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

a reply to: whereislogic

since Westcott and Hort only produced a Greek master text of the Christian Greek Scriptures,

Westcott and Hort and New World Translation.
Luke 2:43When the days of the festival were over and they were returning, the boy Jesus remained behind in Jerusalem, and his parents did not notice it.

KJV
Luke 2:43 And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.

Looks innocent doesn’t it? But it is not word for word translation nor does it use the same MSS.

To make it simple for all people to understand let us say that we have a great number of manuscripts from different sources and places as well as languages. The translators of the KJV MSS spent a good number of years comparing these MSS and grouped them into groups of those that agree with one another and those that did not agree with the majority of texts available. Those that agreed with each other were called received texts and the others were shelved as corrupt.

The Westcott and Hort texts were full of errors, and erasers, and were shelved as corrupt. In fact the Aleph text was found by Westcott in a trash can in a monastery. So both texts were codex copies.

Now I use this Westcott and Hort Interpretation of their understanding as an example of what their entire work comprises. Read the above two translations of the same story. The KJV is the correct translation. Joseph was not the parent of Jesus. Only Mary was the mother of Jesus. Sounds innocent enough doesn’t it? But it shows you that most all bibles have been trapped into this very same idea that they have the word for word autographs of the texts when in fact most all bibles have accepted Westcott and Hort corrupt texts.

originally posted by: DustybudzZ
a reply to: whereislogic
...
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 context does not change this very simple to understand straightforward and clear statement. A simple question is asked, a simple straightforward answer is given from the Bible, no additional commentary or eisegesis required. No amount of additional commentary and eisegesis can change what it says there anyway (you seem to have an issue with what it says there rather than me "taking scriptural verses out of context", and would like to change it by 'interpreting' it and think that you are doing so by means of the context, but the context can't change what it cearly states there, it's your interpretation that gives you the feeling you can just ignore the statement and read something else into it, but the question there has been answered conclusively and unambiguously, just like the other questions in that comment, such as concerning the state of the dead and whether or not they can experience pain; nothing is taken out of context cause the quotations are directly relevant to the questions raised there, it's unreasonable to expect lengthy quotations of the context when there's much more biblical evidence to quote that is relevant to the questions raised concerning the Pagan teachings of men regarding a hell of fiery torment compared to what the Bible actually teaches. The comment was already rather lengthy and divided up into multiple comments). The context is also speaking of Christ's literal death and resurrection. It is also consistent with the rest of the Bible and the many compatible Bible teachings and quotations I used before about the state of the dead.

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...

Talking about the expression 'born again' and the many misconceptions regarding that subject:

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

Hell is simply the grave & death...

It's not as straightforward as that because different Hebrew and Greek words with different meanings have been rendered as "hell". These words in question 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 (a different meaning than those other 2 words, it is geʹen·na, transliteration: Gehenna, that is often associated with fire as discussed in more detail before, compare also the parts about Sodom and Gomorra and the expression "eternal fire" and how that is associated with eternal destruction). You know what, here it is again:

Is there eternal punishment for the wicked?

Matt. 25:46, KJ: “These shall go away into everlasting punishment [“lopping off,” Int; Greek, koʹla·sin]: but the righteous into life eternal.” (The Emphatic Diaglott reads “cutting-off” instead of “punishment.” A footnote states: “Kolasin . . . is derived from kolazoo, which signifies, 1. To cut off; as lopping off branches of trees, to prune. 2. To restrain, to repress. . . . 3. To chastise, to punish. To cut off an individual from life, or society, or even to restrain, is esteemed as punishment;—hence has arisen this third metaphorical use of the word. The primary signification has been adopted, because it agrees better with the second member of the sentence, thus preserving the force and beauty of the antithesis. The righteous go to life, the wicked to the cutting off from life, or death. See 2 Thess. 1.9.”)

2 Thess. 1:9, RS: “They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction* and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” (*“Eternal ruin,” NAB, NE; “lost eternally,” JB; “condemn them to eternal punishment,” Kx; “eternal punishment in destruction,” Dy.)

Jude 7, KJ: “Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.” (The fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah ceased burning thousands of years ago. But the effect of that fire has been lasting; the cities have not been rebuilt. God’s judgment, however, was against not merely those cities but also their wicked inhabitants. What happened to them is a warning example. At Luke 17:29, Jesus says that they were “destroyed”; Jude 7 shows that the destruction was eternal.)

None of this is 'my theology' as you put it though, I'm simply showing you what the Bible says. And if you don't agree with the 'KJV only' logic as you say, and which I already gathered from your other commentary before, I'm sure you'll appreciate the many different Bible translations used in my commentary there and elsewhere to clarify the issue. The abbreviations like KJ (which stands for the King James Version) show the variations in renderings in the different translations; in case you didn't notice that.

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

At death a person ceases to exist and the dead are conscious of nothing at all, they can experience no pain, no sorrow, no thoughts, etc. (as discussed before from Eccl. 9:5,10 and Ps. 146:4) but the resurrection can bring a person back to life. Only in that sense there is the prospect of life after death. “Soul” as used in the Scriptures does not mean some immaterial or spirit part of a human being that survives the death of the physical body. That teaching does not come from the Bible but from Pagan sources (the famous Greek philosopher Plato was involved). More details can be found in the link I shared concerning the myth of the immortal soul. Or in my own thread entitled "One myth leads to another". Where you can also find the following links discussed in detail:

Soul (Reasoning From the Scriptures)
Soul (Insight on the Scriptures)

In direct contrast with the Greek teaching of the psy·kheʹ (soul) as being immaterial, intangible, invisible, and immortal, the Scriptures show that both psy·kheʹ and neʹphesh, as used with reference to earthly creatures, refer to that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal.

Spirit (Reasoning From the Scriptures)
Spirit (Insight on the Scriptures)

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
Soul (Insight on the Scriptures)

In direct contrast with the Greek teaching of the psy·kheʹ (soul) as being immaterial, intangible, invisible, and immortal, the Scriptures show that both psy·kheʹ and neʹphesh, as used with reference to earthly creatures, refer to that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal.

A little more from that link (and the context of the reminder above):

The original-language terms (Heb., neʹphesh [נֶפֶשׁ]; Gr., psy·kheʹ [ψυχή]) as used in the Scriptures show “soul” to be a person, an animal, or the life that a person or an animal enjoys.

The connotations that the English “soul” commonly carries in the minds of most persons are not in agreement with the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek words as used by the inspired Bible writers. This fact has steadily gained wider acknowledgment. Back in 1897, in the Journal of Biblical Literature (Vol. XVI, p. 30), Professor C. A. Briggs, as a result of detailed analysis of the use of neʹphesh, observed: “Soul in English usage at the present time conveys usually a very different meaning from נפש [neʹphesh] in Hebrew, and it is easy for the incautious reader to misinterpret.”

More recently, when The Jewish Publication Society of America issued a new translation of the Torah, or first five books of the Bible, the editor-in-chief, H. M. Orlinsky of Hebrew Union College, stated that the word “soul” had been virtually eliminated from this translation because, “the Hebrew word in question here is ‘Nefesh.’” He added: “Other translators have interpreted it to mean ‘soul,’ which is completely inaccurate. The Bible does not say we have a soul. ‘Nefesh’ is the person himself, his need for food, the very blood in his veins, his being.”​—The New York Times, October 12, 1962.

What is the origin of the teaching that the human soul is invisible and immortal?

The difficulty lies in the fact that the meanings popularly attached to the English word “soul” stem primarily, not from the Hebrew or Christian Greek Scriptures, but from ancient Greek philosophy, actually pagan religious thought. Greek philosopher Plato, for example, quotes Socrates as saying: “The soul, . . . if it departs pure, dragging with it nothing of the body, . . . goes away into that which is like itself, into the invisible, divine, immortal, and wise, and when it arrives there it is happy, freed from error and folly and fear . . . and all the other human ills, and . . . lives in truth through all after time with the gods.”​—Phaedo, 80, D, E; 81, A.

In direct contrast with the Greek teaching of the psy·kheʹ (soul) as being immaterial, intangible, invisible, and immortal, the Scriptures show that both psy·kheʹ and neʹphesh, as used with reference to earthly creatures, refer to that which is material, tangible, visible, and mortal.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Nepes [neʹphesh] is a term of far greater extension than our ‘soul,’ signifying life (Ex 21.23; Dt 19.21) and its various vital manifestations: breathing (Gn 35.18; Jb 41.13[21]), blood [Gn 9.4; Dt 12.23; Ps 140(141).8], desire (2 Sm 3.21; Prv 23.2). The soul in the O[ld] T[estament] means not a part of man, but the whole man​—man as a living being. Similarly, in the N[ew] T[estament] it signifies human life: the life of an individual, conscious subject (Mt 2.20; 6.25; Lk 12.22-23; 14.26; Jn 10.11, 15, 17; 13.37).”​—1967, Vol. XIII, p. 467.

The Roman Catholic translation, The New American Bible, in its “Glossary of Biblical Theology Terms” (pp. 27, 28), says: “In the New Testament, to ‘save one’s soul’ (Mk 8:35) does not mean to save some ‘spiritual’ part of man, as opposed to his ‘body’ (in the Platonic sense) but the whole person with emphasis on the fact that the person is living, desiring, loving and willing, etc., in addition to being concrete and physical.”​—Edition published by P. J. Kenedy & Sons, New York, 1970.

Neʹphesh evidently comes from a root meaning “breathe” and in a literal sense neʹphesh could be rendered as “a breather.” Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros (Leiden, 1958, p. 627) defines it as: “the breathing substance, making man a[nd] animal living beings Gn 1, 20, the soul (strictly distinct from the greek notion of soul) the seat of which is the blood Gn 9, 4f Lv 17, 11 Dt 12, 23: (249 X) . . . soul = living being, individual, person.”

As for the Greek word psy·kheʹ, Greek-English lexicons give such definitions as “life,” and “the conscious self or personality as centre of emotions, desires, and affections,” “a living being,” and they show that even in non-Biblical Greek works the term was used “of animals.” Of course, such sources, treating as they do primarily of classical Greek writings, include all the meanings that the pagan Greek philosophers gave to the word, including that of “departed spirit,” “the immaterial and immortal soul,” “the spirit of the universe,” and “the immaterial principle of movement and life.” [whereislogic: notice how such sources are conflating the word “spirit” with the “soul” by doing this; these words are not referring to the same thing, hence the reason I also linked those pages about “spirit”] Evidently because some of the pagan philosophers taught that the soul emerged from the body at death, the term psy·kheʹ was also applied to the “butterfly or moth,” which creatures go through a metamorphosis, changing from caterpillar to winged creature.​—Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon, revised by H. Jones, 1968, pp. 2026, 2027; Donnegan’s New Greek and English Lexicon, 1836, p. 1404.

The ancient Greek writers applied psy·kheʹ in various ways and were not consistent, their personal and religious philosophies influencing their use of the term. Of Plato, to whose philosophy the common ideas about the English “soul” may be attributed (as is generally acknowledged), it is stated: “While he sometimes speaks of one of [the alleged] three parts of the soul, the ‘intelligible,’ as necessarily immortal, while the other two parts are mortal, he also speaks as if there were two souls in one body, one immortal and divine, the other mortal.”​—The Evangelical Quarterly, London, 1931, Vol. III, p. 121, “Thoughts on the Tripartite Theory of Human Nature,” by A. McCaig.

In view of such inconsistency in non-Biblical writings, it is essential to let the Scriptures speak for themselves, showing what the inspired writers meant by their use of the term psy·kheʹ, as well as by neʹphesh. Neʹphesh occurs 754 times in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Scriptures, while psy·kheʹ appears by itself 102 times in the Westcott and Hort text of the Christian Greek Scriptures, giving a total of 856 occurrences. (See NW appendix, p. 1573.) This frequency of occurrence makes possible a clear concept of the sense that these terms conveyed to the minds of the inspired Bible writers and the sense their writings should convey to our mind. An examination shows that, while the sense of these terms is broad, with different shades of meaning, among the Bible writers there was no inconsistency, confusion, or disharmony as to man’s nature, as existed among the Grecian philosophers of the so-called Classical Period.

Earth’s First Souls. The initial occurrences of neʹphesh are found at Genesis 1:20-23. On the fifth creative “day” God said: “‘Let the waters swarm forth a swarm of living souls [neʹphesh] and let flying creatures fly over the earth . . .’ And God proceeded to create the great sea monsters and every living soul [neʹphesh] that moves about, which the waters swarmed forth according to their kinds, and every winged flying creature according to its kind.” Similarly on the sixth creative “day” neʹphesh is applied to the “domestic animal and moving animal and wild beast of the earth” as “living souls.”​—Ge 1:24.

After man’s creation, God’s instruction to him again used the term neʹphesh with regard to the animal creation, “everything moving upon the earth in which there is life as a soul [literally, in which there is living soul (neʹphesh)].” (Ge 1:30) Other examples of animals being so designated are found at Genesis 2:19; 9:10-16; Leviticus 11:10, 46; 24:18; Numbers 31:28; Ezekiel 47:9. Notably, the Christian Greek Scriptures coincide in applying the Greek psy·kheʹ to animals, as at Revelation 8:9; 16:3, where it is used of creatures in the sea. Thus, the Scriptures clearly show that neʹphesh and psy·kheʹ are used to designate the animal creation lower than man. The same terms apply to man....

to whereislogic

About 200 BCE it is commonly taught that when Hebrew Torah was translated into the coined Greek the word Sheol was then known as Hades. The exact dates are not known but it was in the vicinity of that era. At this time the Hebrews did not recognize Greek mythology as pertaining to their culture. Their culture recognized that as one died the body of the soul was interred in the grave while the spirit of that soul was interred in the neither world in a place called Sheol.

In the Hebrew underworld are divisions of containment of the spirits of all of the living who have perished. One such division was the Hebrew Sheol. At one time in the Sumerian belief system the grave was the primary place of afterlife. In time the idea of a neither world emerged with the Hebrews and gradually was accepted as the place of spirits. Regardless of good or bad, all spirits were contained in this Neither World,. Then the idea of the bad living among the good could not be true and began to be taught. Through logical reasoning that teaching morphed into a national acceptance and the Good were separated from the bad spirits.

While this was the culture of the Sumerian Hebrews for many centuries the Greeks had their culture also. But their culture primarily consisted of many gods and goddesses. Three brother gods drew straws to determine the rulers of this world and the one brother named Hades became the ruler of the underworld and god of the dead. It came `to be that the Hebrews were conquered by the Greeks and the Romans and through many years of interbreeding had lost their basic religious teachings as well as language teachings.

Because of this it was decided by the Hebrews to rewrite their Torah into the Greek language. Through this translation Sheol became Hades because both realms were located in the neither world. But this was not to say that the Greek god Hades became the Hebrew God Yahuah. The Gods did not change but only the understanding of the location of the dead spirits changed and this was understood by both Greeks and Hebrews.

But now the problem comes to light of another sort. That problem became so convoluted that common sense was distorted as other languages became involved. We now have the English language trying to determine just what the solution is. What happened? Well the English people translated most all of their scriptures from the Greeks. Instead of translating the Hebrew into English they translated the Greek into English and changed the word Hades into Hell. Now we have Sheol, Hades and Hell in the neither world but all three places with different purposes. Hades is both a purposes. Hades is both a god and a place in the neither world. Sheol is a place with a God of Spirits named Yahuah and Hell is the same place as Hades without the god Hades. Each one with a different purpose. So why did the KJV translators choose the name Hell for the KJV bible? It was chosen as Hell to distinguish it from the god Hades who is the Greek god of the underworld and from the Hebrew Sheol which is their understanding of the underworld.