This is a compelling story!!! (Earth, Heaven, Hell)

By what Jesus said about the rich man and Lazarus, did Jesus teach torment of the wicked after death?

Is the account, at Luke 16:19-31, literal or merely an illustration of something else? The Jerusalem Bible, in a footnote, acknowledges that it is a “parable in story form without reference to any historical personage.” If taken literally, it would mean that those enjoying divine favor could all fit at the bosom of one man, Abraham; that the water on one’s fingertip would not be evaporated by the fire of Hades; that a mere drop of water would bring relief to one suffering there. Does that sound reasonable to you? If it were literal, it would conflict with other parts of the Bible. If the Bible were thus contradictory, would a lover of truth use it as a basis for his faith? But the Bible does not contradict itself.

What does the parable mean? The “rich man” represented the Pharisees. (See verse 14.) The beggar Lazarus represented the common Jewish people who were despised by the Pharisees but who repented and became followers of Jesus. (See Luke 18:11; John 7:49; Matthew 21:31, 32.) Their deaths were also symbolic, representing a change in circumstances. Thus, the formerly despised ones came into a position of divine favor, and the formerly seemingly favored ones were rejected by God, while being tormented by the judgment messages delivered by the ones whom they had despised.—Acts 5:33; 7:54.

What is the origin of the teaching of hellfire?

In ancient Babylonian and Assyrian beliefs the “nether world . . . is pictured as a place full of horrors, and is presided over by gods and demons of great strength and fierceness.” (The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Boston, 1898, Morris Jastrow, Jr., p. 581) Early evidence of the fiery aspect of Christendom’s hell is found in the religion of ancient Egypt. (The Book of the Dead, New Hyde Park, N.Y., 1960, with introduction by E. A. Wallis Budge, pp. 144, 149, 151, 153, 161) Buddhism, which dates back to the 6th century B.C.E., in time came to feature both hot and cold hells. (The Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 14, p. 68) Depictions of hell portrayed in Catholic churches in Italy have been traced to Etruscan roots.—La civiltà etrusca (Milan, 1979), Werner Keller, p. 389.

But the real roots of this God-dishonoring doctrine go much deeper. The fiendish concepts associated with a hell of torment slander God and originate with the chief slanderer of God (the Devil, which name means “Slanderer”), the one whom Jesus Christ called “the father of the lie.”—John 8:44.

Further details, or a summary:

One Myth Leads to Another
Myth 1: The Soul Is Immortal
Myth 2: The Wicked Suffer in Hell

Babylon the Great (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

Definition: The world empire of false religion, embracing all religions whose teachings and practices do not conform to the true worship of Jehovah, the only true God. Following the Flood of Noah’s day, false religion had its beginning at Babel (later known as Babylon). (Gen. 10:8-10; 11:4-9) In time, Babylonish religious beliefs and practices spread to many lands. So Babylon the Great became a fitting name for false religion as a whole.

What evidence points to the identity of Babylon the Great, referred to in Revelation?

...

Ancient Babylon was outstandingly noted for its religion and its defiance of Jehovah

...

Ancient Babylonian religious concepts and practices are found in religions worldwide

“Egypt, Persia, and Greece felt the influence of the Babylonian religion . . . The strong admixture of Semitic elements both in early Greek mythology and in Grecian cults is now so generally admitted by scholars as to require no further comment. These Semitic elements are to a large extent more specifically Babylonian.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898), M. Jastrow, Jr., pp. 699, 700.

Their gods: There were triads of gods, and among their divinities were those representing various forces of nature and ones that exercised special influence in certain activities of mankind. (Babylonian and Assyrian Religion, Norman, Okla.; 1963, S. H. Hooke, pp. 14-40) “The Platonic trinity, itself merely a rearrangement of older trinities dating back to earlier peoples, appears to be the rational philosophic trinity of attributes that gave birth to the three hypostases or divine persons taught by the Christian churches. . . . This Greek philosopher’s [Plato’s] conception of the divine trinity . . . can be found in all the ancient [pagan] religions.”—Nouveau Dictionnaire Universel (Paris, 1865-1870), edited by M. Lachâtre, Vol. 2, p. 1467.

Use of images: “[In Mesopotamian religion] the role of the image was central in the cult as well as in private worship, as the wide distribution of cheap replicas of such images shows. Fundamentally, the deity was considered present in its image if it showed certain specific features and paraphernalia and was cared for in the appropriate manner.”—Ancient Mesopotamia—Portrait of a Dead Civilization (Chicago, 1964), A. L. Oppenheim, p. 184.

Belief regarding death: “Neither the people nor the leaders of religious thought [in Babylon] ever faced the possibility of the total annihilation of what once was called into existence. Death was a passage to another kind of life.”—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, p. 556.

Position of the priesthood: “The distinction between priest and layman is characteristic of this [Babylonian] religion.”—Encyclopædia Britannica (1948), Vol. 2, p. 861.

Practice of astrology, divination, magic, and sorcery: Historian A. H. Sayce writes: “[In] the religion of ancient Babylonia . . . every object and force of nature was supposed to have its zi or spirit, who could be controlled by the magical exorcisms of the Shaman, or sorcerer-priest.” (The History of Nations, New York, 1928, Vol. I, p. 96) “The Chaldeans [Babylonians] made great progress in the study of astronomy through an effort to discover the future in the stars. This art we call ‘astrology.’”—The Dawn of Civilization and Life in the Ancient East (Chicago, 1938), R. M. Engberg, p. 230.

...

These are some of the same teachings and philosophies/ideas discussed in the article series entitled "One Myth Leads to Another" by the way. Even evolutionary philosophies trace their roots back to Babylon and can then be tracked to spread to Egypt, India and later Greece. Which I get a little bit into in my own thread with the same title. But that's where you can also trace the myths concerning "hell" as some kind of underworld or “nether world . . . pictured as a place full of horrors, and is presided over by gods and demons of great strength and fierceness.” (The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, Boston, 1898, Morris Jastrow, Jr., p. 581)

A BRIEF HISTORY OF HELL

ROOTS IN PAGAN BELIEFS: The ancient Egyptians believed in a fiery hell. The Book Ȧm-Ṭuat, dated 1375 B.C.E., speaks of those who “shall be cast down headlong into the pits of fire; and . . . shall not escape therefrom, and . . . shall not be able to flee from the flames.” Greek philosopher Plutarch (c.46-120 C.E.) wrote of those in the world below: “[They] raised a cry of wailing as they underwent fearful torments and ignominious and excruciating chastisements.”

SECTS OF JUDAISM ARE INFECTED: The historian Josephus (37-c.100 C.E.) reported that the Essenes, a Jewish sect, believed that “the souls are immortal, and continue forever.” He added: “This is like the opinion of the Greeks . . . They allot to bad souls a dark and tempestuous den, full of never-ceasing punishments.”

INTRODUCED INTO “CHRISTIANITY”: In the second century C.E., the apocryphal book Apocalypse of Peter said of the wicked: “There is spread out for them unquenchable fire.” It also stated: “Ezrael, the angel of wrath, brings men and women with the half of their bodies burning and casts them into a place of darkness, the hell of men; and a spirit of wrath chastises them.” During the same time period, writer Theophilus of Antioch quotes the Greek prophetess Sibyl as foretelling the punishments of the wicked: “Upon you burning fire shall come, and ever ye shall daily burn in flames.” These are among the words that Theophilus says are “true, and useful, and just, and profitable to all men.”

HELLFIRE USED TO JUSTIFY VIOLENCE IN THE MIDDLE AGES: Mary I, queen of England (1553-1558), known as “Bloody Mary” for burning nearly 300 Protestants at the stake, reportedly said: “As the souls of heretics are hereafter to be eternally burning in hell, there can be nothing more proper than for me to imitate the Divine vengeance by burning them on earth.”

A RECENT DEFINITION: In recent years, some denominations have revised their teaching about hell. For example, the Doctrine Commission of the Church of England said in 1995: “Hell is not eternal torment, but it is the final and irrevocable choosing of that which is opposed to God so completely and so absolutely that the only end is total non-being.”

Source: What Did Jesus Teach About Hell?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Lazarus Short

Do you realize that they got it from God through oral tradition.

You think what you may. But remember

Roms 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou ((That is God)) mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

"...they got it from God through oral tradition."? Prove it.

No, wait, I'll do it for you: "Hel" was a figure in pagan Norse mythology, easy to find in any decent book on the subject. She was the goddess/ogress of her supposed afterlife realm of "Helheim" or "House of Hel." It was the place the pagan Norse supposed you went if you did not rate going to Valhalla.

England was at one point almost overrun by Danes, who ruled an area once known as the Danelaw. During that period, some words entered the infant "English" language from Old Norse, "hel" and "hell" among them. This is recorded in "Beowulf," which was written in Anglo-Saxon - supposedly Old English, but the same language was also spoken on the Continent in those days. "Beowulf" was set in pagan Denmark with a thin Christian overlay, and it contains both "hel" and "hell." Later, both words appear in the 1611 KJV, but the words and concepts were now, um...Christianized - just like "Beowulf."

So...tell me all about oral tradition.

originally posted by: Seede
to: Lazarus Short

Tell me, is your version of the Good News (Hell included) better News than the Good News I proclaim (without Hell)?

Yes. Without faith that the scriptures are truthful then one is left with unbelief. if one says in his heart that the scriptures lie then that is disbelief. How can that one who disbelieves one part of the same source then believe the rest of that source? If you believe that hell is a lie you are declaring that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all liars or that their scriptures are mistranslated.
Have you realized this?

I have faith and belief sufficient for salvation, but I also find internal (and obvious!) evidence that the Text has been tampered with - to support a theology that is clearly at odds with the idea of God being our Loving, Heavenly Father. We see His character in this matter very clearly in Jeremiah 19:5

"They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:" -KJV

Shoutout to whereislogic: well done! My findings are much the same as yours.

a reply to: whereislogic

Translators have allowed their personal beliefs to color their work instead of being consistent in their rendering of the original-language words.

Not entirely accurate. In the first place you do not have original language words. All translators are not from the same camp. And then you have the matter of manuscripts used by the translators. The corrupt Westcott and Hort's Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus Manuscripts are used today in almost all bible translations whereas they were despised by the scholars that translated the 1611 KJV.

Why was this such a matter of importance? Well, as you yourself have pointed out the fact that most all translators and interpreters are bias. It can't be helped because all people have a free mind to various degrees. Even the prophets themselves used the gift of a free mind to express their own reasoning in the theological manner of religion.

In this event of Westcott and Hort were the practices of their own freedom of belief. They both practiced communicating with the dead, disbelief in a Christ taught heaven, and many practices of commune living. But their main intent in life seemed to be well known that they absolutely despised the KJV bible and all of its liturgy. Both men were absolute drunks of disbelief and yet were able to influence others into the use of garbage loaded manuscripts that most scholars of that day had shelved long ago.

So in regards to translators, it brought light to the KJV scholars to present a word in print study to protect the purity of the translation which time and cultures do alter. This came to us as a concordance which the wolves at the door could not influence and corrupt. Even then it turned many heads away from the KJV translators towards their own Ideas of what they wanted to read and hear.

This now brought in a new way of skirting the word of God. Today we call these comontaries. Now we can simply find a like minded person and quote that person as a source of truth. We don't need scholars anymore. Just someone to verify our ignorance.

originally posted by: Lazarus Short

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Lazarus Short

Do you realize that they got it from God through oral tradition.

You think what you may. But remember

Roms 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou ((That is God)) mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

"...they got it from God through oral tradition."? Prove it.

No, wait, I'll do it for you: "Hel" was a figure in pagan Norse mythology, easy to find in any decent book on the subject. She was the goddess/ogress of her supposed afterlife realm of "Helheim" or "House of Hel." It was the place the pagan Norse supposed you went if you did not rate going to Valhalla.

England was at one point almost overrun by Danes, who ruled an area once known as the Danelaw. During that period, some words entered the infant "English" language from Old Norse, "hel" and "hell" among them. This is recorded in "Beowulf," which was written in Anglo-Saxon - supposedly Old English, but the same language was also spoken on the Continent in those days. "Beowulf" was set in pagan Denmark with a thin Christian overlay, and it contains both "hel" and "hell." Later, both words appear in the 1611 KJV, but the words and concepts were now, um...Christianized - just like "Beowulf."

So...tell me all about oral tradition.

“Hell” is a word used in the King James Version (as well as in the Catholic Douay Version and most older translations) to translate the Hebrew sheʼohlʹ (note the similarity) and the Greek haiʹdes. In the King James Version the word “hell” is rendered from sheʼohlʹ 31 times and from haiʹdes 10 times. This version is not consistent, however, since sheʼohlʹ is also translated 31 times “grave” and 3 times “pit.” In the Douay Version sheʼohlʹ is rendered “hell” 64 times, “pit” once, and “death” once.

In 1885, with the publication of the complete English Revised Version, the original word sheʼohlʹ was in many places transliterated into the English text of the Hebrew Scriptures, though, in most occurrences, “grave” and “pit” were used, and “hell” is found some 14 times. This was a point on which the American committee disagreed with the British revisers, and so, when producing the American Standard Version (1901) they transliterated sheʼohlʹ in all 65 of its appearances. Both versions transliterated haiʹdes in the Christian Greek Scriptures in all ten of its occurrences, though the Greek word Geʹen·na (English, “Gehenna”) is rendered “hell” throughout, as is true of many other modern translations.

Concerning this use of “hell” to translate these original words from the Hebrew and Greek, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Vol. 2, p. 187) says: “HADES . . . It corresponds to ‘Sheol’ in the O.T. [Old Testament]. In the A.V. of the O.T. [Old Testament] and N.T. [New Testament], it has been unhappily rendered ‘Hell.’”

Collier’s Encyclopedia (1986, Vol. 12, p. 28) says concerning “Hell”: “First it stands for the Hebrew Sheol of the Old Testament and the Greek Hades of the Septuagint and New Testament. Since Sheol in Old Testament times referred simply to the abode of the dead and suggested no moral distinctions, the word ‘hell,’ as understood today, is not a happy translation.”

It is, in fact, because of the way that the word “hell” is understood today that it is such an unsatisfactory translation of these original Bible words. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, under “Hell” says: “fr[om] . . . helan to conceal.” The word “hell” thus originally conveyed no thought of heat or torment but simply of a ‘covered over or concealed place.’ In the old English dialect the expression “helling potatoes” meant, not to roast them, but simply to place the potatoes in the ground or in a cellar.

The meaning given today to the word “hell” is that portrayed in Dante’s Divine Comedy and Milton’s Paradise Lost, which meaning is completely foreign to the original definition of the word. The idea of a “hell” of fiery torment, however, dates back long before Dante or Milton. The Grolier Universal Encyclopedia (1971, Vol. 9, p. 205) under “Hell” says: “Hindus and Buddhists regard hell as a place of spiritual cleansing and final restoration. Islamic tradition considers it as a place of everlasting punishment.” The idea of suffering after death is found among the pagan religious teachings of ancient peoples in Babylon and Egypt. As quoted in my earlier commentary, Babylonian and Assyrian beliefs depicted the “nether world . . . as a place full of horrors, . . . presided over by gods and demons of great strength and fierceness.” Although ancient Egyptian religious texts do not teach that the burning of any individual victim would go on forever, they do portray the “Other World” as featuring “pits of fire” for “the damned.”​—The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, by Morris Jastrow, Jr., 1898, p. 581; The Book of the Dead, with introduction by E. Wallis Budge, 1960, pp. 135, 144, 149, 151, 153, 161, 200.

“Hellfire” has been a basic teaching in Christendom for many centuries. It is understandable why The Encyclopedia Americana (1956, Vol. XIV, p. 81) said: “Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception.” Nevertheless, such transliteration and consistent rendering does enable the Bible student to make an accurate comparison of the texts in which these original words appear and, with open mind, thereby to arrive at a correct understanding of their true significance.​—See GEHENNA; GRAVE; HADES; SHEOL; TARTARUS.

An Open Answer to “The Vindicator” (1951)

...
The Encyclopædia Britannica gives us the derivation of the word “Hell”, saying: “Old English hel, a Teutonic word from a root meaning ‘to cover,’ compare German Hoelle, Dutch hel.”

Webster’s New International Dictionary, 2d edition, unabridged, corroborates the above derivation, saying: “Hell [AS.; akin . . . to Anglo-Saxon helan to conceal, Latin celare, Greek kalyptein, Old Irish celim I conceal, Sanskrit śarman protection. See HALL; compare CELLAR, CLANDESTINE, COLOR, CONCEAL, HEL, HELE, HELMET, HULL, OCCULT, SUPERCILIOUS.]”

Now every honest person must admit, in the face of this evidence, that the basic meaning of “hell” is to cover or conceal. That is why this same Webster’s dictionary shows that “hell” is used as a verb meaning, oh no, not to torment in fire, but to “cover”; as when the Old English dialect spoke of “helling potatoes”, not meaning to roast them in fire, but meaning to put them in the ground as a cellar. Hence “Hell” corresponds with “Hades”, for “Hades” means “invisible, obscure, dark”.

For this reason it is wrong for men to translate the Greek word Gehenna as “Hell” and you are wrong in saying that Hell is from Gehenna. All authorities agree that Hell represents a covered or concealed place and hence Hell corresponds with the grave, which is the place where we cover or conceal our dead. On the other hand, Gehenna means “valley of Hinnom”. And if you know anything about the Gehenna which lay outside the western and southern walls of Jerusalem in Jesus’ day, you know it was not a concealed or covered place but was a very open, uncovered place, a chasm which Jerusalem used as an open dump. There they cast sometimes the corpses (not living bodies) of criminals to be cremated in the fires mixed with sulphur or to be consumed by the maggots; all this picturing that such criminals were unworthy of a resurrection from the dead.

Hence the New World Translation could not render Gehenna by the word Hell, a covered place, but transferred Gehenna bodily into its English text. The Appendix explains what Gehenna was in Jesus’ day and shows it Scripturally symbolizes the “second death”. This is an eternal punishment, because it is the death from which there is no resurrection. Surely Gehenna cannot be a place for the fiery torment of living human souls eternally, for Jesus said: “If ever your hand makes you stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter into life maimed than with two hands to go off into Gehenna, into the fire that cannot be put out. And if your foot makes you stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter into life crippled than with two feet to be pitched into Gehenna.” (Mark 9:43-46, NW) Being pitched into the fiery Gehenna is the opposite of ‘entering into life’. Now what is the opposite of life? Absence of life, death, is it not? Gehenna is not the same as the grave (Hades) from which there is a resurrection. So you are absolutely in error in inferring that the New World Translation applies Gehenna to the grave, “to defy inspiration.”

...

originally posted by: whereislogic
Translators have allowed their personal beliefs to color their work instead of being consistent in their rendering of the original-language words.

originally posted by: Seede
Not entirely accurate. In the first place you do not have original language words.

The "original-language words" referred to there are the Hebrew she’ohlʹ and its Greek equivalent haiʹdes, which refer, not to an individual burial place, but to the common grave of dead mankind; also the Greek geʹen·na, which is used as a symbol of eternal destruction.

They are well-known among bible translators, including those who worked on the KJV and chose to render them inconsistently as discussed in my commentary and in particular my last comment.

You sound a bit too much like ChesterJohn to me when you use the expression "you do not have original language words", for me to dig into what you actually mean to say by saying it like that. If you mean to say that we somehow don't know what the original-language words were in those places where some Bible translations chose to render them as "hell" in English translations, I think it's a claim and argument that falls flat on its face and is not really worth addressing if someone doesn't want to admit to it no matter what the evidence shows (like ChesterJohn's way of responding to such evidence usually).

Oh, and just in case you also have the wrong impression what a "dead language" is (like the way CJ uses that expression), when something is a "dead language", it simply means it is no longer regularly spoken by a group of people, it does not mean that all knowledge of this language is somehow completely gone (including what the words mean in modern 'living' languages, so to speak). It also does not mean that all research into the meaning of these words over the centuries, including centuries in which these now dead languages were still in use, is somehow invalid or meaningless. That's how CJ talks about it when he brings up the expression "dead language" concerning the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek languages used to write the Scriptures.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
The meaning given today to the word “hell” is that portrayed in Dante’s Divine Comedy and Milton’s Paradise Lost, which meaning is completely foreign to the original definition of the word. The idea of a “hell” of fiery torment, however, dates back long before Dante or Milton. The Grolier Universal Encyclopedia (1971, Vol. 9, p. 205) under “Hell” says: “Hindus and Buddhists regard hell as a place of spiritual cleansing and final restoration. ...

Sort of like the way you (Lazarus Short) view the lake of fire when you were talking about being “cleansed by that Godfire” (referring to “the Lake of Fire”; page 2). Also incorrect, just like the idea of a “hell” of fiery torment. Both views showing to have Pagan origins (and a geographic connection to Babylon, the religious propaganda center of the ancient world from where false religious ideas spread both in the direction of Egypt, Greece, i.e. the West, and Persia and India, i.e. the East from where we get Hinduism and Buddhism with these 'cleansing' ideas for hell or the lake of fire in your case).

a reply to: Seede

Perhaps it's just me, I often feel realizing one's sin can be described as a burning sensation.The flaming sword has been brought up, in a symbolic sense it can be thought of as a barrier between life and death. Isaiah 6:22 brings to mind those who cling to sin, and the illusion of self.

a reply to: dffrntkndfnml

To my knowledge there is not a 22nd verse in Isaiah chapter 6 ------------ ?

a reply to: Seede
I'm sorry I meant Isaiah 66:24.

a reply to: Seede I'm sorry I meant Isaiah 66:24.

a reply to: dffrntkndfnml

TextPerhaps it's just me, I often feel realizing one's sin can be described as a burning sensation.The flaming sword has been brought up, in a symbolic sense it can be thought of as a barrier between life and death. Isaiah 66:22 brings to mind those who cling to sin, and the illusion of self.

Yes, When any of us become so entangled in self and believe our self is above others then that becomes the beginning of our destruction. I call it pride and pride brought the most revered Satan to his knees. But for the grace of God I pray I fall not into the snare of pride.

a reply to: whereislogic

The "original-language words" referred to there are the Hebrew she’ohlʹ and its Greek equivalent haiʹdes, which refer, not to an individual burial place, but to the common grave of dead mankind; also the Greek geʹen·na, which is used as a symbol of eternal destruction.

There is nothing to base any sort of autograph to either the Hebrew or Greek bibles. Without those MSS it is impossible to know the exact word in any of their literature.

I believe it is not good judgment to backbite another person who is not present in a debate. Chester John is quite an honorable Christian teacher in my judgment and his knowledge is quite extensive. I enjoy reading his posts.

We have strayed off from the debate and it seems that you do not want to stay on course when the debate matter is too overwhelming. You seem to be angry and resort to lengthy cherry picking verses out of context in most of your posts. I have often wondered if you have guide literature feeding your ignorance. Nevertheless in my opinion it is not good scholarship to try using Hebrew and Greek in comparison when it cannot be transliterated in clarity. It is best to transliterate Hebrew in its Sumerian culture and Greek in its own culture. Hebrew is much older than the Greek counterpart and should be left to its own demise.

a reply to: Seede

There was no backbiting in my comment. I stated things simply as they are, in what I thought was a rather respectful way of putting it while remaining completely honest and open about it (i.e. not wavering with the truth because of the possibility someone might twist it and read something negative into it, like you just did, followed by a paintjob to paint something negative on my commentary, like the way you talk about Westcott and Hort and paint all sorts of negative stuff on them to discredit their work):

You sound a bit too much like ChesterJohn to me when you use the expression "you do not have original language words", for me to dig into what you actually mean to say by saying it like that. If you mean to say that we somehow don't know what the original-language words were in those places where some Bible translations chose to render them as "hell" in English translations, I think it's a claim and argument that falls flat on its face and is not really worth addressing if someone doesn't want to admit to it no matter what the evidence shows (like ChesterJohn's way of responding to such evidence usually).

Where's the backbiting? You do sound a bit too much like ChesterJohn to me when you use that expression, for me to dig into what you actually mean to say by saying it like that. And CJ does have a certain style of response to hard evidence that does not fit the logic of his arguments or directly contradicts his claims.

You said:

We have strayed off from the debate and it seems that you do not want to stay on course when the debate matter is too overwhelming.

I think the one who strayed off is the one who felt the need to try to discredit and slander Westcott and Hort in response to my commentary when they are utterly irrelevant to anything in my commentary. Hence, I didn't even bother to respond to that part of your comment (again, the same type of stuff you hear from CJ, is it time already for that ridiculous* picture about manuscripts and bible translations that are supposedly connected whereas others are supposedly on a different historical path and not connected apart from a few that have a little line crossing over the 2 sections, with the blue and red lines and arrows? You know the one that CJ always uses as supposed evidence of the superiority of the KJV over the supposed evil Westcott and Hort section of the diagram, which section was that again, the codex alexandrinus or vaticanus? One was in red the other blue, one supposedly reliable the other section not and should all be rejected as the picture accompanied by CJ's commentary usually implies, or more or less spells out).

*: in my use of the word "ridiculous", again, I'm merely trying to be honest and open, it is a ridiculous picture, so ridiculous, that's not even worthy of a more serious response. It's such a twisted view of the history of bible translation and manuscriptual research and evidence, that "outrageously ridiculous" would be an appropiate description for me as well. The first time I saw it, I couldn't help but laugh, it's so far out there, it begins to feel like some comedy sketch of one of Trump's deceptive theatrics for example, completely overdone and exaggerating the art of deception and lying to the point that it just becomes ridiculously obvious what's actually going on (that the audience or fans are being deceived and lied to, tricked and their ears tickled).

a reply to: whereislogic

Since I brought up the topic now anyway, a little history 101 regarding bible manuscripts, research and translation:

Manuscripts of the Bible (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2)

The Holy Scriptures have a superhuman origin as to content but a human history as to their writing and preservation. Moses began compiling them under divine inspiration in 1513 B.C.E., and the apostle John wrote the final portion thereof more than 1,600 years later. The Bible was not originally one book, but as time passed, a demand arose for copies of its various books. This was so, for instance, after the Babylonian exile, for not all released Jews returned to the land of Judah. Instead, many settled elsewhere, and synagogues sprang up throughout the vast territory of the resultant Jewish Dispersion. Scribes prepared copies of the Scriptures needed for these synagogues where the Jews gathered to hear the reading of God’s Word. (Ac 15:21) In later times, among Christ’s followers, conscientious copyists labored to reproduce the inspired writings for the benefit of the multiplying Christian congregations so that there might be an interchange and general circulation of these.​—Col 4:16.

Before printing from movable type became common (from the 15th century C.E. onward), the original Bible writings and also copies of them were handwritten. Hence, they are called manuscripts (Latin, manu scriptus, “written by hand”). A Bible manuscript is a handwritten copy of the Scriptures, the whole or in part, as distinguished from one that is printed. Bible manuscripts were produced principally in the form of rolls and codices.

Materials. There are leather, papyrus, and vellum manuscripts of the Scriptures. The noted Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah, for instance, is a leather roll. Papyrus, a type of paper made from the fibers of a water plant, was used for Bible manuscripts in the original languages and for translations thereof until about the fourth century C.E. At that time its use for Bible manuscripts began to be superseded by the use of vellum, a fine grade of parchment generally made from calf, lamb, or goat skins, a further development of the earlier use of animal skins as writing material. Such manuscripts as the renowned Codex Sinaiticus (Sinaitic Manuscript) and the Codex Vaticanus (Vatican Manuscript No. 1209) of the fourth century C.E. are parchment, or vellum, codices.

A palimpsest (Lat., palimpsestus; Gr., pa·limʹpse·stos, meaning “scraped again”) is a manuscript from which earlier writing was removed or scraped off to make room for later writing. A noted Bible palimpsest is the Codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus of the fifth century C.E. If the earlier writing (the writing scraped off) is the important one on the palimpsest, scholars can often read this erased writing by employing technical means that include the use of chemical reagents and photography. Some manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures are lectionaries, selected Bible readings for use at religious services.

Styles of Writing. Bible manuscripts written in Greek (whether translations of the Hebrew Scriptures, or copies of the Christian Greek Scriptures, or both) can be divided, or classified, as to writing style, which is also an aid in dating them. The older style (employed especially down to the ninth century C.E.) is the uncial manuscript, written in large, separated capital letters. In it there is generally no word separation, and punctuation and accent marks are lacking. The Codex Sinaiticus is such an uncial manuscript. Changes in writing style began to develop in the sixth century, eventually leading (in the ninth century C.E.) to the cursive, or minuscule, manuscript, written in smaller letters, many of which were joined in a running or flowing writing style. The majority of extant manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures have a cursive script. Cursive manuscripts remained in vogue until the inception of printing.

Copyists. As far as is known today, no handwritten original, or autograph, manuscripts of the Bible are in existence. Yet the Bible has been preserved in accurate, reliable form because Biblical copyists in general, accepting the Scriptures as being divinely inspired, sought perfection in their arduous labor of producing manuscript copies of God’s Word.

The men who copied the Hebrew Scriptures in the days of Jesus Christ’s ministry on earth and for centuries before that time were called scribes (Heb., soh·pherimʹ). Among the early scribes was Ezra, spoken of in the Scriptures as “a skilled copyist.” (Ezr 7:6) Later scribes made some deliberate alterations of the Hebrew text. But their scribal successors, the Masoretes, detected these and recorded them in the Masora, or notes appearing in the margins of the Hebrew Masoretic text they produced.

Copyists of the Christian Greek Scriptures also made earnest efforts to reproduce faithfully the text of the Scriptures. [whereislogic: they sure have a different way of talking about these “earnest efforts” than CJ and Seede do, don't they? Just something I noticed as I read this part, and part of the reason I made it red; normally I'd bold it but that would screw up the layout I'm trying to copy from the source. There's more...]

What assurance is there that the Bible has not been changed?

Despite the care exercised by copyists of Bible manuscripts, a number of small scribal errors and alterations crept into the text. On the whole, these are insignificant and have no bearing on the Bible’s general integrity. They have been detected and corrected by means of careful scholastic collation or critical comparison of the many extant manuscripts and ancient versions. Critical study of the Hebrew text of the Scriptures commenced toward the end of the 18th century. Benjamin Kennicott published at Oxford (in 1776-1780) the readings of over 600 Masoretic Hebrew manuscripts, and the Italian scholar Giambernardo de Rossi published at Parma comparisons of 731 manuscripts in 1784 to 1798. Master texts of the Hebrew Scriptures were also produced by the German scholar Baer and, more recently, by C. D. Ginsburg. Hebrew scholar Rudolf Kittel released in 1906 the first edition of his Biblia Hebraica (The Hebrew Bible), providing therein a textual study through a footnote service, comparing many Hebrew manuscripts of the Masoretic text. The basic text he used was the Ben Chayyim text. But, when the older and superior Ben Asher Masoretic texts became available, Kittel undertook the production of an entirely new third edition, which was completed by his colleagues after his death.

The 7th, 8th, and 9th editions of the Biblia Hebraica (1951-1955) furnished the basic text used to render the Hebrew Scriptures into English in the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures originally published in 1950-1960. A new edition of the Hebrew text, namely Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, is dated 1977. This edition was used for updating the information presented in the footnotes of the New World Translation published in 1984.

The first printed edition of the Christian Greek Scriptures was that appearing in the Complutensian Polyglott (in Greek and Latin), of 1514-1517. Then in 1516 the Dutch scholar Desiderius Erasmus published his first edition of a master Greek text of the Christian Greek Scriptures. It contained many errors, but an improved text thereof was made available through four succeeding editions from 1519 to 1535. Later, Paris printer and editor Robert Estienne, or Stephanus, issued several editions of the Greek “New Testament,” based principally on Erasmus’ text, but having corrections according to the Complutensian Polyglott and 15 late manuscripts. The third edition of Stephanus’ Greek text (issued in 1550) became, in effect, the “Received Text” (called textus receptus in Latin), which was used for many early English versions, including the King James Version of 1611.

Quite noteworthy in more recent times is the master Greek text prepared by J. J. Griesbach, who availed himself of materials gathered by others but who also gave attention to Biblical quotations made by early writers such as Origen. Further, Griesbach studied the readings of various versions, such as the Armenian, Gothic, and Philoxenian. He viewed extant manuscripts as comprising three families, or recensions, the Byzantine, the Western, and the Alexandrian, giving preference to readings in the latter. Editions of his master Greek text were issued between 1774 and 1806, his principal edition of the entire Greek text being published in 1796-1806. Griesbach’s text was used for Sharpe’s English translation of 1840 and is the Greek text printed in The Emphatic Diaglott, by Benjamin Wilson, in 1864.

A Greek master text of the Christian Greek Scriptures that attained wide acceptance is that produced in 1881 by Cambridge University scholars B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. It was the product of 28 years of independent labor, though they compared notes regularly. Like Griesbach, they divided manuscripts into families and leaned heavily on what they termed the “neutral text,” which included the renowned Sinaitic Manuscript and the Vatican Manuscript No. 1209, both of the fourth century C.E. While Westcott and Hort viewed matters as quite conclusive when these manuscripts agreed and especially when they were supported by other ancient uncial manuscripts, they were not bound to that position. They took every conceivable factor into consideration in endeavoring to solve problems presented by conflicting texts; and when two readings were of equal weight, that, too, was indicated in their master text. The Westcott and Hort text was the one used principally in translating the Christian Greek Scriptures into English in the New World Translation. However, the New World Bible Translation Committee also consulted other excellent Greek texts, among them Nestle’s Greek text (1948).

Commenting on the history of the text of the Christian Greek Scriptures and the results of modern textual research, Professor Kurt Aland wrote: “It can be determined, on the basis of 40 years of experience and with the results which have come to light in examining . . . manuscripts at 1,200 test places: The text of the New Testament has been excellently transmitted, better than any other writing from ancient times; the possibility that manuscripts might yet be found that would change its text decisively is zero.”​—Das Neue Testament—​zuverlässig überliefert (The New Testament​—Reliably Transmitted), Stuttgart, 1986, pp. 27, 28.

The extant manuscripts of the Christian Scriptures (in Greek and other languages) show textual variations. Variations are to be expected in view of human imperfection and the copying and recopying of manuscripts, especially by many copyists who were not professionals. If certain manuscripts had a common ancestor manuscript, perhaps came from a particular revision of early texts, or were produced in a particular area, they would probably have at least some variations in common, and hence they are said to belong to the same family, or group. On the basis of similarity in such differences, scholars have sought to classify the texts into groups, or families, the number of which has increased with the passing of time, till reference is now made to the Alexandrian, Western, Eastern (Syriac and Caesarean), and the Byzantine texts, represented in various manuscripts or in different readings scattered throughout numerous manuscripts. But despite the variations peculiar to different manuscript families (and the variations within each group), the Scriptures have come down to us in essentially the same form as that of the original inspired writings. The variations of reading are of no consequence as to Bible teachings in general. And scholastic collations have corrected errors of any importance, so that today we enjoy an authentic and reliable text.

Since Westcott and Hort produced their refined Greek text, a number of critical editions of the Christian Greek Scriptures have been produced. Noteworthy among them is The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies and now in its third edition. Identical in wording is the 26th edition of the so-called Nestle-Aland text, published in 1979 in Stuttgart, Germany.​—See CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES.
...

continuing:

Manuscripts of Hebrew Scriptures. There are possibly 6,000 manuscripts of all or portions of the Hebrew Scriptures extant today in various libraries. The vast majority contain the Masoretic text and are of the tenth century C.E. or thereafter. The Masoretes (of the second half of the first millennium C.E.) sought to transmit the Hebrew text faithfully and made no changes in the wording of the text itself. However, to preserve the traditional pronunciation of the vowelless consonantal text, they devised systems of vowel pointing and accenting. Additionally, in their Masora, or marginal notes, they drew attention to textual peculiarities and gave corrected readings they considered necessary. It is the Masoretic text that appears in printed Hebrew Bibles of the present day.

Damaged Hebrew Scripture manuscripts used in Jewish synagogues were replaced by verified copies, and the defaced or damaged manuscripts were stored in a genizah (a synagogue storeroom or repository). Finally, when it was full, the manuscripts were removed and ceremoniously buried. Doubtless many ancient manuscripts perished in that way. But the contents of the synagogue genizah in Old Cairo were spared, probably because it was walled up and forgotten for centuries. Following the rebuilding of the synagogue in 1890 C.E., the manuscripts in its genizah were reexamined, and from there fairly complete Hebrew Scripture manuscripts and fragments (some said to be of the sixth century C.E.) found their way into various libraries.

One of the oldest extant fragments containing Biblical passages is the Nash Papyrus, found in Egypt and preserved at Cambridge, England. Evidently part of an instructional collection, it is of the second or first century B.C.E. and consists of only four fragments of 24 lines of a pre-Masoretic text of the Ten Commandments and some verses of Deuteronomy, chapters 5 and 6.

Since 1947 many Biblical and non-Biblical scrolls have been found in various areas W of the Dead Sea, and these are referred to generally as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Most significant among them are manuscripts discovered in a number of caves in and about the Wadi Qumran (Nahal Qumeran). These are also known as the Qumran texts and evidently once belonged to a Jewish religious community centered at nearby Khirbet Qumran (Horvat Qumeran). The first discovery was made by a Bedouin in a cave about 15 km (9.5 mi) S of Jericho, where he found a number of earthenware jars containing ancient manuscripts. One of these was the now-renowned Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah (1QIs⁠a), a well-preserved leather roll of the entire book of Isaiah, except for a few gaps. (PICTURE, Vol. 1, p. 322) It contains a pre-Masoretic Hebrew script and has been dated toward the end of the second century B.C.E. Hence, it is about a thousand years older than the oldest extant manuscript of the Masoretic text. However, though showing some differences in spelling and grammatical construction, it does not vary doctrinally from the Masoretic text. Among the documents recovered in the Qumran area are fragments of over 170 scrolls representing parts of all Hebrew Scripture books except Esther, and in the case of some books, more than one copy exists. These manuscript scrolls and fragments are believed to range in date from about 250 B.C.E. to about the middle of the first century C.E., and they exhibit more than one type of Hebrew text, such as a proto-Masoretic text or one underlying the Greek Septuagint. Studies of such materials are still in progress.

Among notable vellum Hebrew manuscripts of the Hebrew Scriptures is the Cairo Karaite Codex of the Prophets. It contains the Masora and vocalization, and its colophon indicates that it was completed in about 895 C.E. by the noted Masorete Moses ben Asher of Tiberias. Another significant manuscript (of 916 C.E.) is the Petersburg Codex of the Latter Prophets. The Aleppo Sephardic Codex, once preserved at Aleppo, Syria, and now in Israel, until recently contained the entire Hebrew Scriptures. Its original consonantal text was corrected, punctuated, and furnished with the Masora about 930 C.E. by Aaron ben Asher, son of Moses ben Asher. The oldest dated manuscript of the complete Hebrew Scriptures in Hebrew is the Leningrad Manuscript No. B 19⁠A, preserved in the Public Library in St. Petersburg, Russia. It was copied in 1008 C.E. “from the corrected books prepared and annotated by Aaron ben Moses ben Asher the teacher.” Another noteworthy Hebrew manuscript is a codex of the Pentateuch preserved in the British Library (Codex Oriental 4445), consisting of Genesis 39:20 to Deuteronomy 1:33 (except for Nu 7:46-73 and 9:12–10:18, which are lacking or have been supplied by a later hand) and probably dating from the tenth century C.E.

Many manuscripts of the Hebrew Scripture portion of the Bible were written in Greek. Among those of particular note is one in the collection of the Fouad Papyri (Inventory Number 266, belonging to the Société Egyptienne de Papyrologie, Cairo), containing portions of Genesis and of the second half of Deuteronomy according to the Septuagint. It is of the first century B.C.E. and shows, in various places, the divine name written in square Hebrew characters within the Greek text. Fragments of Deuteronomy, chapters 23 to 28, are found in Rylands Papyrus iii. 458 of the second century B.C.E., preserved in Manchester, England. Another leading manuscript of the Septuagint contains fragments of Jonah, Micah, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Zechariah. In this leather scroll, dated to the end of the first century C.E., the divine name is rendered by the Tetragrammaton written in ancient Hebrew characters.​—See NW appendix, pp. 1562-1564.

Manuscripts of Christian Greek Scriptures. The Christian Scriptures were written in Koine. Though no original autograph manuscripts thereof are known to exist today, according to one calculation, there are some 5,000 extant manuscript copies, whole or in part, of these Scriptures in Greek.

Papyrus manuscripts. Biblical papyri of great importance were among papyrus codices found in Egypt about 1930, their purchase being announced in 1931. Some of these Greek codices (dating from the second to the fourth centuries C.E.) consist of parts of eight Hebrew Scripture books (Genesis, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Esther), and three contain portions of 15 books of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Most of these Scriptural papyri were purchased by an American manuscript collector, A. Chester Beatty, and are now preserved in Dublin, Ireland. The rest were acquired by the University of Michigan and by others.

The international designation for Biblical papyri is a capital “P” followed by a small superior number. The Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 1 (P⁠45) consists of parts of 30 leaves from a codex that probably once had about 220 leaves. P⁠45 has portions of the four Gospels and the book of Acts. The Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 3 (P⁠47) is a fragmentary codex of Revelation containing ten somewhat damaged leaves. These two papyri are believed to be from the third century C.E. Quite noteworthy is the Chester Beatty Papyrus No. 2 (P⁠46) believed to be from about 200 C.E. It has 86 somewhat damaged leaves out of a codex that probably had 104 leaves originally, and it still contains nine of Paul’s inspired letters: Romans, Hebrews, First Corinthians, Second Corinthians, Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians, and First Thessalonians. It is noteworthy that the letter to the Hebrews is included in this early codex. Since Hebrews does not give its writer’s name, its composition by Paul has frequently been disputed. But this letter’s inclusion in P⁠46, evidently consisting of Paul’s letters exclusively, indicates that in about 200 C.E., Hebrews was accepted by early Christians as an inspired writing of the apostle Paul. The letter to the Ephesians appears in this codex, thus also refuting arguments that Paul did not write this letter.

At the John Rylands Library, Manchester, England, there is a small papyrus fragment of John’s Gospel (some verses of chapter 18) cataloged as Rylands Papyrus 457. It is internationally designated as P⁠52. This is the oldest extant manuscript fragment of the Christian Greek Scriptures, having been written in the first half of the second century, possibly about 125 C.E., and thus only a quarter of a century or so after John’s death. The fact that a copy of John’s Gospel was evidently circulating in Egypt (the place of the fragment’s discovery) by that time shows that the good news according to John was really recorded in the first century C.E. and by John himself, not by some unknown writer well along in the second century C.E., after John’s death, as some critics once claimed.

The most important addition to the collection of Biblical papyri since the discovery of the Chester Beatty Papyri was the acquisition of the Bodmer Papyri, published between 1956 and 1961. Particularly noteworthy are Papyrus Bodmer 2 (P⁠66) and Papyrus Bodmer 14, 15 (P⁠75), both written about 200 C.E. Papyrus Bodmer 2 contains a large part of the Gospel of John, while Papyrus Bodmer 14, 15 has much of Luke and John and is textually very close to Vatican Manuscript No. 1209.
...

Continued in next comment.

Vellum manuscripts. Bible manuscripts written on vellum sometimes include both the Hebrew and Christian Greek Scripture portions of the Bible, though some are only of the Christian Scriptures.

Codex Bezae, designated by the letter “D,” is a valuable manuscript of the fifth century C.E. Though its actual place of origin is unknown, it was acquired in France in 1562. It contains the Gospels, the book of Acts, and only a few other verses, and is an uncial manuscript, written in Greek on the left-hand pages, with a parallel Latin text appearing on the right-hand pages. This codex is preserved at Cambridge University in England, having been presented to that institution by Theodore Beza in 1581.

Codex Claromontanus (D2) is likewise written in Greek and Latin on opposite pages, Greek on the left and Latin on the right. It contains Paul’s canonical letters, including Hebrews, and is considered to be of the sixth century. It was reportedly found in the monastery at Clermont, France, and was acquired by Theodore Beza, but it is now preserved at the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris.

Among more recently discovered vellum manuscripts of the Christian Greek Scriptures is Codex Washingtonianus I, containing the Gospels in Greek (in the common Western order: Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark). It was obtained in 1906 in Egypt and is preserved at the Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. The international symbol of this codex is “W,” and it is thought to have been written in the fifth century C.E., except that apparently, because of damage, part of John was replaced in the seventh century C.E. Codex Washingtonianus II, having the symbol “I,” is also in the Freer Collection and contains portions of Paul’s canonical letters, including Hebrews. This codex is believed to have been written in the fifth century C.E.

Hebrew and Christian Greek Scriptures. The most important and most complete extant Bible manuscripts in Greek were written on vellum in uncial letters.

Vatican Manuscript No. 1209. The Vatican Manuscript No. 1209 (Codex Vaticanus), designated internationally by the symbol “B,” is an uncial codex of the fourth century C.E., possibly produced in Alexandria, and it originally contained the entire Bible in Greek. A corrector of later date retraced the letters, perhaps because the original writing had faded, except that he skipped letters and words he considered incorrect. Originally this codex probably had approximately 820 leaves, of which 759 remain. Most of Genesis is gone, as well as a part of Psalms, Hebrews 9:14 to 13:25, and all of First and Second Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation. Codex Vaticanus is preserved at the Vatican Library in Rome, Italy, and is known to have been there as early as the 15th century. However, Vatican Library authorities made access to the manuscript extremely difficult for scholars and did not publish a full photographic facsimile of the entire codex until 1889-1890.

Sinaitic Manuscript. The Sinaitic Manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus) is also of the fourth century C.E., but Codex Vaticanus may be a little older. The Sinaitic Manuscript is designated by the symbol א (ʼaʹleph, first letter in the Hebrew alphabet), and while it evidently once contained the entire Bible in Greek, part of the Hebrew Scriptures has been lost. However, it has all the Christian Greek Scriptures. Likely this codex originally consisted of 730 leaves, at least, though the whole or parts of just 393 are now verified to be extant. It was discovered (one portion in 1844 and another in 1859) by the Bible scholar Konstantin von Tischendorf at the Monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai. Forty-three leaves of this codex are kept in Leipzig, portions of three leaves are at St. Petersburg, Russia, and 347 leaves are preserved at the British Library in London. It has been reported that 8 to 14 more leaves were discovered in the same monastery in 1975.

Alexandrine Manuscript. The Alexandrine Manuscript (Codex Alexandrinus), designated by the letter “A,” is a Greek uncial manuscript containing most of the Bible, including the book of Revelation. Of possibly 820 original leaves, 773 have been preserved. This codex is generally considered to be of the first half of the fifth century C.E., and it is also preserved in the British Library.​—PICTURE, Vol. 2, p. 336.

Codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus. The Codex Ephraemi Syri rescriptus (Codex Ephraemi), designated internationally by the letter “C,” is also generally considered to have originated in the fifth century C.E. It is written in Greek uncials on vellum and is a rewritten codex, a palimpsest manuscript. The original Greek text was removed, and a number of leaves were then written over with discourses of Ephraem Syrus (the Syrian), rendered in Greek. This was done probably during the 12th century, when there was a scarcity of vellum. However, the underlying text has been deciphered. While “C” evidently once contained all the Scriptures in Greek, just 209 leaves remain, 145 being of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Hence, this codex now contains only portions of Hebrew Scripture books and parts of all books of the Christian Greek Scriptures except Second Thessalonians and Second John. It is preserved at the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris.

Reliability of the Bible Text. Appreciation of the reliability of the Bible is greatly enhanced when it is realized that, by comparison, there are only very few extant manuscripts of the works of classical secular writers and none of these are original, autograph manuscripts. Though they are only copies made centuries after the death of the authors, present-day scholars accept such late copies as sufficient evidence of the authenticity of the text.

Extant Hebrew manuscripts of the Scriptures were prepared with great care. Respecting the text of the Hebrew Scriptures, scholar W. H. Green observed: “It may be safely said that no other work of antiquity has been so accurately transmitted.” (Archaeology and Bible History, by J. P. Free, 1964, p. 5) The late Bible text scholar Sir Frederic Kenyon made this reassuring statement in the introduction to his seven volumes entitled The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri: “The first and most important conclusion derived from the examination of them [the Papyri] is the satisfactory one that they confirm the essential soundness of the existing texts. No striking or fundamental variation is shown either in the Old or the New Testament. There are no important omissions or additions of passages, and no variations which affect vital facts or doctrines. The variations of text affect minor matters, such as the order of words or the precise words used. . . . But their essential importance is their confirmation, by evidence of an earlier date than was hitherto available, of the integrity of our existing texts. In this respect they are an acquisition of epoch-making value.”​—London, 1933, Fasciculus I, p. 15.

Concerning the Christian Greek Scriptures, Sir Frederic Kenyon stated: “The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”​—The Bible and Archæology, 1940, pp. 288, 289.

Centuries ago, Jesus Christ, “the faithful and true witness” (Re 3:14), repeatedly and emphatically confirmed the genuineness of the Hebrew Scriptures, as did his apostles. (Lu 24:27, 44; Ro 15:4) Extant ancient versions, or translations, further bespeak the exactness of the preserved Hebrew Scriptures. Manuscripts and versions of the Christian Greek Scriptures bear unassailable testimony to the marvelous preservation and accurate transmission of that portion of God’s Word. We are therefore now favored with an authentic, thoroughly reliable Bible text. A thoughtful examination of preserved manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures bears eloquent testimony to their faithful preservation and permanence, giving added meaning to the inspired statement: “The green grass has dried up, the blossom has withered; but as for the word of our God, it will last to time indefinite.”​—Isa 40:8; 1Pe 1:24, 25.

And we most definitely do know the original-language words that were rendered as “hell”​ in many English bible translations including the KJV.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
And we most definitely do know the original-language words that were rendered as “hell”​ in many English bible translations including the KJV.

Or as Sir Frederic Kenyon said it:

Concerning the Christian Greek Scriptures, Sir Frederic Kenyon stated: “The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.”

So yes, we do know the original-language words that were used by the inspired Bible writers that were then rendered as “hell”​ in many English bible translations; “as they were written” = the original-language words that were used by the inspired Bible writers.

“Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”​—The Bible and Archæology, 1940, pp. 288, 289.

I.e. we know what was written, which words were used. Everything I shared about the original-language words in question (the Hebrew she’ohlʹ and its Greek equivalent haiʹdes, which refer, not to an individual burial place, but to the common grave of dead mankind; also the Greek geʹen·na, which is used as a symbol of eternal destruction.) is valid and true/factual/correct, without error. It cannot be invalidated by distracting red herrings about Westcott and Hort or vague claims about supposedly not 'having' (notice the subtle difference in wording to bring up a moot point about original writings instead of the "original-language words" that were used and on which the translation is based, the ones we know very well as did those who worked on the King James translation, i.e. a red herring) the original-language words that were inconsistently rendered as “hell”, “the grave”, “the world of the dead”, “the underworld” and “the pit” in many English bible translations as described before in more detail in the part you were originally responding to with that claim. Or invalidated by distracting red herrings and half-truths or incomplete information about manuscripts that are used for bible translations (along with attempts to discredit them in the process, both the manuscripts and the translations, except of course anything supposedly connected to the KJV, that one is exempt from such 'criticism'*, if that's the right word for it).

*: you (Seede) used the term "The corrupt Westcott and Hort's Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus Manuscripts ...". Perhaps someone else cares to bother explaining how ridiculous that terminology is, as if the manuscripts are theirs. And possibly even as if the mere mention of their names in connection with these manuscripts like that somehow taints them enough to warrant the description "corrupt" for the manuscripts. Westcott and Hort are about as irrelevant to anything I said in my initial commentary as they are to these manuscripts' authenticity and general integrity, to use Kenyon's terminology again.

And it's even more irrelevant to anything I shared about the Hebrew word in question, and how it's used in the Hebrew Scriptures, since Westcott and Hort only produced a Greek master text of the Christian Greek Scriptures, unless I'm confused now because of the red herring. But that is what the arguments of the King James Only-Camp usually are directed against when it comes to Westcott and Hort (it's also in the picture that CJ is so fond of using that I talked about before; perhaps he can dig it up and post it again here so we can compare with some of the information I just shared and see what's missing from the picture).

Ah, found it in a thread from DISRAELI, saves CJ the trouble:

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
When it comes to documents it is best to have many that agree with one another, than a 45 that disagree with each other. It is better to have the Holy Ghost for God to use in preserving his words to every generations as promised in Psalm 12:6-7, than not to have it and only give secular history lessons.

Red is good, blue is bad? It's usually the other way around.

Isaiah 5:20,21:

Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!

Although in this case, none of the manuscripts or translations mentioned in that picture are actually 'bad'. None are perfect either. But they do allow one to make the earlier mentioned observation of the fact you referred to as "not entirely accurate", namely that:

Translators have allowed their personal beliefs to color their work instead of being consistent in their rendering of the original-language words. For example: (1) The King James Version rendered she’ohlʹ as “hell,” “the grave,” and “the pit”; haiʹdes is therein rendered both “hell” and “grave”; geʹen·na is also translated “hell.” (2) Today’s English Version transliterates haiʹdes as “Hades” and also renders it as “hell” and “the world of the dead.” But besides rendering “hell” from haiʹdes it uses that same translation for geʹen·na. (3) The Jerusalem Bible transliterates haiʹdes six times, but in other passages it translates it as “hell” and as “the underworld.” It also translates geʹen·na as “hell,” as it does haiʹdes in two instances. Thus the exact meanings of the original-language words have been obscured. [all facts/truths/certainties/realities, as are the things mentioned and the example quoted from the KJV in the video below, apart from one minor error where he's talking about "the Hebrew word GEHENNA" which is actually a transliteration of the Greek geʹen·na, not Hebrew; but that's just a minor caveat, the one who made that video probably knows better but didn't notice his mistake]

A fact/certainty/truth/reality is something that is factual/accurate/certain/true/correct, without error. And 'you can take that to the bank' they say in English speaking territories. Describing a fact or facts as "not entirely accurate", is false/incorrect/in error, the exact opposite of true, i.e. a falsehood/lie, the opposite of truth. That's only a reminder for some people who are confused about that, who I have encountered on ATS before. It's not as easy to grasp as one might think when you've got the type of people around that are described at Isaiah 5:20,21 and when their claims, arguments and ways of reasoning become more and more popular over the centuries until we've now reached the point described at 2 Timothy 4:3,4, Col 2:8, 1 Cor 1:19-21 and other such verses. But to get into that now would be a bit much all at once I recon.

a reply to: whereislogic

So I'm a little confused with all your rhetoric...

First I would start by saying you (whereislogic) and (Lazarus Short)
Both have a bad habit of taking scriptural verses out of context

After one’s death, is he still subject to further punishment for his sins?

Rom. 6:7: “He who has died has been acquitted from his sin.”

The verse Romans 6:7
in context is...

3. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
4. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: 6. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
7. For he that is dead is freed from sin.
8. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:
9. Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.
10. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.
11. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord

So this is talking about if we are baptized into Christ we are then baptized into his death also
(By being born again of the water & spirit & through repentance) in doing so we are buried with Christ through his death and we are then freed from sin...

It is (not) speaking of our own personal physical deaths...

Now I want to ask you...
would I be correct in saying,
you are stating that...

Hell is simply the grave & death...

And there is no life after death...
at all... for anyone,
(since souls are not immortal)

???

Just want to first clarify that is indeed what you are implying...

Or do I misunderstand your theology?

Keep in mind I do not necessarily share all of the same views as CJ, as I do not agree with the (KJV only) logic...
So we have common ground there

In fact I only reference the KJV 99% of the time because most seem to be
KJV only people

In any case before I continue with my
refutation,
if you would be so kind as to clarify my assumptions of your implications

a reply to: DustybudzZ

Yes, "hell" would be better rendered as "the grave," "the pit" or "the realm of the dead." The word "hell" has become so loaded with theo-illogical baggage, not to even mention its pagan origins, that it is no longer useful. Anyway, it was mostly useful to fill pews and offering plates.

After I had finished my book "Hell is a 404," I had a growing sense of FIRE. I proceeded to do a very tedious and exhaustive word study on "fire" and related words. I came to see God as a Refiner of men, and added a new chapter to my book, titled "Godfire." The premise was that all fire mentioned in the Bible is either natural fire or Godfire.

My theology goes something like this:

God made the cosmos, and it was perfect - but man did wrong (sinned).

God then put in place a long-term remedy: He would refine men and women through preaching, teaching and life's ups and downs. If we are, so to speak, impure ore, the dross, slag, tares, chaff, wood, hay and stubble must be burned off until the Refiner can skim off said slag and see His reflection in the gold/silver. In that regard, we will ALL be salted with Fire.

When we die, I believe we are all freed from our sins, but not necessarily from their consequences. Many/most will need further refining - all those not listed in the Book of Life. They go into the Lake of Fire, and let me be very clear: the LoF is NOT Hell - not even the KJV dares to ID it as that. After a time of some indeterminate length, and some may be in it longer than others, they come out REFINED and enter the Kingdom. No, I do not subscribe to the doctrine of eternal punishment, for it puts God in a bad light, mocks Justice and reduces the Good News to Bad News for most. The eternal (ha, ha) debate between "aon" meaning "forever" or "for an age" is critical to the Damnationist/Universalist debate. In the end, far in the future, God will become All in all, in a restored, perfect cosmos.

BTW, only the Overcomers will not spend some time in the LoF.

It is a big subject...any questions?