If you read the bible, particularly the English Bible, the translators tried to keep that meaning. Christians, like me, who believe in Hell believe that the eternal destruction was a metaphorical way of representing Hell.
Hell was already established before he called it death. We believe that his purpose of doing so was to make life (Heaven) completely opposite.
(bold mine)
The clause in bold is where the problem largely came from in the theological expansion after and beyond post first century Christianity. First, however, let's then look at what we have from the exemplars that were handed down-fairly intact, but now wholely.
If one is going by the
King James (1611) version, the first occurance of the English word 'hell' will be found at Deut. 32:22 where we will find:
For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, ...
The Masoretic Text (BHS, based on the Leningrad B19 text) give us the following there (and this is poetry):
ko-esh qakhikha'h bhiapho wa-toqed adh-she'ol tahetokh. . .
(transliteration mine; KJ fairly translates this as well)
At that point, the LXX (Septuaginta) give us the following:
hoti pyr enkekautai ek tu thumou mou, kauthesetai heos haidou kato (which translates basically the same as 'his burning anger will set fire down to the underworld' where in haidou (a form of haides) is the same meaning as the Hebrew sheol
If we look for the first occurance of the Hebrew word '
sheol,' we'll find that at Gen. 37:35, where the
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures gives us (Joseph's quote only):
For I shall go down mourning to my son into She'ol
The
American Standard Version of 1901 has:
For I will go down to Sheol to my son mourning
In the
New American Standard (1960) we find:
Surely I will go down to Sheol in mourning for my son
The
New Revised Standard Verson renders it as:
No, I shall go down to Sheol to my son mourning
And the
Today's English Version (Good News Bible-1976 ed.) puts it as:
I will go down to the world of the dead still mourning for my son
Lastly, the
King James Version very correctly gives us:
For I will go down into the grave unto my son mourning
Further instances that will bear out the understanding in detail and concretely would be for example, to cite a few here:
Gen 42:38; Num 16:30,33; 1 Sam 2:6; 2 Sam 22:6; 1 Ki 2:6; Job 7:7:9; 14:13 (and this is Job talking in that narrative); Pslm 6:5; 16:10; Prov 27:20; Ecc 9:10; etc., etc. (the LXX consistently gives us haidou)
There are instances of its being used metaphorically for describing sinners, yet the Hebrew writings make it clear enough that the concept behind
sheol is that of death--no longer being alive.
What this and further investigation shows, is that a theological perception based primarily on Augustine's works, had propogated an error which then leaked into translation,
not that English translators of old tried to keep a meaning of word assignment based on the original tounges...except maybe Tyndale possibly had tried to, to some extent.
The English word '
hell' is understood to have come from the base'
helan' meaning to cover or hide, which back in Wycliffe's days (14th century) would be very close to the Hebrew '
sheol.'
I will deal with the Greek texts later tonight.
So what's this about Jesus rising from the dead so that we may have life all about, then? The English translation seems to mention it alot, so what version are you reading?
Regarding what translations I use, you can see the English ones above in the underlined italics, but beyond those of the English, I use what is commonly called MT (Masoretic Text) as the
Biblica Hebraica Stuttengartensia is, and the LXX (Septuaginta) as the edition by Alfred Rahlfs is, and also for the Christian recensions, I use (and of course have on hand and study)
J. J. Gresbach (1806),
B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort (1881), and
Novum Testamentum Graece, or NA 27th Ed, by E. Nestle and B. & K. Aland (1998). Of course, these are all original tongue works, and the critical apparatus in the NA 27 is very, very detailed and accurate.
Regarding the story of the resurrection there is much to be said. We could do that here as embedding in order to establish a point in case in the counter argument I am presenting, or, we could start a 'sister thread' to run along side this one, in which to argue those points.
However, to even argue the points that lead to any conclusion on the resurrection matter, we would have to argue previous points, you see...it would be very detailed and long, but I'm fully ready and willing to do that.
Regarding some further points you have made, I again, say that we should take care of one at a time...rushing never leads well founded and validated conclusions. At the moment, we are testing one area of one main belief-system, Christianity. After we have finished looking at this to a substantial degree, we can move on to the next one.
However, we will soon find through careful thought, that if we come to understandings herein which undermine similar points in other religious belief-systems, then we again have shown the others as being non-realities...mere myths as were those of the Greeks, the Incas, and the Hopis of North America.
). Though, as i said at the end of the paragraph, it's more FYI than anything, meaning i'm just throwing it out there incase I need to use it later.
