Is Hell the same as the Lake of Fire?

[Johnv]

Originally posted by James Newman:
The NIV translates both gehenna and hades as hell in places, does it not? As for sheol, I can show you fire there as well in Deuteronomy 32:22. So are all these places the lake of fire?

Hades and Sheol are synonymous. Hades is the Greek word for Sheol. Hades is not found in the Hebrew OT, and Sheol is not found in the Greek NT.

The NIV translates the word "Hades" with as "Hades" or "the depths", depending on the context of the verse. In Luke 16:23, it is translated "hell" with a lowercase "H", and contains the footnote saying "Hades".

Revelation 20:14 says "death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire". This is a correct interpretation, since the prior verse reads "The sea gave up the dead that were in it".

 

[James_Newman]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Plain ol' Ralph:
What's wrong, Scott J, you can't discern between the soul and the body?

Yes I can.

Did you intend to be offensive for no reason?

The soul is eternal, this body of flesh returns to whence it came, the dust, but when the L of F is concerned, we then are speaking of that eternal body being joined with the soul of men and suffering eternal torment.

This is basically what I suggested earlier.

One of the phrases I hear alot, "You'll burn for all eternity in hell" Just is not true, for at the Great White Throne, one will be "given up" from the torment of hell to be judged for what they've done in their body,

I agree. They will be given up from "Hades" according to Rev.

Our discussion has basically been about drawing a distinction between Hades and Gehenna. I am saying that there is a clear distinction. I think James is questioning that.

thus determining their "level" of torment.

Do you have scripture references for this? I am not disagreeing and have heard it many times before. Just interested in the biblical proof that some will suffer more than others.

Golly, if one would only stick to their KJB they wouldn't have all these silly questions.

Actually the MV's help clarify the situation while the KJV clouds it. The MV's show the two words as two words, just like God inspired them. The KJV shows them as one word, contrary to the way God inspired them. </font>[/QUOTE]I appreciate your zeal there ralph, but Scott doesn't deserve that any more than you do.

You are correct, Scott. I intend to show that the lake of fire is not gehenna. Not being a greek scholar, I am relying on a little help from you guys to help me do it

I do see that there may be some distinction between hades and gehenna, although I don't think that is evidenced simply from the fact that the words are different. The KJV translators obviously thought they were interchangeable enough to warrant translating them both into hell, as well as sheol in the old testament. But there is definitely a difference between hell and the lake of fire. I think that rendering the word hades in the new versions blurs the distinction between hell and the lake of fire, and induces the interpretation that gehenna IS the lake of fire without any scriptural support for this assumption.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by James Newman:

I do see that there may be some distinction between hades and gehenna, although I don't think that is evidenced simply from the fact that the words are different. The KJV translators obviously thought they were interchangeable enough to warrant translating them both into hell, as well as sheol in the old testament.

Yes and no.

Yes they must have thought them interchangeable and I am not familiar with their theology on this matter. It could have been a particular bias or interpretation that there was no difference.

I am still more comfortable when translations consistently draw distinctions where God did... even if the words mean the same thing.

I would be interested to know if the Latin Vulgate uses one word or two. The LV is sometimes an indirect origin for KJV choices. Wycliffe's Bible was translated from the Vulgate. The KJV translators borrowed from earlier versions including the Wycliffe.

No. Sheol is not always hell in the OT. It sometimes means and is translated "grave".

But there is definitely a difference between hell and the lake of fire.

There is definitely a difference between "Hades" as translated hell in Rev 20.

I think that rendering the word hades in the new versions blurs the distinction between hell and the lake of fire,

How so? At worst, you still have Hades being a different place than the Lake of Fire with Gehenna being one or the other- but not both.

and induces the interpretation that gehenna IS the lake of fire without any scriptural support for this assumption.

It doesn't "induce" an interpretation. The words are simply left in a transliteration of the words that God Himself used... two different words.

If any version "induces" an interpretation, it is the KJV that assumes without scriptural support that that Gehenna and Hades are the same place.

The bottom line is that God drew a distinction that the KJV translators obscured.

 

[James_Newman]

Perhaps they ignored the distinction, or perhaps it was understood at that time that the words were interchangeable. Thats what I'm trying to determine here. There is a point to this

Scripture warns us as christians of gehenna in the greek, translated hell in the KJV. The problem with this is, it either means one of two things. It means that A)a christian who sins can be punished, but still be saved on the last day from the lake of fire, or B)a christian who sins loses his salvation and is cast into the lake of fire. Since most Christians do not make a distinction between hell and the lake of fire, even though the KJV does make this distinction clear, I would like to get to the root of the issue by showing definitively whether gehenna refers to the lake of fire or not. If it refers to the common abode of the dead, then hell is a perfectly acceptable translation for it, IMO. If it refers to the lake of fire, then theres something wrong with the KJV. Can you help me out?

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by James Newman:
Perhaps they ignored the distinction, or perhaps it was understood at that time that the words were interchangeable.

God used different words. That's really good enough for me to categorically state that using two words is more accurate than using only one. I don't know how you could argue with this fact no matter how you interpret the rest.

Scripture warns us as christians of gehenna in the greek, translated hell in the KJV.

Can you cite these passages? I am not satisfied that either of your options is biblically consistent so there might be others.

"A" suggest a place like purgatory. "B" contradicts scriptures concerning a believer's security in Christ.

Since most Christians do not make a distinction between hell and the lake of fire,

I have never ran across anyone who didn't make this distinction. To deny a distinction between Hades and the Lake of Fire in Rev 20 would be a strain at best.

even though the KJV does make this distinction clear,

So do versions that use Hades there.

I would like to get to the root of the issue by showing definitively whether gehenna refers to the lake of fire or not.

We have given some evidence that it does. You may not be able to have a definitive answer. Some things by God's providence are left to the uncertainty of human interpretation.

If it refers to the lake of fire, then theres something wrong with the KJV. Can you help me out?

Either way there is an inconsistency in the KJV. God used two words. Two words should be used in English translations if possible... and it is possible in this case.

 

[James_Newman]

where is gehenna located?

 

[Ziggy]

ScottJ: “I would be interested to know if the Latin Vulgate uses one word or two”

Clementine Vulgate uses (with differing case endings) “gehenna” 12x, “infernum” 9x. There might be more, but this was from a quick electronic scan.

 

[rsr]

The Vulgate consistently renders both "Hades" and "Sheol" as "inferno" or a related word and retains "Gehenna" or one of its variants. (There are a very few exceptions.)

 

[robycop3]

The Hebrew says sheol...the Greek says hades, tartarus, gehenna. The KJV blurs these distinctions by calling'em all HELL.

Where is gehenna? Wherever God placed it. Some say it's in the center of earth. But it could be as close as THE NEXT DIMENSION. I mean, God has ALL INFINITY to choose from.

As for the false doctrine of Annihilationism, the theory that the wicked are COMPLETELY DESTROYED in gehenna...this was started over the interpretation of the Greek 'aionios aionios' generally rendered "for ever and ever" in most English Bibles. The Annihilationists claim that since aionious means "ages", and ages are definite periods, that gehenna isn't eternal, that certain witnesses use this 'tale' to frighten people into accepting Christ. However, other Scriptures show it IS eternal! Repeatedly, Scripture speaks of the flames that are never quenched & the worm that never dies. Why would it matter whether the flames and worms perished or not if the wicked are simply destroyed? And why does Scripture say Satan is cast into the LOF where the antichrist and his false prophet ARE?

Yes, sheol, hades, tartarus, & gehenna are all different places.

 

[Scott J]

Yes, sheol, hades, tartarus, & gehenna are all different places.

All different? Please explain. Who do you think goes to each?

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Plain ol' Ralph:
What's wrong, Scott J, you can't discern between the soul and the body?

Yes I can.

Did you intend to be offensive for no reason?

The soul is eternal, this body of flesh returns to whence it came, the dust, but when the L of F is concerned, we then are speaking of that eternal body being joined with the soul of men and suffering eternal torment.

This is basically what I suggested earlier.

One of the phrases I hear alot, "You'll burn for all eternity in hell" Just is not true, for at the Great White Throne, one will be "given up" from the torment of hell to be judged for what they've done in their body,

I agree. They will be given up from "Hades" according to Rev.

Our discussion has basically been about drawing a distinction between Hades and Gehenna. I am saying that there is a clear distinction. I think James is questioning that.

thus determining their "level" of torment.

Do you have scripture references for this? I am not disagreeing and have heard it many times before. Just interested in the biblical proof that some will suffer more than others.

Golly, if one would only stick to their KJB they wouldn't have all these silly questions.

Actually the MV's help clarify the situation while the KJV clouds it. The MV's show the two words as two words, just like God inspired them. The KJV shows them as one word, contrary to the way God inspired them. </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sorry I did not discern your level of pride before i quoted you and i will refrain from dealing with you on your level any further.

I know the difference from the KJB, why don't you? Are you confused by the multiple versions coupled with your understanding of the Greek? I'm not.

Suggestion: Learn what the Lord has to say, by reading the KJB, and praying for the Lord to give you knowledge, and you WON'T stay confused!

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Originally posted by James Newman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Plain ol' Ralph:
What's wrong, Scott J, you can't discern between the soul and the body?

Yes I can.

Did you intend to be offensive for no reason?

The soul is eternal, this body of flesh returns to whence it came, the dust, but when the L of F is concerned, we then are speaking of that eternal body being joined with the soul of men and suffering eternal torment.

This is basically what I suggested earlier.

One of the phrases I hear alot, "You'll burn for all eternity in hell" Just is not true, for at the Great White Throne, one will be "given up" from the torment of hell to be judged for what they've done in their body,

I agree. They will be given up from "Hades" according to Rev.

Our discussion has basically been about drawing a distinction between Hades and Gehenna. I am saying that there is a clear distinction. I think James is questioning that.

thus determining their "level" of torment.

Do you have scripture references for this? I am not disagreeing and have heard it many times before. Just interested in the biblical proof that some will suffer more than others.

Golly, if one would only stick to their KJB they wouldn't have all these silly questions.

Actually the MV's help clarify the situation while the KJV clouds it. The MV's show the two words as two words, just like God inspired them. The KJV shows them as one word, contrary to the way God inspired them. </font>[/QUOTE]I appreciate your zeal there ralph, but Scott doesn't deserve that any more than you do.

You are correct, Scott. I intend to show that the lake of fire is not gehenna. Not being a greek scholar, I am relying on a little help from you guys to help me do it

I do see that there may be some distinction between hades and gehenna, although I don't think that is evidenced simply from the fact that the words are different. The KJV translators obviously thought they were interchangeable enough to warrant translating them both into hell, as well as sheol in the old testament. But there is definitely a difference between hell and the lake of fire. I think that rendering the word hades in the new versions blurs the distinction between hell and the lake of fire, and induces the interpretation that gehenna IS the lake of fire without any scriptural support for this assumption. </font>[/QUOTE]Uh, "deserve" what?

Is it the norm for the ranks here to consistently write something into another's post that is at best presumed? Yes, let me answer that for you.

Yall are FAMOUS for that behaviour, but you too can changed, repentence is NEVER a bad thing, ask God about that one, OK?

 

[James_Newman]

Originally posted by Plain ol' Ralph:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by James Newman:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Plain ol' Ralph:
What's wrong, Scott J, you can't discern between the soul and the body?

Yes I can.

Did you intend to be offensive for no reason?

The soul is eternal, this body of flesh returns to whence it came, the dust, but when the L of F is concerned, we then are speaking of that eternal body being joined with the soul of men and suffering eternal torment.

This is basically what I suggested earlier.

One of the phrases I hear alot, "You'll burn for all eternity in hell" Just is not true, for at the Great White Throne, one will be "given up" from the torment of hell to be judged for what they've done in their body,

I agree. They will be given up from "Hades" according to Rev.

Our discussion has basically been about drawing a distinction between Hades and Gehenna. I am saying that there is a clear distinction. I think James is questioning that.

thus determining their "level" of torment.

Do you have scripture references for this? I am not disagreeing and have heard it many times before. Just interested in the biblical proof that some will suffer more than others.

Golly, if one would only stick to their KJB they wouldn't have all these silly questions.

Actually the MV's help clarify the situation while the KJV clouds it. The MV's show the two words as two words, just like God inspired them. The KJV shows them as one word, contrary to the way God inspired them. </font>[/QUOTE]I appreciate your zeal there ralph, but Scott doesn't deserve that any more than you do.

You are correct, Scott. I intend to show that the lake of fire is not gehenna. Not being a greek scholar, I am relying on a little help from you guys to help me do it

I do see that there may be some distinction between hades and gehenna, although I don't think that is evidenced simply from the fact that the words are different. The KJV translators obviously thought they were interchangeable enough to warrant translating them both into hell, as well as sheol in the old testament. But there is definitely a difference between hell and the lake of fire. I think that rendering the word hades in the new versions blurs the distinction between hell and the lake of fire, and induces the interpretation that gehenna IS the lake of fire without any scriptural support for this assumption. </font>[/QUOTE]Uh, "deserve" what?

Is it the norm for the ranks here to consistently write something into another's post that is at best presumed? Yes, let me answer that for you.

Yall are FAMOUS for that behaviour, but you too can changed, repentence is NEVER a bad thing, ask God about that one, OK? </font>[/QUOTE]I apologize if I read anything into your post brother. I think though that scott is one of the more reasonable people I have discussed anything with on this board.

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

I think rather he is practiced in the art of arguementation, taking the side-winder approach in his attempt to denigrate those whom he disagrees.

 

[Plain ol' Ralph]

Think nothing further of it Brother Newman, I take none offence, even at the best of them, but i do have my wit.

 

[James_Newman]

Originally posted by robycop3:
The Hebrew says sheol...the Greek says hades, tartarus, gehenna. The KJV blurs these distinctions by calling'em all HELL.

Where is gehenna? Wherever God placed it. Some say it's in the center of earth. But it could be as close as THE NEXT DIMENSION. I mean, God has ALL INFINITY to choose from.

As for the false doctrine of Annihilationism, the theory that the wicked are COMPLETELY DESTROYED in gehenna...this was started over the interpretation of the Greek 'aionios aionios' generally rendered "for ever and ever" in most English Bibles. The Annihilationists claim that since aionious means "ages", and ages are definite periods, that gehenna isn't eternal, that certain witnesses use this 'tale' to frighten people into accepting Christ. However, other Scriptures show it IS eternal! Repeatedly, Scripture speaks of the flames that are never quenched & the worm that never dies. Why would it matter whether the flames and worms perished or not if the wicked are simply destroyed? And why does Scripture say Satan is cast into the LOF where the antichrist and his false prophet ARE?

Yes, sheol, hades, tartarus, & gehenna are all different places.

Are you sure you are not reading into this the interpretation you want to believe? If the flames are never quenched, that does not imply that they are eternal in the infinite sense.

quench ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kwnch)
tr.v. quenched, quench·ing, quench·es
To put out (a fire, for example); extinguish.
To suppress; squelch: The disapproval of my colleagues quenched my enthusiasm for the plan.
To put an end to; destroy.
To slake; satisfy: Mineral water quenched our thirst.
To cool (hot metal) by thrusting into water or other liquid.

No one would claim that they could put out the fires of hell. A fire that is not quenched may nevertheless burn itself out.

Jeremiah 17
27 But if ye will not hearken unto me to hallow the sabbath day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day; then will I kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenched.

Antichrist and the false prophet are cast into the lake of fire before the 1000 yrs. Satan is bound in hell for the 1000 yrs, until he is loosed for a season, then he is cast into the lake of fire as well. They will remain there for all eternity. Thats not in question. That gehenna is the lake of fire is what I question.

 

[James_Newman]

Originally posted by Scott J:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Scripture warns us as christians of gehenna in the greek, translated hell in the KJV.

Can you cite these passages? I am not satisfied that either of your options is biblically consistent so there might be others.

"A" suggest a place like purgatory. "B" contradicts scriptures concerning a believer's security in Christ.

Since most Christians do not make a distinction between hell and the lake of fire,

I have never ran across anyone who didn't make this distinction. To deny a distinction between Hades and the Lake of Fire in Rev 20 would be a strain at best. </font>[/QUOTE]Sorry I never did answer this question for you brother...

38 And John answered him, saying, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us: and we forbad him, because he followeth not us.
39 But Jesus said, Forbid him not: for there is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me.
40 For he that is not against us is on our part.
41 For whosoever shall give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because ye belong to Christ, verily I say unto you, he shall not lose his reward.
42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.
43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Jesus is speaking to John here. John is a Christian. John is warned of going to hell (gehenna). Even the NIV translates this as hell.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by Plain ol' Ralph:
I'm sorry I did not discern your level of pride before i quoted you and i will refrain from dealing with you on your level any further.

What is this supposed to mean? My pride?

Go ahead and tell me that you would not consider it offensive if someone start a comment "What's wrong, POR, you can't discern..." then went on to query a very basic fundamental doctrine?

Please show how my asking whether you were trying to be offensive is showing my "pride". If you weren't trying to be offensive, you could have simply answered "no" and I would have accepted it.

My level? Please do deal with me on my level.

As far as I know, I have dealt with you without resorting to insulting your intelligence and/or basic biblical knowledge- directly or by innuendo. I have given my honest opinions, backed them with evidence, and acknowledged (not necessarily to you personally) when I have been shown an error in one of my statements.

I know the difference from the KJB, why don't you?

Really? You know the difference between hell when it translates the word Gehenna and hell when it translates the word Hades without any other outside sources? How do you manage that?

Are you confused by the multiple versions coupled with your understanding of the Greek?

Nope. I have understood and applied the scripture much better since I stopped being limited by the KJVO belief.

Suggestion: Learn what the Lord has to say, by reading the KJB, and praying for the Lord to give you knowledge, and you WON'T stay confused!

Are you saying that if the KJV translators used one word to translate two Greek words all someone has to do is pray for knowledge and God will reveal a difference?

BTW, I am not confused because of MV's. I am learning something that was obscured in the KJV but that God revealed in the originals by comparing scripture to scripture. If the characteristics of Gehenna are more a reflection of the Lake of Fire than of Hades then I am satisfied. If Gehenna is equal to Hades and the Lake of Fire is different then I am satisfied.

Whether you like it or not, God used two words and He did so for a reason. It could be simply two words for the same place as the KJV translators apparently thought- Perhaps one word was more meaningful to the Jews while the other was more meaningful to the Gentiles. Or, it could be two words for two places.

The bottom line is that neither possibility given by God in the original is obscured by a version that uses two different words. One possibility is obscured by the KJV.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by James Newman:

Jesus is speaking to John here. John is a Christian. John is warned of going to hell (gehenna). Even the NIV translates this as hell.

Thanks.

Was John a Christian at this point? I don't think so. Jesus had not yet died for his sins.

I also think this has to with people who allow something to prevent them from following Christ rather than a suggestion that one who belongs to Him would go to hell.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by James Newman:
I apologize if I read anything into your post brother. I think though that scott is one of the more reasonable people I have discussed anything with on this board.

I have been guilty of being abrasive but I am trying to work on it. It is difficult sometimes to be direct but not cutting.

Its easier to be reasonable when someone actually attempts to reason with you. I do get a little frustrated when people repeat the same old stuff but refuse to back up their claims. I also consider double standards a breach of biblical principle and a sin.