Isaiah 66:23,24)

I know that some folks think somehow dead folks will be alive to be "tormented" in "the Gehenna of fire" or for "chastening" in "the second death-the lake of fire," but I prefer to think about death like I think it is described in scripture.

"The living know that they shall die, But the dead know nothing whatsoever." (Ecclesiastes 9:5)

I realize we have varying perspectives on this site, and I'm not trying to condemn anybody else's. I'm just sharing my humble opinion. 

[eaglesway]

I think don't think the Greek translators were teaching mythology. I think they were subject to Greek philosophy and culture and it came through their theology into the translation. But really, the Latin mythology is the most potent one in regards to contemporary "hell" and eternal torment.

Hades was a place of darkness.

Inferno was a place of active torments and flames of agony.


We look to the Greek translations because we feel that we can gain an insight passing through the prejudices and errors of the KJV. We don't pay much attention to the Latin Vulgate, because most of us have protestant backgrounds, but most of the pervasive theology of today may have been Greek in origin- but it was LATIN in development and enforcement upon the world.

Thats why i teach that we have to reach back into Hebrew thought in order to pass through the prejudices and errors of the Greeks, and even moreso, the Romans, because while the prevailing common language of translation may be Greek, the prevailing theology is Roman/Latin.

The Vulgate is a late fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible that became, during the 16th century, the Catholic Church's officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible.
The translation was largely the work of St. Jerome, who, in 382, was commissioned by Pope Damasus I to revise the Vetus Latina ("Old Latin") collection of Biblical texts in Latin then in use by the Church. Once published, it was widely adopted and eventually eclipsed the Vetus Latina and, by the 13th century, was known as the "versio vulgata" (the "version commonly-used") or, more simply, in Latin as vulgata or in Greek as βουλγάτα ("Vulgate").
It was made the Catholic Church's official Latin Bible as a consequence of the Council of Trent

[Tom]

I agree. I think Rome ruined Christianity by filtering everything through its doctrine to the point that it is so distorted that I think Paul would be amazed to see what's up. He'd probably pick up where he left off in Galatians, start ranting some more, and toss another anathema at the church.

[micah7:9]

Don't we all on this forum know what seems to be a reproving of what we all have learned to be truths? I mean is there anyone here, with all the debate of proof, that can change the mind of all those who don't know and are are not here on the forum to hear and read? If I am out of line, I am sorry.  :HeartThrob:

As for "Heaven yes," I have not found much about heaven in my Bible. Other than the same source that gives us information about hell, which we know is not, what does your Bible tell you...you... as you read about heaven? I am just asking. :HeartThrob:

[Tom]

"The first man was out of the earth, soilish; the second Man is the Lord out of heaven." (1 Corinthians 15:47)

[eaglesway]

John 6:51

51 I am the living bread that came down out of heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread also which I will give for the life of the world is My flesh."

[Lazarus Short]

Don't we all on this forum know what seems to be a reproving of what we all have learned to be truths? I mean is there anyone here, with all the debate of proof, that can change the mind of all those who don't know and are are not here on the forum to hear and read? If I am out of line, I am sorry.  :HeartThrob:

As for "Heaven yes," I have not found much about heaven in my Bible. Other than the same source that gives us information about hell, which we know is not, what does your Bible tell you...you... as you read about heaven? I am just asking. :HeartThrob:

Micah, if you are referring to the usual harp-on-a-cloud Heaven, then no, there is not much about that in the Bible.

[joeteekay]

I agree. I think Rome ruined Christianity by filtering everything through its doctrine to the point that it is so distorted that I think Paul would be amazed to see what's up. He'd probably pick up where he left off in Galatians, start ranting some more, and toss another anathema at the church.

Perhaps Rome ruined Christianity. But I would suggest that it was pre-destined to be that way. It was necessary for God's purpose to be served. Paul said all that needed to be said for the completion of the scriptures to this point in time IMO, but I do understand where you are coming from in saying that.

:2c: