Hi Lori,
This is email of Ray's that explains something about the languages used at Jesus' time.
Dave, I have also brought up an excerpt from Ray's Lake of Fire series, HELL: part A.
I would also like to say to watch for his next installment, HELL: D3, due out this week. Ray should explanation what the meaning of Gehenna fire is in this one.
http://www.forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,2902.0.html -----
Ray;
I know you must be busy, your site has given me a lot to think about. I oftentimes read scripture and find myself not agreeing with the doctrines that came out of the 4th and 5th century Church, who of course still felt that the world was FLAT and the Earth revolved around the Sun!
But anyway, what about the origins of scripture? The attached document says (too) much about it, but it does not make sense that Jesus did not speak and teach in Aramaic ( a language rich in Mystic thought patterns) not to mention his local boys, the Disciples, were all from the surrondind Aramaic speaking towns.
I am looking into some translations that are more accurate, WHY SPEND ALL THIS TIME DEBATING GREEK WHEN JESUS NEVER TAUGHT IN GREEK?? Just because some of Pauls letters were tranlated into Greek 200 years later??
I know you do not have the time to reply, but I link to any answer might be nice, if possible.
Meanwhile I will pray for a direct revelation, for that will be true.
Alan
Dear Alan:
Actually it would have made sense for Jesus to teach in Greek, seeing that the whole Mediterranean area including Palestine officially spoke Greek for hundreds of years. There is no proof that the actual manuscripts were written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Syriac. I hear a lot of talk, but I have seen NO PROOF. I hear about this 1st century Aramaic manuscript of the New Testament, but I haven't seen it proved, just argued. The sign that was fastened to Christ's cross was written in Hebrew, Latin, and Greek, NOT ARAMAIC. So if this sign was for the benefit of the Jews "This is Jesus the King of the Jews," then Aramaic was not even considered in the TOP THREE! How do you explain that, if Jesus, His followers, and the general populace of Jerusalem were speaking Aramaic? If you have an aswer for this, I would be glad to hear it. I am not presently interested in hearing all of the other hundreds of pages of arguments, however.
God be with you,
Ray
http://bible-truths.com/lake16-A.html ----------------------
WHAT IS "HELL" TRANSLATED FROM?
I think most of my readers realize that Jesus did not speak Archaic King James English. And most also realize that the King James Bible is not the one that the Apostles used. There were no "bibles" during Christ’s ministry; there were only the Hebrew Scriptures, and a popular Greek translation of those Hebrew Scriptures called the Septuagint. What we call the New Testament was not even written until near the end of the first century, and was not put into book form untill much later, and was not printed until many centuries later.
The word "hell" is an Old English word that was used to translate several words found in the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. What words? And why did they choose to use the Old English word "hell" as a translation? We shall see that it had absolutely nothing to do with scholarship, but everything to do with forcing pagan religion into the teachings of Jesus Christ. You don’t have to take my word for it; you will be able to judge for yourself as we go through it.
Here are the words for which "hell" was inserted as a "translation" into English:
The Hebrew word sheol (31 times)
The Greek word gehenna (12 times)
The Greek word hades (10 times)
The Greek word tartarus (1 time)
That’s it.
Every time the word "hell" is found in the King James Bible it is translated from one of these four words. We find the word "hell" 31 times in the KJV Old Testament and 23 times in the KJV New Testament for a total of 54 times. Later we will look at all 54 verses containing the word "hell," plus the 31 times that sheol is translated as "grave."
ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT POINTS OF THIS WHOLE SERIES
Listen to what I am about to say very very carefully: If the word "hell" is the most accurate and correct English word available to translate, the Hebrew word sheol, and the Greek words gehenna, hades, and tartartus, then these four words must all have the same meaning. But in reality only two of these four words have the same meaning.
The Hebrew word sheol and the Greek word hades are synonymous in meaning.
And here is the proof from the Scriptures and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the Hebrew sheol and the Greek hades are identical in meaning:
Acts 2:27: "Because You will not leave My soul in hell [Gk: hades], neither will You suffer your Holy One to see corruption" is quoted from:
Psalm 16:10: "For You will not leave My soul in hell [Heb: sheol]; neither will You suffer your Holy One to see corruption."
And so the inspiration of the Spirit of God proves that the Greek word hades is the right and proper translation of the Hebrew word sheol.
Whatever "hades" means, "sheol" means the same, and whatever "sheol" means, "hades" also means the same.
We know for a fact that the Hebrew word sheol is translated "hell" 31 times in the KJV of the Bible. But… BUT, we also know for a fact that the same Hebrew word sheol is translated "grave" 31 times in the KJV Bible.
Why is this? Why should this be? Why is there a 50/50 split on the translation of this word? Ask any theologian or your pastor if the words "grave" and "hell" mean the very same thing in the Bible, and see what they will say. They will tell you, NO, that they are NOT the same, that they are very much different. Then I have a childish question for them all: "Why, oh, why then are both "hell" and "grave" translations of the very same Hebrew word, "sheol"? Which should it be?
And let me frankly state that neither will their "context, context, context" theory solve this dilemma for them. It will take wholesale lying and deception to extricate them out of this theological box---or maybe I should say, "can of worms." Not only is there absolutely no justifiable reason to translate sheol 31 times as "hell," but there is no justifiable reason to translate this word as hell, not even once!
As we go through the 31 Scriptures in which the KJV uses the word "grave," it will become abundantly clear that "grave" is the proper translation. But when we come to the 31 times that KJV uses the word "hell" to translate this same Hebrew word, it will also become abundantly clear that word, "GRAVE" should have been used in all of those 31 verses as well. Yes, the "context" will show that "grave" or its literal meaning of "the UNSEEN" can be consistently used in all 62 verses without jeopardizing or violating the context.
While it is true that a number of verses use sheol—the unseen, the grave, in a poetic or figurative sense, absolutely nowhere is sheol used to represent a place of life, consciousness, fire, or torture—nowhere, absolutely nowhere.
About once a year I find something useful in a Bible Dictionary. Well here’s one of them. After discussing numerous problems with translating sheol as both "grave" and "hell," my Wycliffe Bible Dictionary says on page 1573:
"Sheol is much used in poetry and often parallels ‘death’ or the ‘grave.’ A uniform translation ‘grave’ would solve several problems of interpretation."
Those "several problems," however, are not to be thought of as minor. They are in reality, the most major problems in all theology.
Recently I pointed out to one of my detractors, numerous contradictions between what he said and what the Scriptures say. He retorted: "They don’t contradict; they COMPLEMENT." Translating sheol 31 times "grave" and 31 times "hell" is not a contradiction to theologians; it is a complement. How can one even talk with people like that? How? You DON’T! Admitting to this contradiction would destroy their damnable doctrine of eternal torture, and I don’t believe the powers that be in today’s Church will allow that to ever happen.
-------------------------------------------------------------
mercy, peace, and love
Kat
Author
Topic: re Hell (Read 10565 times)