Next we will look at the Greek word Hades as translated into hell in the New Testament, in KJV English Bibles. It occurs twice in Matthew, twice in Luke, three times in Acts, and four times in Revelation. Even though Hades and Gehenna are both translated into hell, they are not the same place. In fact, Hades started out as the Greek god of the underworld, the place all people go when they die. When the ancients translated the Hebrew bible (What is now called the Old Testament) into The Greek bible called the Septuagint, they translated the Hebrew word Sheol into the Greek word Hades. Interestingly, the NIV retains the Greek word Hades and also uses "realm of the dead." It does not change the word to hell like it does Gehenna. Other versions change the word to death or the grave instead. Read about the Christian views of Hades here. (Link)
As you can see from the above link, the different versions of christianity hold many differing beliefs about hell or hades. I can tell you that the church of christ denomination which I have attended for over forty years, teaches very little about hell. It has no sophisticated theology or doctrine of hell or hades. Basically, people are taught that if you do not believe the gospel and get baptized (essential) you go to hell, what they view as eternal damnation/separation from god, when you die. No ifs ands or buts. The beliefs about hell of most people in the pews is very simplistic.
Lets look at the verses with the Greek hades translated into the English hell in the KJV:
*Matt 11:23- here the city of Capernaum is being told it will go to hell (hades in the NIV)because it didn't repent after Jesus performed miracles there.
*Matt 16:18- this is the famous passage where Jesus tells Peter "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." (NIV-gates of hades will not overcome it.)
*Luke 10:15-This passage repeats the sentiment in Matthew 11:23 that Capernaum will go to hell.
*Luke 16:19-29 contains the parable of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar. In it a poor man dies and finds comfort "in the bosom of Abraham." A rich man, who apparently never helped the poor man, dies and finds himself in hell being tormented and burnt by flames. The rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to give him water to cool his tongue, Abraham says the gulf between the two places is too great. The rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus to his brothers to warn them of hell. Abraham says they already have the law and the prophets. If they don't believe them, they won't believe someone back from the dead. Hell here is hades in the NIV. Also, let us remember this is a parable not a story about a supposed actual event.
*Acts 2:25-36 contains part of Peter's sermon to a crowd, on the day of Pentecost, after Jesus was taken up into heaven. In it Peter quotes Psalm 16:10- "For thou will not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt though suffer thine holy one to see corruption." Peter claims that since David died and was buried he can't have been talking about himself, so he must have been prophesying about Jesus. Jesus supposedly did not remain in the land of the dead and his body did not rot. The NIV calls this hell Hades in Acts and Sheol in Psalms. I think it is also important to note that the word "holy" in both Acts and Psalms does not mean divine. It means righteous or pious.
In the next post, we will look at hell/hades in the book of Revelation.
Sunday, December 31, 2017
Friday, December 29, 2017
Imagine a world without religion.
I present for your viewing a video that was blocked from support on Youtube. It is from a content creator called "Godless Cranium." I am posting it here to show opposition to censorship of what others consider offensive to religion. Select "continue" to watch the video if you come to a blank screen.
Imagine a World Without Religion
Imagine a World Without Religion
Thursday, December 28, 2017
Hell part 4
Now that we have covered hell in the Old Testament, we will look at the New Testament. Strong's concordance has 9 instances of the word Hell occurring in the book of Matthew. All but two of them are from the Greek word Gehenna which refers to a currently unknown valley outside Jerusalm where children were supposedly sacrificed to gods by fire. It may also have been a burning trash dump. The exact location appears to be a modern mystery, but the name lives on as a kind of metaphor for eternal destruction or punishment after death. Gehenna is in Jewish literature, as well as in the Christian Bible. Gehenna as hell also occurs three times in Mark, once in Luke, and once in James.
Lets look at what the New Testament KJV and NIV say about gehenna/hell in these verses:
*Matt 5:22- Both versions say that anyone who calls his brother a fool will be in danger of the fires of hell.
*Matt 5:29-30 Both versions say it is better to lose your eye or your right hand (after cutting it off to keep from sinning) than to have your whole body cast into hell.
*Matt 10:28-Tells us to fear the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell.
*Matt 18:9-Repeats the sentiment of Matthew 5 and tells us again that it would be better to lose body parts (eyes) rather than sin and get our whole body thrown into the fire of hell.
*Matt 23:15-Asks the scribes and pharisees if they can escape the damnation (divine judgement or sentence) of hell.
*Mark 9:43-47 Again, it's better to have body parts cut off (hands, feet, and eyes) than to be cast into hell with the fire that never goes out (NIV) or that can never be quenched (KJV). Some versions include multiple iterations of "where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched." This is a phrase from Isaiah 66:24. That not all versions repeat the saying is a sign that it is not repeated in the oldest manuscripts. Worm here means a gnawing worm that preys upon dead bodies.
Here is the whole passage from Isaiah 66:22-24, which is the very end of the book of Isaiah and is in the context of what appears to be an end times prophesy to the Israelites. "As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me," declares the lord, "so will your name and descendants endure. From one new moon to another and from one sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me," says the lord. "And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to mankind."
Remember, this was written to Israelites, not Christians. They are told their descendants will be able to look at the dead bodies of Yahweh's enemies being burnt and eaten by worms forever. This the passage that Mark is referring to when he speaks of Hell, though Isaiah does not name it hell/gehenna. So, is this passage literal or metaphorical? If it is metaphorical, what is the reality behind the metaphor? Notice that people are not suffering eternal torment, their dead bodies are just being subject to eternal grossness which I assume gives some kind of satisfaction to the people who get to live on the new earth because they didn't rebel against Yahweh.
More verses:
*Luke 12:5-Says to fear the one who has the power (KJV) or authority (NIV) to cast or throw you into hell.
*James 3:6- "The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one's life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell."
There you have it. Gehenna/hell has a fire that can not be extinguished, dead bodies of those who rebel against god, immortal worms eating the dead bodies. The dead bodies were cast into hell by someone with power and authority and hell destroys both body and soul and tongues. However, gehenna is not the only hell in the New Testament.
More to come.
Lets look at what the New Testament KJV and NIV say about gehenna/hell in these verses:
*Matt 5:22- Both versions say that anyone who calls his brother a fool will be in danger of the fires of hell.
*Matt 5:29-30 Both versions say it is better to lose your eye or your right hand (after cutting it off to keep from sinning) than to have your whole body cast into hell.
*Matt 10:28-Tells us to fear the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell.
*Matt 18:9-Repeats the sentiment of Matthew 5 and tells us again that it would be better to lose body parts (eyes) rather than sin and get our whole body thrown into the fire of hell.
*Matt 23:15-Asks the scribes and pharisees if they can escape the damnation (divine judgement or sentence) of hell.
*Mark 9:43-47 Again, it's better to have body parts cut off (hands, feet, and eyes) than to be cast into hell with the fire that never goes out (NIV) or that can never be quenched (KJV). Some versions include multiple iterations of "where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched." This is a phrase from Isaiah 66:24. That not all versions repeat the saying is a sign that it is not repeated in the oldest manuscripts. Worm here means a gnawing worm that preys upon dead bodies.
Here is the whole passage from Isaiah 66:22-24, which is the very end of the book of Isaiah and is in the context of what appears to be an end times prophesy to the Israelites. "As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me," declares the lord, "so will your name and descendants endure. From one new moon to another and from one sabbath to another, all mankind will come and bow down before me," says the lord. "And they will go out and look on the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; the worms that eat them will not die, the fire that burns them will not be quenched, and they will be loathsome to mankind."
Remember, this was written to Israelites, not Christians. They are told their descendants will be able to look at the dead bodies of Yahweh's enemies being burnt and eaten by worms forever. This the passage that Mark is referring to when he speaks of Hell, though Isaiah does not name it hell/gehenna. So, is this passage literal or metaphorical? If it is metaphorical, what is the reality behind the metaphor? Notice that people are not suffering eternal torment, their dead bodies are just being subject to eternal grossness which I assume gives some kind of satisfaction to the people who get to live on the new earth because they didn't rebel against Yahweh.
More verses:
*Luke 12:5-Says to fear the one who has the power (KJV) or authority (NIV) to cast or throw you into hell.
*James 3:6- "The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one's life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell."
There you have it. Gehenna/hell has a fire that can not be extinguished, dead bodies of those who rebel against god, immortal worms eating the dead bodies. The dead bodies were cast into hell by someone with power and authority and hell destroys both body and soul and tongues. However, gehenna is not the only hell in the New Testament.
More to come.
Saturday, December 23, 2017
Isaiah chapters7-9, part 3
Today we finish up the Christmas posts with Isaiah chapter 9.
After chapter 8 ended with a dark curse for those who do not speak according to god's word, verse 9:1 says its not the end of the world. "In the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles...The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the shadow of death a light has dawned." Matthew 4:13-16 claims this was a prophecy that was fulfilled when Jesus lived and preached in Galilee. However, there are no contemporary extrabiblical sources that place Jesus in that place at that time. The (unknown) author of Matthew could very well have written his story with an eye to choosing vague prophetic sounding passages that could do double duty.
The passage goes on to talk of the gentile nation (In the Galilee region) being enlarged and increasing their joy. The yoke of oppression will be lifted and war time clothing burnt. According to my study bible this did happen, kind of. Around 701 BCE, the Assyrian army lost its hold on the region. If the author of Isaiah was deliberately projecting his writing into the future, as though he was writing from the past, he would have known that. But what does that have to do with Jesus? Why do some verses of Isaiah apply to Jesus and others do not? Shouldn't real prophecy be internally consistent? The easy answer is that the authors of the New Testament gospels picked and chose the ones that would help enforce the story they wanted to tell.
Verses 6-7 says that this improvement in the region will happen... "for to us a child is born, to us a son is given..." Okay, who is US here? Ahaz and his young woman, or Isaiah and his prophetess? And what son? Immanuel or Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz? Or is it talking about Jesus as Christians claim? Could it have two meanings?
More about this child from verses 6-7: "and the government will be on his shoulders." Did that happen to Jesus? Nope. "And he will be called Wonderful Counselor." Did that happen to Jesus?
Not anywhere in the New Testament. Christians do call him that now, BECAUSE of this passage. He will also supposedly be called "Mighty God." Was Jesus ever called that? Not in the Bible. "Everlasting," nope. "Father," nope. "Prince of Peace," nope. If he was ever called any of these things outside of the bible, it was usually because someone had read this passage and assumed it was talking of Jesus.
Verse 7 says "of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end." Did that happen? First of all Jesus never had a government, unless you count the government of the Catholic church and the Vatican. I hope you don't. It certainly has not had a reign of peace. "He will reign on David's throne." Did that happen to Jesus? No. However, the gospels tried to get around that by claiming Jesus had direct lineage from David, and christians say that he "reigns" with god in heaven on the "true throne of David." It's all metaphorical don't you know. At least the parts christians find convenient to be metaphorical. The virgin birth, that's literal.
Continuing on in verse 7, the son will establish and uphold David's kingdom "with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever." Did that happen? Uh, no. In fact it didn't happen to the Jewish nation after Assyria left either, they were eventually conquered by the Babylonians. There was no justice and righteousness forever, and no peace without end. This section ends by saying "the zeal of the lord almighty will accomplish this." What happened? The prophecy failed, no matter who it was about.
We will not finish chapter 9 because it is blatantly obvious that it can not be applied to Jesus in any way. But I urge you to continue reading to the end. It's got a lot of interesting stuff about the wrath of god against Israel and false prophets. (I think we can assume the author of Isaiah does not consider himself one. )There is even a mention of cannibalism at the end of the chapter.
Merry Christmas to all who celebrate and Warm Wishes to all my readers. Until next week.
After chapter 8 ended with a dark curse for those who do not speak according to god's word, verse 9:1 says its not the end of the world. "In the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles...The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the shadow of death a light has dawned." Matthew 4:13-16 claims this was a prophecy that was fulfilled when Jesus lived and preached in Galilee. However, there are no contemporary extrabiblical sources that place Jesus in that place at that time. The (unknown) author of Matthew could very well have written his story with an eye to choosing vague prophetic sounding passages that could do double duty.
The passage goes on to talk of the gentile nation (In the Galilee region) being enlarged and increasing their joy. The yoke of oppression will be lifted and war time clothing burnt. According to my study bible this did happen, kind of. Around 701 BCE, the Assyrian army lost its hold on the region. If the author of Isaiah was deliberately projecting his writing into the future, as though he was writing from the past, he would have known that. But what does that have to do with Jesus? Why do some verses of Isaiah apply to Jesus and others do not? Shouldn't real prophecy be internally consistent? The easy answer is that the authors of the New Testament gospels picked and chose the ones that would help enforce the story they wanted to tell.
Verses 6-7 says that this improvement in the region will happen... "for to us a child is born, to us a son is given..." Okay, who is US here? Ahaz and his young woman, or Isaiah and his prophetess? And what son? Immanuel or Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz? Or is it talking about Jesus as Christians claim? Could it have two meanings?
More about this child from verses 6-7: "and the government will be on his shoulders." Did that happen to Jesus? Nope. "And he will be called Wonderful Counselor." Did that happen to Jesus?
Not anywhere in the New Testament. Christians do call him that now, BECAUSE of this passage. He will also supposedly be called "Mighty God." Was Jesus ever called that? Not in the Bible. "Everlasting," nope. "Father," nope. "Prince of Peace," nope. If he was ever called any of these things outside of the bible, it was usually because someone had read this passage and assumed it was talking of Jesus.
Verse 7 says "of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end." Did that happen? First of all Jesus never had a government, unless you count the government of the Catholic church and the Vatican. I hope you don't. It certainly has not had a reign of peace. "He will reign on David's throne." Did that happen to Jesus? No. However, the gospels tried to get around that by claiming Jesus had direct lineage from David, and christians say that he "reigns" with god in heaven on the "true throne of David." It's all metaphorical don't you know. At least the parts christians find convenient to be metaphorical. The virgin birth, that's literal.
Continuing on in verse 7, the son will establish and uphold David's kingdom "with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever." Did that happen? Uh, no. In fact it didn't happen to the Jewish nation after Assyria left either, they were eventually conquered by the Babylonians. There was no justice and righteousness forever, and no peace without end. This section ends by saying "the zeal of the lord almighty will accomplish this." What happened? The prophecy failed, no matter who it was about.
We will not finish chapter 9 because it is blatantly obvious that it can not be applied to Jesus in any way. But I urge you to continue reading to the end. It's got a lot of interesting stuff about the wrath of god against Israel and false prophets. (I think we can assume the author of Isaiah does not consider himself one. )There is even a mention of cannibalism at the end of the chapter.
Merry Christmas to all who celebrate and Warm Wishes to all my readers. Until next week.
Friday, December 22, 2017
Isaiah chapters 7-9, part 2
Now let us look at Isaiah chapter 8. God tells Isaiah to write on a scroll, with an ordinary pen, the name Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz. This means "quick to the plunder, swift to the spoil." Then two priests are to be called in as witnesses.
After that, Isaiah went to the prophetess, presumably his wife, they had sex and she had a son. They named him the above wacky name because god told them to. God also told Isaiah that before the child could say mommy and daddy, the king of Assyria would plunder Damascus and Samaria, the locations of the kingdoms of Aram and Israel. So is this child the same child mentioned in Isaiah 7:14? It is unclear. Why would Isaiah's child be a sign to King Ahaz? That makes no sense to me.
Next is a long poetic passage talking about this invasion. The end of verse 8 is the phrase "O Immanuel" which you may have heard in christmas carols. This is the name that was supposed to be given to the child in Isaiah 7:14 It means "god is with us," a completely different name than the one Isaiah supposedly gave his newborn son. The phrase "god is with us," echoing the name, is also at the end of verse 10.
In verse 18, Isaiah says, "Here I am, and the children the Lord has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the Lord Almighty, who dwells on Mount Zion." Well, whoop-dee-doo. A guy has some kids, which lots of guys all over the world do, and that means they are some kind of special portent of coming destruction? Why should anyone believe him? What difference would it have made if he hadn't had any kids?
Yes, Assyria invaded. But when was this written? Before, or after the fact? It is unknown, but most probably after. If it was written after the invasion, with Isaiah projecting his past self into the future, how are we to know whether or not he actually recieved any message from god beforehand? Nobody was fact checking him then, just as very few people bother to fact check religious figures today. Should we just believe anyone who says they predicted a particular thing would happen and it happened after they said it? Of course, not. This is what makes biblical prophecy so problematic. The likelihood of actual detailed prophetic statements before specific events is highly unlikely.
The chapter ends with a screed against those who would consult mediums and spiritists who talk to the dead. Isaiah says they should enquire of their god instead, meaning him, the supposed mouthpiece of god. Then he goes on to pronounce a fancy curse on those don't consult god (him).
And what does all this have to do with Jesus?
To be continued.
After that, Isaiah went to the prophetess, presumably his wife, they had sex and she had a son. They named him the above wacky name because god told them to. God also told Isaiah that before the child could say mommy and daddy, the king of Assyria would plunder Damascus and Samaria, the locations of the kingdoms of Aram and Israel. So is this child the same child mentioned in Isaiah 7:14? It is unclear. Why would Isaiah's child be a sign to King Ahaz? That makes no sense to me.
Next is a long poetic passage talking about this invasion. The end of verse 8 is the phrase "O Immanuel" which you may have heard in christmas carols. This is the name that was supposed to be given to the child in Isaiah 7:14 It means "god is with us," a completely different name than the one Isaiah supposedly gave his newborn son. The phrase "god is with us," echoing the name, is also at the end of verse 10.
In verse 18, Isaiah says, "Here I am, and the children the Lord has given me. We are signs and symbols in Israel from the Lord Almighty, who dwells on Mount Zion." Well, whoop-dee-doo. A guy has some kids, which lots of guys all over the world do, and that means they are some kind of special portent of coming destruction? Why should anyone believe him? What difference would it have made if he hadn't had any kids?
Yes, Assyria invaded. But when was this written? Before, or after the fact? It is unknown, but most probably after. If it was written after the invasion, with Isaiah projecting his past self into the future, how are we to know whether or not he actually recieved any message from god beforehand? Nobody was fact checking him then, just as very few people bother to fact check religious figures today. Should we just believe anyone who says they predicted a particular thing would happen and it happened after they said it? Of course, not. This is what makes biblical prophecy so problematic. The likelihood of actual detailed prophetic statements before specific events is highly unlikely.
The chapter ends with a screed against those who would consult mediums and spiritists who talk to the dead. Isaiah says they should enquire of their god instead, meaning him, the supposed mouthpiece of god. Then he goes on to pronounce a fancy curse on those don't consult god (him).
And what does all this have to do with Jesus?
To be continued.
Thursday, December 21, 2017
Isaiah chapters 7-9, part 1
Before I continue on with my study of hell, I thought I would do my "Christmas" post. We will look at Isaiah 7-9 because parts of it are often brought out at Christmas, as a supposed prophesies of the birth of Jesus.
Verse 7:14 says, "Therefore the lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel." Matthew 1:23 says that Mary concieved Jesus by the holy spirit to fulfill this passage in Isaiah. So, is this passage really prophesying the birth of Jesus?
First of all, If we go to the beginning of chapter 7 and read through the chapter , we see Ahaz, the king of Judah, is in a war with the kings of Aram and Israel. Isaiah is told by God that the kings of Aram and Israel will not conquer Judah. If they do not stand firm in their faith, they will not stand at all. God offerred Ahaz a sign that this would happen. Ahaz didn't want a sign from god, so god got irritated and gave him a sign anyway.The sign is the birth of the previously mentioned child. Notably, before this child "knows enough to to reject the wrong and choose the right" the armies of Assyria would invade the land and destroy Aram and Israel. (In fancy poetic language)
Does this sound like it has anything to do with a baby to be born at least 700 years later? Of course not. What about the virgin who was supposed to have this child? Who would be the child's father if this child was to be born before the Assyrian army came? Surely not god. So then, his mother wasn't actually a virgin when the child was born, if it had a human father. It turns out that this passage in Hebrew uses the hebrew word "almah", which has been translated here as virgin. However, this word can also denote a young, newly married woman. She obviously didn't remain a virgin. It is unclear who the father was supposed to be. My study bible suggests it might have been Isaiah, but it makes more sense to me if it was Ahaz. At any rate, the child was supposed to be born in that time period.
Notice that this young child will not yet know right from wrong when the Assyrian army comes. Was there a time when Jesus did not know right from wrong? Was he divine or not? Was he the son of god or not? Was he god in the flesh or not? Is this whole prophecy about Jesus, or was just the virgin part about Jesus? How does that work? How would anyone know which parts were supposed to be about a coming child of god/christ/messiah and which parts were not? What invasion was Jesus's birth supposed to be a sign of? What nations would be invaded before he was old enough to reject the wrong and choose the right?
Plus, when was Jesus ever called Immanuel? Well if you search the New Testament, you will come up empty. Matthew 1:23 is the only place that name occurs and there he is quoting Isaiah. Could it be that Matthew just cherry picked a verse about a young woman having a child and said "See, this proves Jesus was prophesied about?" But was he?
What do Jews have to say about this passage found in their scriptures? (Link) The link shows a similar line of thought to what I just covered. If Isiah 7:14 is not a prophecy, and Jesus was not born of a virgin or called Immanuel, then the author of the book of Matthew made that part up on purpose to try to convince his audience of the divinity of Jesus. Could he have made up the whole book, most of it, or other parts? Was Jesus even born at all? The author of Matthew was not an eyewitness to the birth, and we don't even know who he was or where he got his information. Why should we believe him?
More to come.
Verse 7:14 says, "Therefore the lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel." Matthew 1:23 says that Mary concieved Jesus by the holy spirit to fulfill this passage in Isaiah. So, is this passage really prophesying the birth of Jesus?
First of all, If we go to the beginning of chapter 7 and read through the chapter , we see Ahaz, the king of Judah, is in a war with the kings of Aram and Israel. Isaiah is told by God that the kings of Aram and Israel will not conquer Judah. If they do not stand firm in their faith, they will not stand at all. God offerred Ahaz a sign that this would happen. Ahaz didn't want a sign from god, so god got irritated and gave him a sign anyway.The sign is the birth of the previously mentioned child. Notably, before this child "knows enough to to reject the wrong and choose the right" the armies of Assyria would invade the land and destroy Aram and Israel. (In fancy poetic language)
Does this sound like it has anything to do with a baby to be born at least 700 years later? Of course not. What about the virgin who was supposed to have this child? Who would be the child's father if this child was to be born before the Assyrian army came? Surely not god. So then, his mother wasn't actually a virgin when the child was born, if it had a human father. It turns out that this passage in Hebrew uses the hebrew word "almah", which has been translated here as virgin. However, this word can also denote a young, newly married woman. She obviously didn't remain a virgin. It is unclear who the father was supposed to be. My study bible suggests it might have been Isaiah, but it makes more sense to me if it was Ahaz. At any rate, the child was supposed to be born in that time period.
Notice that this young child will not yet know right from wrong when the Assyrian army comes. Was there a time when Jesus did not know right from wrong? Was he divine or not? Was he the son of god or not? Was he god in the flesh or not? Is this whole prophecy about Jesus, or was just the virgin part about Jesus? How does that work? How would anyone know which parts were supposed to be about a coming child of god/christ/messiah and which parts were not? What invasion was Jesus's birth supposed to be a sign of? What nations would be invaded before he was old enough to reject the wrong and choose the right?
Plus, when was Jesus ever called Immanuel? Well if you search the New Testament, you will come up empty. Matthew 1:23 is the only place that name occurs and there he is quoting Isaiah. Could it be that Matthew just cherry picked a verse about a young woman having a child and said "See, this proves Jesus was prophesied about?" But was he?
What do Jews have to say about this passage found in their scriptures? (Link) The link shows a similar line of thought to what I just covered. If Isiah 7:14 is not a prophecy, and Jesus was not born of a virgin or called Immanuel, then the author of the book of Matthew made that part up on purpose to try to convince his audience of the divinity of Jesus. Could he have made up the whole book, most of it, or other parts? Was Jesus even born at all? The author of Matthew was not an eyewitness to the birth, and we don't even know who he was or where he got his information. Why should we believe him?
More to come.
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Hell part 3
As we have seen, the Old Testament hell is actually sheol, which is not the same as the hell taught in christianity. It is the realm of the dead, the grave. It is underground or some nebulous place in the depths, "down below." It is often associated with a pit. The word pit associated with the grave or death in the Old Testament often comes from the Hebrew word "bowr." This word appears to have meanings associated with a hole in the ground that is a well or cistern, or a dungeon. The word pit associated with death and the grave in the KJV is also sometimes translated from the Hebrew word "shachath." This word has connotations of a ditch or a trap. Notice that these are all words associated with under the ground or holes in the earth.
Sometimes the word destruction is associated with sheol. Then, it is often from the word abaddon. They are often seen together as in "death and destruction." (Sheol and Abaddon) Abaddon appears to be a distinct part of hell, perhaps a bottomless pit. There is that word pit again.
Besides Sheol, the Old Testament does have a few descriptions of a punishment after death at some "end time," but it is not named as a particular place. Some christians claim these are descrptions of hell. Let's look at some of them.
First let's look at Daniel chapter 12: 1-2. "....at that time your people-everyone whose name is found written in the book-will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." Daniel is an apocalyptic/prophetic book, written anonymously, about 200 years before Jesus, according to many scholars. My NIV study bible says its writers think Daniel was written around the time period of its events, about 560 BC, at least partly by Daniel. I have not studied the book of Daniel in depth, but this passage does appear to refer to an afterlife. The phrase "your people" obviously refers to jews. Why do christians think it speaks to them? The book of Daniel was written by Jews for Jews. Also, in practical terms, what does it mean to awaken to everlasting shame and contempt?
The study bible references lead me from Daniel to another supposedly prophetic book, Isaiah. Again, this book was written by Jews, for Jews. In chapter 26, a future day of judgement is being sung about. In verse 11, Isaiah begs Yahweh to let the fire reserved for his enemies consume them. In verse fourteen we see Isaiah say that God's enemies are dead "they live no more." Yahweh "punished them and brought them to ruin." He wiped out all memory of them. This doesn't sound like a literal hell. In fact, from there the study bible leads me to Psalm 9:5 where the worse thing that can happen to the wicked is that they are utterly destroyed, their names blotted out, and the memory of them perishes. Really? Okay, being destroyed is totally the pits. We have only one life. But once you are gone, so what if noone remembers you. You won't know.
Let us remember that Daniel, Isaiah, and Psalms are written in poetic and metaphoric language. They are trash talking about the enemies of the Israelites. I don't think these passages were meant to be doctrinal statements about what happens to nonbelievers in christianity.
Sometimes the word destruction is associated with sheol. Then, it is often from the word abaddon. They are often seen together as in "death and destruction." (Sheol and Abaddon) Abaddon appears to be a distinct part of hell, perhaps a bottomless pit. There is that word pit again.
Besides Sheol, the Old Testament does have a few descriptions of a punishment after death at some "end time," but it is not named as a particular place. Some christians claim these are descrptions of hell. Let's look at some of them.
First let's look at Daniel chapter 12: 1-2. "....at that time your people-everyone whose name is found written in the book-will be delivered. Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt." Daniel is an apocalyptic/prophetic book, written anonymously, about 200 years before Jesus, according to many scholars. My NIV study bible says its writers think Daniel was written around the time period of its events, about 560 BC, at least partly by Daniel. I have not studied the book of Daniel in depth, but this passage does appear to refer to an afterlife. The phrase "your people" obviously refers to jews. Why do christians think it speaks to them? The book of Daniel was written by Jews for Jews. Also, in practical terms, what does it mean to awaken to everlasting shame and contempt?
The study bible references lead me from Daniel to another supposedly prophetic book, Isaiah. Again, this book was written by Jews, for Jews. In chapter 26, a future day of judgement is being sung about. In verse 11, Isaiah begs Yahweh to let the fire reserved for his enemies consume them. In verse fourteen we see Isaiah say that God's enemies are dead "they live no more." Yahweh "punished them and brought them to ruin." He wiped out all memory of them. This doesn't sound like a literal hell. In fact, from there the study bible leads me to Psalm 9:5 where the worse thing that can happen to the wicked is that they are utterly destroyed, their names blotted out, and the memory of them perishes. Really? Okay, being destroyed is totally the pits. We have only one life. But once you are gone, so what if noone remembers you. You won't know.
Let us remember that Daniel, Isaiah, and Psalms are written in poetic and metaphoric language. They are trash talking about the enemies of the Israelites. I don't think these passages were meant to be doctrinal statements about what happens to nonbelievers in christianity.
Monday, December 4, 2017
Hell part 2
We are going to look at the Old Testament passages where Sheol is translated into "hell" in the King James version. We are doing that because Strong's concordance was created based on the King James. We will compare that to how the NIV scholars translated those passages. My NIV study bible has no references for hell in the Old Testament in its concordance. The words "death" or "grave" in the NIV replace the word hell from the KJV. The Hebrew is sheol for each of these.
1- Deut. 32:22, sheol is translated to "realm of death below" in the NIV. There is a fire from god's wrath.
2- 2 Sam. 22:6 talks of the cords of the grave.
3- Job 11:8 says the mysteries of god are deeper than the depths of the grave
4- Job 26:6 "death is naked before god"
5- Psalm 9:17 "the wicked return to the grave"
6- Psalm 16:10 "you will not abandon me to the grave"
7- Psalm 18:5 "the cords of the grave entangled me" This is very similar to the verse in 2 Samuel.
8- Psalm 55:15 "let them go down alive to the grave"
9- Psalm 86:13 "you have delivered me from the depths of the grave"
10- Psalm 116:3 "anguish of the grave came upon me"
11-Psalm139:8 "if I make my bed in the depths (sheol) you are there" this is talking about god.
12- Prov. 5:5 "her feet go down to death" talking about the "adulterous woman."
13- Prov. 7:27 "her house is a highway to the grave"
14- Prov 9:18 "her guests are in the depths of the grave"
15- Prov. 15:11 "death and destruction lie open before the lord"
16- Prov. 15:24 "The path of life leads upward.....to keep him from going down to the grave."
17- Prov. 23:14 "punish him with the rod and save his soul from death"
18- Prov. 27:20 "death and destruction are never satisfied."
19- Is. 14:15 "you are brought down to the realm of the dead to the depths of the pit"
20- Is. 28:15 "with the realm of the dead we have made an agreement"
21- Is. 28:18 "your agreement with the realm of the dead will not stand"
22- Is. 57:9 "you descended to the very realm of the dead"
23- Eze. 31:16 "I brought it down to the realm of the dead"
24- Eze. 31:17 "they too had gone down to the realm of the dead"
25- Eze. 32:21 "from within the realm of the dead, the mighty leaders will say"
26- Eze. 32:27 "who went down to the realm of the dead"
27- Amos 9:2 "though they dig down to the depths below"
28-Jonah 2:2 "from deep in the realm of the dead"
29- Hab. 2:5 "he is as greedy as the grave"
Again, these are all the NIV versions of the passages where sheol is translated into "hell" in the KJV Old Testament. We see from these that NIV scholars determined they should be translated as death, the grave, the depths, and the realm of the dead.
I also looked up "death" in the Strong's concordance and found no instances where the KJV translators used death for sheol.The Hebrew word translated as death was an entirely different word. However, when I looked up "grave" in the Strong's concordance, I found 30 instances where sheol had been translated as "the grave" instead of hell. So, even the KJV scholars were not consistly translating sheol into hell. I also found 3 instances where sheol had been translated into "the pit" in the KJV. As far as I could tell grave, hell, and pit are the only English words that the KJV uses for sheol.
I searched the text of the NIV for the word hell here: (link). As far as I can see, there is no hell in the Old Testament of the NIV, at all. Very interesting. In fact, the Old Testament scriptures of these translations also do not contain the word hell: ASV, RSV, ISV, NET, WEB, YLT, ISV, EST, NASB, The Easy To Read Version, and the Good News Bible. The ones that do contain hell in the Old Testament are the various versions of the KJV, and surprisingly enough, The Living Bible and The Message. That last one shocked me, considering it is often used by non-fundamentalist, progressive christians. I wonder if the word hell occurring in the KJV is one of the reasons that version is preferred by fundamentalists.
1- Deut. 32:22, sheol is translated to "realm of death below" in the NIV. There is a fire from god's wrath.
2- 2 Sam. 22:6 talks of the cords of the grave.
3- Job 11:8 says the mysteries of god are deeper than the depths of the grave
4- Job 26:6 "death is naked before god"
5- Psalm 9:17 "the wicked return to the grave"
6- Psalm 16:10 "you will not abandon me to the grave"
7- Psalm 18:5 "the cords of the grave entangled me" This is very similar to the verse in 2 Samuel.
8- Psalm 55:15 "let them go down alive to the grave"
9- Psalm 86:13 "you have delivered me from the depths of the grave"
10- Psalm 116:3 "anguish of the grave came upon me"
11-Psalm139:8 "if I make my bed in the depths (sheol) you are there" this is talking about god.
12- Prov. 5:5 "her feet go down to death" talking about the "adulterous woman."
13- Prov. 7:27 "her house is a highway to the grave"
14- Prov 9:18 "her guests are in the depths of the grave"
15- Prov. 15:11 "death and destruction lie open before the lord"
16- Prov. 15:24 "The path of life leads upward.....to keep him from going down to the grave."
17- Prov. 23:14 "punish him with the rod and save his soul from death"
18- Prov. 27:20 "death and destruction are never satisfied."
19- Is. 14:15 "you are brought down to the realm of the dead to the depths of the pit"
20- Is. 28:15 "with the realm of the dead we have made an agreement"
21- Is. 28:18 "your agreement with the realm of the dead will not stand"
22- Is. 57:9 "you descended to the very realm of the dead"
23- Eze. 31:16 "I brought it down to the realm of the dead"
24- Eze. 31:17 "they too had gone down to the realm of the dead"
25- Eze. 32:21 "from within the realm of the dead, the mighty leaders will say"
26- Eze. 32:27 "who went down to the realm of the dead"
27- Amos 9:2 "though they dig down to the depths below"
28-Jonah 2:2 "from deep in the realm of the dead"
29- Hab. 2:5 "he is as greedy as the grave"
Again, these are all the NIV versions of the passages where sheol is translated into "hell" in the KJV Old Testament. We see from these that NIV scholars determined they should be translated as death, the grave, the depths, and the realm of the dead.
I also looked up "death" in the Strong's concordance and found no instances where the KJV translators used death for sheol.The Hebrew word translated as death was an entirely different word. However, when I looked up "grave" in the Strong's concordance, I found 30 instances where sheol had been translated as "the grave" instead of hell. So, even the KJV scholars were not consistly translating sheol into hell. I also found 3 instances where sheol had been translated into "the pit" in the KJV. As far as I could tell grave, hell, and pit are the only English words that the KJV uses for sheol.
I searched the text of the NIV for the word hell here: (link). As far as I can see, there is no hell in the Old Testament of the NIV, at all. Very interesting. In fact, the Old Testament scriptures of these translations also do not contain the word hell: ASV, RSV, ISV, NET, WEB, YLT, ISV, EST, NASB, The Easy To Read Version, and the Good News Bible. The ones that do contain hell in the Old Testament are the various versions of the KJV, and surprisingly enough, The Living Bible and The Message. That last one shocked me, considering it is often used by non-fundamentalist, progressive christians. I wonder if the word hell occurring in the KJV is one of the reasons that version is preferred by fundamentalists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)