Jesus Died and Went To Hell?

[RoleTroll]

Did Jesus go to Hell after he died?

http://www.jesuscafe.org/resources/scripturesquad/archive_0025.html

"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Mat. 12:40 (KJV)

http://www.apologeticspress.org/bibbul/2002/bb-02-50.htm

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by Ravdon:
Did Jesus go to Hell after he died?

No. He went to Sheol, which, in Jewish custom, is the place of the dead (aka, the place where dead souls resided). All Jews who died were believed to go to Sheol (Jesus was a Jew). In the CHristian thought, the idea is that he went to Sheol to gather the souls who were there, and then later took them to Heaven to be with the Father.

In English translations, the word "Sheol" is often translated "hell". It is not the same as our understanding of Hell (where Satan traditionally resides).

 

[Tim]

Ephesians 4:9-10 Now this, "He ascended," what is it but that he also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.

 

[Ben W]

1Peter 3:18-19 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but made alive by the Spirit, by whom He also went and preached to the spirits in prision".

 

[Pastor KevinR]

Jesus went to "Sheol". Luke 16 describes the two compartments of Sheol, where the rich man was tormented, and Lazarus comforted. Most Evangelicals believe that when Jesus was in "The belly of the earth" He was here, and when He ascended, as Eph 4:8-10 says, He took the Paradise "compartment" to the Third Heaven. see also 2 Cor 12:1-4 where the Third Heaven and Paradise are identified as one and the same.

 

[Ransom]

Ravdon said:

"For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Mat. 12:40 (KJV)

In other words, Jesus predicted that he would die, be buried, and - this is the important bit - rise from the dead on the third day.

 

[superdave]

The passages in I Peter and Ephesians pretty clearly indicate the Jesus did spend the time while his body was in the grave, in the place where the souls of those who died during the OT were residing. Sheol being also called paradise. And it does seem that he spoke both to those who were OT saints and those who died without redemption.

The passage about him "leading captivity captive" is also used to describe him taking the souls of the OT saints to heaven at his ascension. There was another thread discussing this recently.

Why is it important that he descended?

Ephesians 4:9-10 Now this, "He ascended," what is it but that he also first descended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is the one who also ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things.

He was demonstrating his authority over all realms, he went from the realm below the earth, he had already been on the Earth, and ascended to Heaven.

 

[rbrent]

Yes, Jesus DID go to hell after he died.

NO, Jesus didn't go to a nice, "air-conditioned" place called Sheol.



"He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell,neither his flesh did see corruption." - Acts 2:31

 

[Charles Meadows]

Remember that Sheol and the idea of "afterlife" is described differently in different sections of the OT. Jews really began to develop the theology of afterlife in postexilic times - making it hard to compare the idea of sheol here with that described in Psalms or Ecclesiates

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by rbrent:
Yes, Jesus DID go to hell after he died.

NO, Jesus didn't go to a nice, "air-conditioned" place called Sheol.



"He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell,neither his flesh did see corruption." - Acts 2:31

Sorry, you're flat wrong. The Greek word in Acts 2:31 (translated Hell) is Hades, which is the place of departed souls. Hades is the Greek word equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol. It is not "hell", as in the opposite of Heaven.

 

[Pastor KevinR]

Oops! what was I thinking? In my previous post, which I attempted to edit but could not since too much time has elasped, in Luke 16 it is "Hades" instead of the OT counterpart, "Sheol"...but for sure it is not "Gehenna" where Jesus went, described where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched, the everlasting fire, etc

 

[rbrent]

So now Johnv,

I am on the horns of a dilemma. I must choose to believe

your 'opinion' of Acts 2:31 (that it says 'hell' in my KJV but it doesn't mean 'hell'),

OR, I must choose to believe my King James Bible.

Hmmmmmm...I wonder which I should believe?

This is SUCH a Hard choice...

The "hell" Jesus described in Luke 16:19-28 had

"torments" and "flame" and the rich man,

who was there (I presume you've never been there), described it as:

"this place of torment".

But maybe Jesus was only giving a parable and maybe the flames were only allegorical...

And maybe a more correct rendering would be 'hades' but if we translate it 'hades', would that mean there are no flames there?

The Jehovah's Witnesses feel that hell shouldn't be in their bible either so they have 'hades' in both passages.

Okay, I'll cross out 'hell' and write 'hades' in the margins of Luke 16 and Acts 2.

Will you allow me to keep the 'flames' and the 'torment' or must I cross that out also?

If I keep crossing out words, pretty soon, I'll have an NIV (64,000 fewer words than my KJV) and it won't cost me a dime...

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by rbrent:
So now Johnv, I am on the horns of a dilemma. I must choose to believe your 'opinion' of Acts 2:31 (that it says 'hell' in my KJV but it doesn't mean 'hell'),

I wasn't stating an opinion. I was stating fact.

OR, I must choose to believe my King James Bible. Hmmmmmm...I wonder which I should believe? This is SUCH a Hard choice...

If you believe that the KJV has authority over the source texts from which it came, then you'd have to believe the KJV. Of course, if you believed that, you'd be quilty of idolatrous versionism (or, as I put it, versionolatry).

The "hell" Jesus described in Luke 16:19-28 had "torments" and "flame" and the rich man, who was there (I presume you've never been there), described it as: "this place of torment".

But maybe Jesus was only giving a parable and maybe the flames were only allegorical...

No maybe about it. It's a parable, not an actual event. The torment was used to describe the difference between being in Abraham's bosom, and being apart from Abraham's bosom.

And maybe a more correct rendering would be 'hades' but if we translate it 'hades', would that mean there are no flames there?

Like I said, the comparison in the parable was allegorical. And the allegory was in reference to Abraham's bosom.

The Jehovah's Witnesses feel that hell shouldn't be in their bible either so they have 'hades' in both passages.

Like another poster on this board frequently says, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Okay, I'll cross out 'hell' and write 'hades' in the margins of Luke 16 and Acts 2. Will you allow me to keep the 'flames' and the 'torment' or must I cross that out also?

The word "flames" and "torment" are correctly translated. "Hell" was not. Had you been cognisent to look them up for yourselves, you'd have known that already, instead of shooting off a smart-mouth reply.

If I keep crossing out words, pretty soon, I'll have an NIV (64,000 fewer words than my KJV) and it won't cost me a dime...

Comparing a version to another version is, frankly, idiotic and moronic. Comparing a version to the source text, however, is beneficial. It appears, however, that you refuse to lift a finger to do that (although you'll happily lift a finger to compare it to another version). How sad.

 

[rbrent]

Johnv says - “Sorry, you're flat wrong. The Greek word in Acts 2:31 (translated Hell) is Hades , which is the place of departed souls . Hades is the Greek word equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol. It is not "hell", as in the opposite of Heaven.”

So “hades” is the Greek word equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol - then “hades is a Greek word?

I thought the purpose of 'translating' the scriptures from Greek to English was to make the Greek scriptures accessible to English speaking people.

(1)Why do you insist on leaving “hades” - a Greek word, untranslated?

(2) Do you prefer transliteration instead of translation?

(3) What’s the point of attacking the KJV when it translates “hades” as “hell” ?

Johnv says - “It's a parable, not an actual event. The torment was used to describe the difference between being in Abraham's bosom, and being apart from Abraham's bosom...Like I said, the comparison in the parable was allegorical. And the allegory was in reference to Abraham's bosom. ”

(4) So, “hell” - er, pardon me, “hades” doesn’t have any real fire in it because its allegorical?

(5) Is the real fire in “gehenna” then and not in “hades” or is “gehenna fire” allegorical too?

Maybe I should start telling lost folks that if they die without being saved, they will “go to the gehenna garbage dump”.

(6) What about the “fire” in the “lake of fire” - Rev 20:14 - is that real or is that allegorical?

(5) Is the “lake of fire” itself real or would a better rendering be “Swan Lake” or “Lake Erie” or “the Great Salt Lake”?

Maybe I should warn lost folks that if they die without Christ, they will go to the “gehenna garbage dump” and the “gehenna garbage dump” will eventually be cast into “the Great Salt Lake...”

(6) Isn’t the real problem here that you simply don’t like what the KJV says and are therefore willing to engage in any amount of sophistry to refute what is so clear in the KJV?

I’m curious Johnv -

What do you actually believe about "hell" and "hades" and "gehenna" and "the lake of fire" and the eternal condition of the lost?

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by rbrent:
Why do you insist on leaving “hades” - a Greek word, untranslated?

I don't. I do, insist on accuracy of translation, and understanding of scriptural intent. Unfortunately, we don't have a word in contemporary English that translates to "place of the dead".

Do you prefer transliteration instead of translation?

I prefer understanding that the word in question referrs to the place where dead sould resided.

What’s the point of attacking the KJV when it translates “hades” as “hell” ?

I wasn't attacking the KJV. I was clarifying the position of some who insist that the word in question referrs to the eternal place of fire, brimstone, and Mr Toad.

So, “hell” - er, pardon me, “hades” doesn’t have any real fire in it because its allegorical?

In the instance referred to (Jesus decending to hell/hades), no. Because he wasn't going to Hell that we know. He was going to the OT place of the dead.

Is the real fire in “gehenna” then and not in “hades” or is “gehenna fire” allegorical too?

We haven't even discussed Gehenna (which is our understanding of Hell). It's a non-issue to the word at hand. Hades and Gehenna are two separate states. The mistake is when the word "hell" in English is intended to refer to both Hades and Gehenna as the same condition. THey are not.

Maybe I should start telling lost folks that if they die without being saved, they will “go to the gehenna garbage dump”.

Which has absolutely nothing to do wht the Hades discussion.

What about the “fire” in the “lake of fire” - Rev 20:14 - is that real or is that allegorical?

Jesus didn't go to the Lake of Fire. He went to Hades, the place of the dead. Hades and the Lake of Fire are two different states.

Is the “lake of fire” itself real or would a better rendering be “Swan Lake” or “Lake Erie” or “the Great Salt Lake”?

Stop being a smart allec.

Maybe I should warn lost folks that if they die without Christ, they will go to the “gehenna garbage dump” and the “gehenna garbage dump” will eventually be cast into “the Great Salt Lake...”

Maybe you could stick to the topic. That would be a change.

Isn’t the real problem here that you simply don’t like what the KJV says and are therefore willing to engage in any amount of sophistry to refute what is so clear in the KJV?

Lookie, bait and switch. I don't have a problem with the word. I have a problem with our misunderstanding of it. Jesus did not go to Gehenna, the Lake of Fire, or Boise. He went to Hades. If you understand that by reading the KJV in the chapter, then fine. If you misunderstand it to be the same as Gehenna, the Lake of Fire, etc, then you'd be wrong.

What do you actually believe about "hell" and "hades" and "gehenna" and "the lake of fire" and the eternal condition of the lost?

What does that have to do with the topic? Since when does clarification of a word definition give you the right to try to skewer someone's personal beliefs, especitally when those beliefs have not come into question?

 

[rbrent]

I'm not sure how to help you in your confusion Johnv.

You accept

Jewish custom,[that Sheol] is the place of the dead (aka, the place where dead souls resided)

and you accept the common folklore about "hell" -

our understanding of Hell (where Satan traditionally resides).

I don't recall ever reading a verse of scripture that indicates Satan resides in "Hell". That is something pictured in cartoons but I've never met a Bible believer who believes that Satan resides in "Hell".

(1) Do you believe that Satan resides in "hell"?

Sorry, you're flat wrong. The Greek word in Acts 2:31 (translated Hell) is Hades, which is the place of departed souls. Hades is the Greek word equivalent of the Hebrew Sheol. It is not "hell", as in the opposite of Heaven.

(2) If you read the passage in Luke 16:19-31, there are TWO places for departed souls.

(a) Abraham's bosum where the Old Testament saints go

(b) "hell" (hades) where the souls of the lost go at death.

(3) Hell/hades is the place of departed LOST souls. It is not the place of departed SAVED souls.

As far as I know from the scriptures, only Enoch and Elijah and Moses were in "heaven" at the point in time that Jesus relates the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

The contrast in the Luke 16 passage is between TWO places where dead souls resided, not between "hell" and "heaven".

I wasn't stating an opinion. I was stating fact...If you believe that the KJV has authority over the source texts from which it came, then you'd have to believe the KJV. Of course, if you believed that, you'd be quilty of idolatrous versionism (or, as I put it, versionolatry).

Your "facts" are:

(1) a reference to Jewish custom/folklore, as if that is authoritative.

(2) your contention/opinion that you are more knowledgeable than the learned men who translated the KJV and based on your superior knowledge of Jewish history and folklore and your in depth knowledge of koine Greek, you can not only correct the KJV in Luke 16:23 & Ac 2:31, you can also accuse men who disagree with you of "idolatrous versionism (or, as I put it, versionolatry)"

(3) your personal bias that interprets these verses as allegory takes the "fire" out of hell/hades.

Its perfectly fine if you want to believe that way but those who disagree with your allegorical interpretation and your reliance on Jewish custom as your authority are not idolatrous or worshipping a version when they disagree with you.

Comparing a version to another version is, frankly, idiotic and moronic.

Sometimes Johnv, you make it difficult to carry on a civilized discussion. There are many people who post to this forum, who compare the English versions verse by verse and decide they like one or another, after that comparison, because they believe one or another is closer to the Hebrew or Greek.

The point in mentioning the NIV having 64,000 fewer words than the KJV was just another way of pointing out that they come from different text families.

You may find that idiotic - I expect I am not alone in finding that comparing versions is completely normal. Indeed, many seminary graduates made comparing versions a large part of their Master's or Doctor's thesis.

Comparing a version to the source text, however, is beneficial.

I do, insist on accuracy of translation, and understanding of scriptural intent.

Your comparison of the KJV to the source text (unnamed) and your understanding of scriptural intent (arrived at by some yet to be revealed process) cause you to conclude that "hell" is an incorrect translation and "hades" or "place of the dead" would be better but no matter what we decide, none of these places has any genuine fire, only allegorical "fire".

I prefer understanding that the word in question referrs to the place where dead sould resided.

In the Luke 16 and the Acts 2 passages, using "hell" instead of "hades" or "sheol" or "place of the dead" does constitute a reference to the place where the dead souls reside.

Because he wasn't going to Hell that we know...

But as pointed out above, you are fighting a straw man here. No Bible believer believes that Satan or Mr. Toad are dwelling in hell right now...The fact of the matter is, the scriptures state that Jesus did go to hell.

You just are not comfortable with that.

I don't have a problem with the word. I have a problem with our misunderstanding of it. Jesus did not go to Gehenna, the Lake of Fire, or Boise. He went to Hades.

With all due respect Brother Johnv, your use of the phrase "our misunderstanding" mis-states the situation.
Your understanding is the problem. Many of us understand these passages with admirable clarity.

Since when does clarification of a word definition give you the right to try to skewer someone's personal beliefs, especitally when those beliefs have not come into question?

Nothing in my above posts "skewered" your personal beliefs. I simply asked you what you believe about the words and concepts we are discussing in this forum.

I believe you did some "skewering" of personal belief when you used the terms "idiotic" and "moronic".

I have not used those terms to refer to you or your beliefs.
I did use a bit of sarcasm to make a point about your denial of "hell" and "fire" in hell.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by rbrent:
You accept Jewish custom,[that Sheol] is the place of the dead (aka, the place where dead souls resided)

It's in the OT. So I accept it.

and you accept the common folklore about "hell" - our understanding of Hell (where Satan traditionally resides).

Notice, I said "traditionally". I was making a differrentiation between Hell and Sheol.

I don't recall ever reading a verse of scripture that indicates Satan resides in "Hell". That is something pictured in cartoons but I've never met a Bible believer who believes that Satan resides in "Hell".

Which is why I said "traditionally".

Do you believe that Satan resides in "hell"?

You're really getting off the point. Jesus did NOT descend into Hell, as we know it. He decended to hell, if you understand that to be Sheol.

If you read the passage in Luke 16:19-31, there are TWO places for departed souls...

Better yet, let's stick to the verses at hand.

As far as I know from the scriptures, only Enoch and Elijah and Moses were in "heaven" at the point in time that Jesus relates the story of the rich man and Lazarus.

Then why do you think "Abraham's bosom" is heaven? Why not "Elijah's bosom"? Elijah was just as revered. Anyhoo, that's a whole different topic altogether.

Your "facts" are: ... a reference to Jewish custom/folklore, as if that is authoritative.

It's in the OT as Sheol, and it's referenced in the NT as Hades. That makes it authoritative.

your contention/opinion that you are more knowledgeable than the learned men who translated the KJV and based on your superior knowledge of Jewish history and folklore and your in depth knowledge of koine Greek, you can not only correct the KJV in Luke 16:23 & Ac 2:31, you can also accuse men who disagree with you of "idolatrous versionism (or, as I put it, versionolatry)"

To be clear, I don't disagree with the KJV. I disagree that the term "hell" in the verse referrs to anything other than Hades/Sheol. Further, I don't accuse men who disagree with me as versionolaters. I accuse those who believe that any one version or translation has authority over any other, and/or over its source text to be versionolaters (whether it's the KJV, NIV, RSV, or any other).

your personal bias that interprets these verses as allegory takes the "fire" out of hell/hades.

I could easily ask you if you think Heaven "literally" has streets of gold, or if it's an allegory. Either way, it's irrelevant. Jesus died and went to Sheol. That's what the Bible says, period.

Its perfectly fine if you want to believe that way but those who disagree with your allegorical interpretation and your reliance on Jewish custom as your authority are not idolatrous or worshipping a version when they disagree with you.

Sometimes Johnv, you make it difficult to carry on a civilized discussion. There are many people who post to this forum, who compare the English versions verse by verse and decide they like one or another, after that comparison, because they believe one or another is closer to the Hebrew or Greek.

Comparing versions to decide on a preference is a far cry from comparing versions to assert authority of a version.

The point in mentioning the NIV having 64,000 fewer words than the KJV was just another way of pointing out that they come from different text families.

I believe you were attempting to imply that the NIV is subordinate to the KJV because it contains 64,000 fewer words. If that is not your position, then I apologize. But whether or not it is your position, the "version" discussion is way off topic.

Your comparison of the KJV to the source text (unnamed) and your understanding of scriptural intent (arrived at by some yet to be revealed process) cause you to conclude that "hell" is an incorrect translation and "hades" or "place of the dead" would be better but no matter what we decide, none of these places has any genuine fire, only allegorical "fire".

You love twisting around the word of what people say, don't you. The source text for the KJV is readily available in many Christians bookstores today. Many bibles have the KJV and the source texts printed next to one another. And I did not say "hell" is an incorrect translation. I said, hell, as we understand it, is an incorrect translation. Hell, as the KJV authors understood it, is probably not. As for the "genuine fire" arguement, you're again, twisting what I've said. I was referring to the previous post about the rich man and Lazarus. It was a parable, and parables are used as allegory.

But as pointed out above, you are fighting a straw man here. No Bible believer believes that Satan or Mr. Toad are dwelling in hell right now...The fact of the matter is, the scriptures state that Jesus did go to hell.

I was wondering how long it would take before you used the "straw man" cliche. The fact of the matter is, Jesus went to Sheol (which in Greek is hades, which the KJV translators translated as hell).

You just are not comfortable with that.

I'm comfortable understanding the Bible.

With all due respect Brother Johnv, your use of the phrase "our misunderstanding" mis-states the situation. Your understanding is the problem. Many of us understand these passages with admirable clarity.

Then you would understand that Jesus went to Sheol/Hades.

Nothing in my above posts "skewered" your personal beliefs. I simply asked you what you believe about the words and concepts we are discussing in this forum.

The topic was not aout beliefs on Hell. They were about where Jesus went.

I believe you did some "skewering" of personal belief when you used the terms "idiotic" and "moronic".

The classic "I didn't do it, you did" fingerpointing.

 

[IfbReformer]

rbrent,

"your contention/opinion that you are more knowledgeable than the learned men who translated the KJV and based on your superior knowledge of Jewish history and folklore and your in depth knowledge of koine Greek, you can not only correct the KJV in Luke 16:23 & Ac 2:31, you can also accuse men who disagree with you of "idolatrous versionism (or, as I put it, versionolatry)"

Do you think it is not possible for any men to be more learned than the KJV translators? Is that really an impossibility for you? Do you believe there have been no advancements in textual studies and discoveries since 1611?

Lets see what the KJV translators themselves said about their own work:

I agree that these were indeed wise men.

Listen to some things they said in THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER:

"Many men's mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the Translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of Translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment: Hath the Church been deceived, say they, all this while?...
Was their Translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people?...


Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere...No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it."

Sound a bit familiar like what some people do today with translations? The say about Modern translations "Was their Translation[The KJV in this case] good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people?"

"Why do people do people have to mend by KJV?" you ask? This the same question people asked the KJV translators about their precious Geneva Bible that came before it.

The KJV translators answered this question with this answer and I give the same to you: "we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English...containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God...though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere...No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.".

They acknowledged all throughout this introduction that they did not claim perfection for their new translation. The acknowledged that other translations may have had imperfections as well, that is the nature of the translation business.

We can argue whether or not the KJV was right in rendering Hades as hell but that does not question the fact that they were indeed wise men and that it was a good translation.

Having said that, if good Christian translators today feel it would better be rendered Hades, as it is in the NASB then that is fine as well.

Personally I think it should be rendered Hades, as that is the Greek Word for the realm of the dead and there was a good place and bad place in the realm of the dead.

IFBReformer

 

[RaptureReady]

Originally posted by Johnv:
If you believe that the KJV has authority over the source texts from which it came, then you'd have to believe the KJV. Of course, if you believed that, you'd be quilty of idolatrous versionism (or, as I put it, versionolatry).

You found the original source texts? I doubt it. I'd rather believe the Bible then believe what someone says that don't believe the Bible.

 

[rbrent]

Hello IbfReformer-

Thanks for the interesting comments from the KJV Translators.

The point I so poorly made to Johnv (I say ‘poorly’ because he and you apparently didn’t get it) was that I am NOT inclined to accept the word of someone I never met, do not know, have no knowledge of your expertise in Greek or Hebrew, have no way of evaluating your honesty, your integrity, your character, etc. etc. -

I am NOT inclined to accept your opinion as my own, that since the Greek text says ‘hades’, we should stop translating from Greek to English whenever ‘hades’ appears in the text and simply insert the Greek word into the English text.

I’ll stick with the KJV, thank you very much...

I don’t mind at all if YOU fellas want to go with the ‘new’ versions. It’s a free country so go ahead.

As far as whether there have been others as learned as the King James Translators, Why yes, I suppose there have been some. Robert Dick Wilson would probably fall into that category - being fluent in 18 - 20 languages.

So what? I never contended that no other men in history or the present were the linguistic equals of the KJV translators.

I was pointing out that Johnv expressing his preference -

‘that he thought it should be rendered 'hades' instead of 'hell' -

was insufficient evidence to persuade me to forsake the KJV and adopt his opinion.

And if you read the above thread,you will notice that I answered the Question that started this thread with a very CLEAR verse of scripture.

Originally posted by rbrent:
Yes, Jesus DID go to hell after he died.

"He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption." - Acts 2:31

I gave the ONLY scripture in the New Testament that specifically states that Jesus went to hell.
You can quibble about ‘hades’ all day long but the KJV says what it says.

Do you seriously expect other believers to accept your correction of the KJV just because you offer it?

IbfReformer says - “Personally I think it should be rendered Hades, as that is the Greek Word for the realm of the dead and there was a good place and bad place in the realm of the dead.

I’ve got no problem with you believing it should be ‘hades’.

But if WE believe what you personally believe about the passage, then there are THREE places mentioned in the Luke 16 passage.

Abraham’s bosom, by your interpretation, is apparently not ‘hades’ - different Greek words are used for it.

You say ‘hades’ is the realm of the dead and there was a good place and a bad place in the realm of the dead.

So, there are 3 places, apparently.

(1) “Abraham’s bosom” plus

(2) “a good place” (separate from Abraham’s bosom but part of ‘hades’ according to you) plus

(3) “a bad place” (also separate from Abraham’s bosom but part of ‘hades’ according to you)

If there are not 3 places being discussed by Jesus and the rich man, then ‘Abraham’s bosom’ is the good part of your ‘hades’ and HELL is the bad part - two places, not three.

That’s pretty simple isn’t it?