A Christian Objection to “Does God Predestine People To Hell”: A Response to Alex, Part II

 Lackluster Evidence

I don’t know where the “beginning” of the argument really begins, honestly. I’ll get this out of the way now – Alex is not going to share his view on ‘hell’ and its function until halfway through his study. And, moreover, he will not ever provide a verse which verifies his view. Most of what we read is going to remain unproven, and unfounded.

Alex begins (I think,)

“Of course, the idea of being eternally separated from God is found in Scripture. Jesus taught it. However, you seem to commit the logical fallacy of begging the question by just asserting your position as fact without offering evidence in that paragraph. Now, you do go into evidence later on, but you should really mention that you’ll be showing the evidence for it to not look logically fallacious at first glance.”

Three brief comments:

First, telling me that “asserting my position” in the opening paragraphs of an argument is a ‘logical fallacy’ makes no sense. What kind of logical fallacy? It’s an argument; it requires an assertion of the position I will be arguing.

Second, while Alex tells me that asserting my position with no evidence is wrong, he fails to note the beginning of his own paragraph, where he says, “of course this eternal separation is found in Scripture, and Jesus taught it!” How is it wrong that I assert my position in the beginning of a paragraph without having given evidence, and yet it is not wrong for him to do so? Exhibit A of Alex’s “confirmation bias,” as most of his claims somehow ‘apply to me,’ but not to him.

Third, Alex then proceeds to tell me that I do go into evidence to my point later on,  making this entire “charge” a non-sequitur, and thus useless to the topic at hand. Alex has argued since then that I must explicitly write “I am defending XYZ position by showing you all evidences which I believe merit its validity.” This is, unfortunately, not how people regularly write. News flash, for the butthurt – I am not a robot. I write with passion, with a clear writing style. I make jokes. I am satirical. And I am biting in my criticism and commentary. I learn this from Paul (Phil. 3:2, Titus 1:9-11.) I learn from Elijah (1 Kings 18:26-27.) I learned from John (Matt. 3:7.) I learned from our Lord Himself (John 8:40-44.) It is hypocritical to champion a book with such cynicism for lies and those who adore them while simultaneously criticizing another for employing the same tactics. I am very much allowed to write however I would like, and taking a truthful route is far less egregious (for, at least I am not criticizing someone for establishing their position.)

Alex further defends his first paragraph by claiming that he simply “copied my writing style” to “set up a trap for me.” As if to say, “Stephen, I purposefully wrote poorly to show you how you are writing poorly.” Nevertheless, I never began my original series of articles by stating, “Of course eternal torment isn’t taught in Scripture! What are you, dumb?” I began by entertaining a video that was sent to me, which allegedly proved that “eternal torment” is a true concept, and then answered to it by sifting through each translated use of “hell” in the King James. This revealed the lack of foundation for the translation, thus proving the position.

This reveals itself as an immediate projection. For those who don’t know, “projection” is a psychological defense mechanism. It occurs when someone subconsciously attributes their own personal thoughts, strengths, inadequacies, or feelings onto another person. In this case, Alex is committing this to deflect from his lacking claim.

So, once again: if you are saying “Of course this is in Scripture – Jesus taught it!” And do not provide any evidence over the course of the argument to establish your position, then no one is required to entertain your position. The burden of proof will remain on Alex to prove that an ‘eternal torment’ chamber is somewhere in Scripture.

“You state, ‘You will find that this one English word, ‘hell,’ which is interpreted in a million different ways, is actually an umbrella term for three different Greek words.’ Which is it?? You can’t have hell be interpreted a million different ways and yet it being an umbrella term for three words. 3 and 1,000,000 are not the same number. That statement is fallacious, hyperbolic, and misleading.”

Here we come to the crux of this ‘translation’ argument. Alex does not note the difference between interpretation and translation. An ‘interpretation’ is a reasoning that stems from what you’ve read in your translation. A ‘translation,’ however, documents the shift from one language and its properties to another language and its properties. If the translation is poor, then the interpretation will also be poor.

Alex, of course, doesn’t agree, believing “interpretation” and “translation” to be one in the same. Since I don’t feel like rehashing an age-old discussion with someone that didn’t research this matter beyond the Merriam Webster search bar (denoted by his screenshot of the modern-day English definition of the word “translate” in a later reply to me,) I will simply quote A.E. Knoch, here, from Unsearchable Riches, Vol. 34, p.66-67–

“John 5:4: ‘A messenger of the Lord at a certain season bathed in the pool and disturbed the water.’ Matt. 1:20: ‘A messenger of the Lord appeared to him in a trance.’ Matt. 4:11: ‘Then the Slanderer is leaving Him, and lo! messengers approached and waited on Him.’ Matt. 24:31: ‘And He shall be dispatching His messengers with a loud sounding trumpet, and they shall be assembling His chosen ones from among the four winds.’ Mark 12:25: ‘But are as the messengers which are in the heavens.’ The rendering in Matt. 4:11 can easily be interpreted to mean that certain human beings came and waited on Christ. The same kind of interpretation can be put on a number of the others also. See Hebrews 2:5.

A ‘misleading and erroneous’ practice is to interpret instead of translate. This the Authorized Version and others do when they render the Greek aggelos both angel and messenger. The ordinary reader thinks that they are distinct terms in the Greek, and that an angel is a heavenly being having a different nature (Heb. 2:16, AV) from mankind. But one who thinks keenly will wonder if the ‘angels of the… churches’ (Rev. 1:20) are really such beings. He will be puzzled by such scriptures as ‘the word spoken by angels was steadfast’ (Heb. 2:2.) What words are these? If he consults a concordance, he will probably come to the conclusion that these ‘angels’ are men, for the word aggelos is used of men just as well as of ‘angels.’ John the Baptist is called an ‘angel’ (Matt. 11:10, Mark 1:2, Luke 7:27.) So are his messengers (Luke 7:24.) Our Lord sent ‘angels’ before His face (Luke 9:52.)

We humbly acknowledge that we are not always certain when this word refers to angels and when to men. We once thought we did, but about forty years of constant activity in translation and interpretation (our English magazine is over a third of a century old) has gradually changed our interpretation, so that we are now certain that we were once mistaken in some passages where we had followed the interpretations of our venerable Authorized Version. They (not we) are misleading and erroneous. We do not interpret, we translate. If others misinterpret our rendering, that is because they have been misled before, by reading other versions, not by reading ours. They would have the same problem if they used the original Greek. It is evident that the ‘messengers of the churches,’ John the Baptist and his messengers, and others, were not ‘angels.’ The Authorized Version is wrong.”

In that, I was probably not being hyperbolic enough by claiming that “hell,” as popularly used in our English versions, carries a million different meanings. It’s closer to a billion, not a million. Your mom has a different idea of “hell” than my mom. This sect has a different view of “hell” than that sect. Some think it’s symbolic. Some find it literal. Some think of the worst things they can and shove it into their idea of hell. Some think it’s just a big blank ‘nothingness.’ These are all interpretations from the English translation. There are a billion interpretations of this silly word.

In the KJV, however, which is the version I was citing the mistranslation from, there are three different mistranslations of the same word.

“You said, ‘Without even getting into the details, we can already see that if one word is being utilized for three different Greek words, then there is something wrong, because a “pattern of sound words” is not being sustained.’ Now, that’s just not correct now, is it? You’re being inconsistent even with your own theology!

Take the word ‘eonian.’ It can mean at least three different things according to the blue letter bible app or any concordance. So, this argument is faulty.’

Ah, yes! And I see that the blue letter bible website is absolutely without flaw, yes?

The blue letter bible is a valuable resource. It is undoubtedly useful. But it is useful as the Concordant website is useful; when proven, it stands as a testament to the beauty of Scripture. The blue letter, however, is not expositing about hell; it is sharing what man already thinks about these words. The blue letter bible is not the final say-so on the meaning of a word; it is a referencing tool, not the final explanation of anything.

Alex very rightly pointed out in a later reply that this same level of scrutiny should be applied to the Concordant Literal. This is absolutely true. But the only way to know where the truth lies is by considering each use of a word and deriving its meaning from that – not from any man-made, synthesized dictionaries. Alex believes I am being hypocritical in somehow not holding the concordant to the same level of scrutiny, though I do this often in my Romans study. Again, if Alex had studied his opponent, he would not believe that I am being hypocritical here.

Moreover, Alex’s example is backward. He says that we must consider multiple definitions for one Greek word – which, under certain circumstances, could be possible. However, we are not considering multiple definitions for one word, here – we are considering multiple Greek words with the same definition. This is a problem, especially considering that there are fewer koine Greek words than English words.

Finally: this is all that Alex gives me on the topic of “faulty reasoning,” here. He doesn’t expand or elaborate on his claim beyond this paragraph. He will never discuss Paul’s request that we should keep a pattern of sound words, dismissing our apostle’s words with the word ‘faulty,’ with a false parallel.

I want to clarify something, before we continue: I am on Alex’s side. Not theologically (what theology?) but argumentatively. I want a strong challenge. I want to see why the ideas presented in my original articles are not true – not to just be told “this isn’t right” with no proper explanation. I will try to expand/defend anything that Alex says is “not correct,” despite the fact that he is giving me little to no reasoning. But keep in mind that this is an exercise in courtesy, as I should not have to reply to someone saying “nuh-uh” with no evidence. I want Alex, myself, and you, dear reader, to grow with the information to dismiss these arguments.

“Another thing. It seems you might not be familiar with Greek too well, or how translations work. I say this because the argument I just quoted is found to be very lacking.”

Well, sheesh. That’s kinda harsh, Alex. How is it lacking?

“There are words in the New Testament which work as umbrella terms. Take, for example, the English word ‘love.’ In the Greek, there can be one of four different ways in our Bibles. In Greek, outside of the Bible, the word ‘love’ covers more than the four uses that Scripture covers.”

Interesting! Let’s consider this. In the oldest Greek texts, Alex claims that there are four different uses of the word ‘love.’ He later states that these four words are:

1)    agape

2)    philia

3)    storge

4)    eros

 Unfortunately, I can’t quite wrap my head around the validity of his claim. The latter two words, storge and eros, don’t appear in the three oldest manuscripts, and philia only appears one time. This word’s elements are “FOND-ness,” and it is translated friendship in James 4:4.

Now, in the context by which Alex says this, he’s not completely incorrect. In a scriptural study, however, it must be clearly understood that we are in no way dealing with an “umbrella” term (well, in the King James, I guess we are, as the King James randomly translated agape as ‘charity’ 28 times, and ‘dear’ once, which… look, man, I don’t even know anymore. It wouldn’t be a false translation if they’d gotten it right, I guess.)

What I will say is that, if we are referring to the Greek language that I’m “not familiar with,” there are three different forms of the word ‘love’ in the Greek:

1)    Agape, a feminine noun

2)    Agapao, a verb

3)    Agapetos, an adjective

Each form of the word must be considered in its proper context if we are to understand the standard definition of the word. This is why the Concordant Version is as valuable a resource as it is. For example, if “love” is contrasted with “hate,” as it is in Rom. 9:13, then it cannot ever mean hate in any form at any point in Scripture. To claim that it means ‘hate’ would deny Rom. 9:13.

One area where me and Alex seem destined to disagree is in the use of extraneous material outside of Scripture in order to understand the meaning of a word. Scripture is a living Organism – Christ (Rev. 19:13.) Alex has argued that, in stating things like “agape is a feminine noun,” I am inherently considering something ‘outside’ of Scripture. The grammar of a passage, however, is a literal study of the passage. Again: God is not going to teach you your ABC’s and 123’s in the text. The parts of speech are very much in Scripture, and anyone who can read Greek will tell you proudly that agape is a feminine noun. This is derived from the language of the text, not some arbitrary opinion on man’s part.

The way man employs words like ‘love’ or ‘eon’ is not the way that God employs them. He has the benefit of foresight, hindsight, and insight – whereas we are lucky to grasp an agonizingly tiny fraction of any of His knowledge. Man changes, but He does not (Mal. 3:6.) As such, we find out what He means by considering each use of the word in its context. This is a topic that I spend ample amount of time on in the first three articles in my Romans study, which I implore any take the time to read.

All of this to say that, there are different forms of the same word, for sure! We can clearly see the grammatical inflection that turns agape, the noun, into agapetos, the adjective. The suffix of the word is altered to denote the change.

It’s funny that Alex mentions the different forms of ‘love,’ rooted in the different parts of speech found in Greek, for the KJV he’s defending fails to translate this word uniformly. The example here is John 3:16. The use of “love” in John 3:16 is agapao – the verb. On its surface, the KJV seems to have done a good job! “For God so loved the world.” However, when you consider all of the inflection given (that is, all the facts considering the use of the word, and not just a couple,) you will find that a revision is overwhelmingly necessary. The verb agapao in John 3:16 reads, transliterally, egapasen. There are, clearly, more inflections to the ‘verb’ form. From this use of ‘love,’ we can see that it is written in the 3^rd person (which makes complete sense, given the context.) We can also see the mood that the word is written in, which is indicative (which simply means it is a statement of fact.) Most notably (and the reason the King James falls short, here,) is because the term is written in the active voice (meaning it is happening,) as well as the aorist tense (the ‘aorist’ tense denoting timeless.)

With all of that information in mind, we have no logistical reason to claim that God “so loved the world,” because loved, in English, is passive, not active, and past tense – not timeless.

How do the Concordant brethren fix this discrepancy? In John 3:16, the Concordant version reads, “For thus God loves the world.” The active voice is given precedent, fixing the lax nature of the KJV.

So! What have we learned? First, that I’m not nearly as unreliable of a source as Mr. Alex has labeled me to as. And, second, this is clearly not an umbrella term for anything, but different forms of the same word. Love doesn’t carry 59 definitions! It carries different forms of a closely similar definition, shifted in slight variation by its contextual use/inflection. This is, assuredly, not an example where three separate Greek words are given the same English word, as is the issue with ‘hell.’

A Brief Point Concerning Misunderstandings

“I might as well address another issue right now, while I’m at it, but ‘eonian’ is not a Greek word. To be exact, it is the English transliteration of a Greek word. It is not the English translation of a Greek word.

What does this mean? A ‘transliteration’ uses a person’s native alphabet to spell out the sound of a word in a different language or alphabet (or even the same alphabet.) It is akin to what dictionaries to when they put up the pronunciation of a word. Of course, this idea of a ‘transliteration’ will become extremely relevant later.”

‘Eonian’ is simply not a transliteration. The ‘transliteration’ of the Greek word is aionion, or aionios, under certain instances. The word ‘eonian’ is its English equivalent, and stands as the adjectival form of the word ‘eon,’ or aion. I can see the difference between a translation and a transliteration, and would appreciate if my opponent(s) did not remain ignorant to the fact that I’m aware of the Greek language, and can even read it semi-fluently.

“Moving on, you stated, ‘As God’s word is careful, we must cover all three of these Greek words here.’ I completely agree! So please. Enlighten me.

You then say, ‘We do not need to see why these words are mistranslated, but only need to see them properly translated.’ I guess you will give me a half-baked argument, then? Again, I must point out the flaws in your argumentation. If you don’t show me why something is mistranslated, then how can you even begin to show me the proper translation of something?”

This is the first consideration on Alex’s part that I believe is a fair and justifiable concern. Even in the context, I wasn’t very clear on what I meant by this statement, and if I want to write argumentatively, I should be following my own advice in elaborating.

When I stated that we don’t need to see why these words are mistranslated, I was referring to the motive by which a poor translation came about. I said this because I didn’t want to assume mal-intent on the part of a translator. To err is human, and I didn’t want to mix ‘intentional’ with ‘mistake.’ I was trying to be as fair as I could to the KJV, and that was my way of expressing that I would be playing fairly.

Alex, in his reply, didn’t really like what I said, here, saying, “You just say yours is right and therefore ‘hell’ is false… And in the next section, you state that you did not give a half-baked argument, but you did. Remember that most of my paper was dedicated to proving why your arguments were faulty.”

To this I reply that just because one writes a rebuttal does not automatically mean said rebuttal is infallible, properly argued, and covers each objection (or enough objections) sufficiently. Any who study my opponent’s argument themselves can clearly spot broad disagreements without sufficient evidence to the claims. He has cried that we should listen to the second century church fathers without providing any evidence from God as to why we should take their word as fact, even if it comes into conflict with Holy Writ. And the most egregious is his disdain for applying all of the inflection to a word (I haven’t shared for you his twisting of the ‘aorist’ tense, but I feel as though Greek inflection may deserve its own study anyway, as so many seem to use their doctrine to prove the language, instead of vice versa.)

Anyway, in a grammatical sense, I am indeed required to explain why something is mistranslated, and I did so throughout my entire study. If I didn’t, then of course, I would be giving a half-baked argument. Thankfully, the rest of my study exists, where I indeed show how the words are mistranslated, while providing the proper translation. Speaking of which…

‘Gehenna’ not a Transliteration

At this point, Alex now gets into the first of the three mistranslated words, being Gehenna. He quotes my explanation of the word’s etymology (“VALE-HINNOM,”) and then says,

“Building on what I had said in the prior paragraph, you have not mentioned why ‘hell’ is a bad translation, and why ‘Gehenna’ is a good one. Likewise, I can say that Gehenna is not even a translation! It is the English transliteration of the Greek word.”

First, the point of an argument is to consider an alternative, and then pit it up against the previous explanation (i.e. lay the groundwork for ‘Gehenna,’ and then explain why this works and ‘hell’ doesn’t.) I would argue, Alex, that you should finish the entire argument first, and then return to this point, for I most certainly do break down why ‘hell’ is a poor translation, but it must be built over the course of the study. The purpose of the beginning here is to indicate a poor correlation with the part of speech/Greek elements of the word, and its KJV equivalent.

Second, I did not say that the etymology of the word is the final say on whether or not we are referring to a place of eternal torment, but that the etymology and its grammatical structure (being a proper locative noun) would naturally indicate to anyone uninitiated into Christianity that this word is referring to a place on the planet. It is further clarified for the one who has studied the Old Testament as well that this is a familiar location, and there is a lot of backstory in reference to it (which we will get to in a few articles.)

To show what I mean by this second point a little clearer, I invite you to play a game of “spot the difference!” Please consider the short list of proper locative nouns in Scripture and their respective English translation, and then tell me which word remains a strange, interpreted outlier:

-       hierousalem = Jerusalem

-       kapharnaoum = Capernaum

-       nazaret = Nazareth

-       bethania = Bethany

-       ephesion = Ephesus

-       bethleem = Bethlehem

-       bethsaida = Bethsaida

-       kappodokia = Cappadocia

-       beroia = Berea

-       gomorra = Gomorrah

-       galilaia = Galilee

-       damaskos = Damascus

-       geena = hell

To quote Martin Zender in his book, Martin Zender Goes to Hell, p. 38:

“Watch this: where the Greek has hierousalem, the KJV translates ‘Jerusalem’– every time. Where the Greek has nazaret, the KJV makes it ‘Nazareth’– every time. Where the Greek has bethleem, the KJV has ‘Bethlehem’– every time. This is sensible! It’s an honorable and consistent way of translating. But here, where Jesus says geena (another geographical location,) the KJV (as well as the New International Version – NIV – and the New American Standard Bible – NASB,) makes it ‘hell.’ Gee, that’s weird. Can you explain it? Ever hear the phrase, ‘theological bias?’”

And third, I believe the fundamental etymology of a word at the time of its writing should be reason enough to at least consider this argument, moving forward! “Why is ‘Gehenna’ a good translation?” I myself ask this question during my original series of articles, and then begin answering with, “Well, for starters, the basic functionality of the word denotes a location.”

If the elements that compose the Greek word somehow does not, in any way, indicate the word’s meaning, then how on earth are we supposed to get anywhere? I should sooner say that the word “love” doesn’t actually mean “love,” even though its Greek element is, literally, “LOVE.” I could stubbornly go, “You know what I think it means? I think it means hate! And no, the fact that the element is ‘love,’ and the fact that it is directly contrasted with ‘hate,’ doesn’t mean anything!”

Moreover, the transliteration argument is rather odd to me, for Alex defined that word pretty well in the previous article! For the honest truth seekers: the transliteration of the Greek word in discussion is ge’ena, which is how you get the translation, “Gehenna.” There is no ‘h’ sound in the original Greek word, Alex. He can tell us that “Gehenna” is the transliteration all he would like, but for as many resources will claim it to be a transliteration, there are just as many that will proclaim it a translation. The only way to know for yourself is by studying the Greek word itself, and its context therein. This was, of course, what I did in my original series of articles. We could argue about translating it a hundred different ways all night long, but the facts of the word (its elements, part of speech, and contextual use) point to an earthly place with a function for a set period of time at a later date. This is not some debatable theory, but as proven in the original series of articles (and in the picture here), is geographical fact.

“Furthermore, you commit the ‘etymological fallacy,’ and thus this argument of Gehenna meaning an actual physical location is meaningless if you do not prove why the proper translation of hell is not proper at all.”

For those of you playing along at home, “The etymological fallacy is the faulty argument that the ‘true’ or ‘proper’ meaning of a word is its oldest or original meaning. Because the meanings of words change over time, a word’s contemporary definition can’t be established from its origin.” – ThoughtCo

Alex inferred, in his reply, that I am inconsistent in that my above quote here cites an extrabiblical source. He fails to note that he brought up the notion of an etymological fallacy – not myself – and such an act requires a study on the etymological fallacy, which, unfortunately, is not found in scripture. It is not logically inconsistent to use an extrabiblical source to debunk (or justify) an extrabiblical claim.

The ‘etymological fallacy’ can be exemplified in the word “gentleman.” If I call you a “gentleman” today, it would not have the same meaning as it would have had a few hundred years ago. Back in them good ‘ol days, the word ‘gentleman’ meant landowner. If I called a homeless man a “gentleman” back in medieval England, they would look at me like I’m a nutjob! If I call a homeless man a “gentleman” today, and assumed they should be understanding ‘gentleman’ as it was used in medieval England, I would be committing an etymological fallacy.

Thus, if you are reading a book written in the time period of medieval England, you would have to understand that ‘gentleman’ would mean something different at the time of its writing than it does now. If I applied the modern definition of ‘gentleman’ on the medieval text, then I would be committing an etymological fallacy.

The ‘etymological fallacy’ is in relation to the modern definition of words, not in relation to the original meaning of a word. Do you see what I mean? If I applied today’s definition of the word geena on a text written 2,000 years ago, then I would be committing an etymological fallacy. The only way to grasp the original definition of the word is by considering each use of the word in its context.

Because of this, I’m getting the sense that Alex didn’t actually care to hear the points presented (instead dismissing it in favor of his presupposed translation,) and instead saw that I used the word “etymology,” and then remembered or researched any potential fallacies than can come with using the word “etymology,” and then labeled me with the fallacy when he thought he could. He does this, I suppose, because he would never detach from the pop-culture definition of the word, which carries some idea of an eternal torment. In order to keep his definition, he must fight the elements of the word, and re-format each use of the word to fit his pre-supposed “proper” theory.

Here is the truth: the word “hell” was not in the original text, nor did any who read the New Testament have a reason to believe that “hell” was this evil place where demons smoke weed all day and perpetually flay people with flaming pitchforks. The word “hell” was introduced by Jerome in 4^th century AD, through the Latin Vulgate. So! Pop quiz! Please tell me what the Latin Vulgate is! It’ll be multiple choice:

1)    Not the oldest Greek manuscripts

2)    Not the oldest Greek manuscripts

3)    Not the oldest Greek manuscripts

Initially, I had a funny little gag here, where I said, “When you have your answer, please email me at idontreallycare@studythegreekandnotmansopinions.org.” Alex didn’t really find this funny, I guess, and did give me an answer, saying,

“Well, I hope that the word ‘hell’ was not in the original text. That would be weird given that those are English letters and not Greek letters. Likewise, ‘hell’ is an English word – not a Greek one.”

I didn’t know that this was one of the multiple choice answers, but I guess it doesn’t matter. It’s a cop-out, regardless. He knows exactly what I said – that “hell” is a translation which stemmed from the Latin Vulgate, and not the Greek. It has, since then, been transposed into the Greek, where it does not belong. Have you ever filtered a sentence through Google translate more than once? The original sentence is heavily obscured by different lexicons and grammatical rules.

To exemplify this silly notion (since, for some reason, Alex believes we should be using other manuscripts, such as the Latin Vulgate, to verify our English interpretations,) I have written a simple sentence into Google translate in English:

“I bought bananas at the store today.”

I then filtered this sentence through Hebrew, Greek, and Latin before bringing it back to English. When I did, this is the sentence I received:

“I bought trucks at the supermarket today.”

Hmm. The sentence looks… a little off, there. My $1.50 bananas now cost $18,000…

This is not an isolated incident. There are an infinite number of possibilities with such a program to show the inconsistent word use. Man is not exempt from making these mistakes. It was not “God” that “declared” hell, but Jerome, a man, that translated it as such, and everyone and their mother is clinging to what the man said while attaching their own modernized view/interpretation of the word. This, ironically, means that the word “hell” is, itself, the etymological fallacy! A modern definition of a word has been transplanted into the text!

Whether Alex likes it or not, it is an incontrovertible fact that Gehenna, as used in the koine Greek Scripture 2,000 years ago, is a proper locative noun. When the truth is revealed, it should not be up for debate. It’s a place, documented 13 times in the Hebrew Scriptures, and 12 more times in the Greek. Alex has completely dismissed the simple fact that God references this physical location on the earth a number of times during written accounts in the Old Testament, described as the “valley of the sons of Hinnom,” which was just outside of Jerusalem. I will once again point to the fact that you can literally view it on Google images right now. The flowers there look lovely this time of year.

“How on earth did you make this connection, Gerudo? Was it, perchance, the simple etymology of the word, mixed with its use in the text and its direct correlation to a Hebrew phrase that we don’t translate as ‘hell’? Hmm. Sounds shoddy. I don’t think that’s enough evidence for me. Have you tried just sticking to the word ‘hell’ anyway, even though the word is already taken by two other Greek words and would enable you to make up whatever theory you want about it? Just think about it, man!”

Alex’s astounded reply to these words:

“Stephen, whether you like it or not the word Gehenna has a definition which leads to my concept of hell. A simple Google search will lead you to people such as Ignatius of Antioch, Second Clement, Justin Martyr, and others who were living in the second century AD. That beats the 350 AD date now, doesn’t it? Older is better you say? I wouldn’t make that argument.”

First: Ignatius of Antioch, Second Clement, Justin Martyr, and these “others” Alex speaks of are not required sources for scriptural understanding. When missionaries make trips to third world countries, they do not bring along an extra manuscript by Ignatius to prove their points. They claim to found their doctrines solely in the word of God (a touching sentiment, if it were true.) Whether these folk exist “before” or “after” the oldest Greek manuscripts we have today does not mean that their word is also gospel. I would even argue that we could safely assert that the writings of these folk could also be mistranslated, if the people like the King James interpreters were responsible for the job. We don’t have direct answers for this, so again, it’s best to stick to the text itself when proving whether or not a doctrine is scriptural.

Of course, Alex still has yet, at this point in his original series of articles, to explain how the word Gehenna has a definition which leads to the notion of eternal torment. A definition requires evidence for it to be defined, and Alex has remained contrarian to the points presented so far, apart from establishing his own point. This can, again, be shown to anyone who would like the full transcripts of his arguments.

Alex replies:

“Can you be honest with the fact that I’ve said that the context leads to the understanding that these Greek words all reference a place of eternal torment or some part of it?”

And I can most certainly be honest: Alex has, indeed, said that the context leads to the understanding that these Greek words all reference a place of eternal torment or some part of it. However, Alex saying this does not mean it is magically true, or proven in any way, on his part (for he has not only, as of this point in his writings, not established his position, other than “the opposite of Stephen’s position.”) We must consider each use of the English “hell” in its context in order to grasp Alex’s position on each of the verses, in order to see how he believes that eternal torment is defined in the contextual use (or even in a figure of likeness) with the words geena, tartaroo, and hades.

Alex concludes his first impression of the Greek word geena by saying,

“I understand that you try and make Gehenna mean a physical location while Hell is some spiritual torture place, for your theology, but in all honesty, you have not proven to me how these two words mean different things. For all I care, Gehenna is used metaphorically to mean ‘hell.’”

Such a definition of hell is not my definition, but the definition of many different sects in Christianity! You guys are the ones talking about this place, calling it this place of burning and more burning! I’m only parroting the 2,000 year-old Christian religion, here.

Now, I understand that many don’t have such a dramatic definition, or don’t really consider it this way. But Alex seems to have failed to keep in mind that the ‘hell’ refutation I had written was against John Piper’s theology, being a Calvinist who does believe that hell is a big spiritual torture chamber, and that was the concept that I had in view when writing.

Nonetheless, even a less extreme idea, that it’s just some “separation from God” chamber or something, is still a plague that detracts from plain, beautiful statements such as Luke 3:7, that all flesh shall see the salvation of God, or 1 Tim. 2:4, that God wills that all mankind be saved and come to a realization of the truth, or 1 Tim. 4:10, that God is the Savior of all mankind, or Col. 1:20, that God made peace through His Son’s cross, reconciling all, whether those in the heavens or those on the earth. Such verses lose their weight, and a pathetic element of ‘opportunity’ and ‘possibility’ is implemented – not to mention forcing the notion that there will always be a location where Satan maintains control of something. He can’t be beaten, because then God wouldn’t have a place to put the ungodly people, right?

Alex replies:

“I believe you contradict your own Concordant here.

John 3:16-21–

For thus God loves the world, so that He gives His only-begotten Son, that everyone who is believing in Him should not be perishing, but may be having life eonian. For God does not dispatch His Son into the world that He should be judging the world, but that the world may be saved through Him. He who is believing in Him is not being judged; yet he who is not believing has been judged already, for he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. Now this is the judging: that the light has come into the world, and men love the darkness rather than the light, for their acts were wicked. For everyone who is committing bad things is hating the light and is not coming to the light, lest his acts may be exposed. Now he who is doing the truth is coming to the light that his acts may be made manifest, for they have been wrought in God.

1 John 1:5–

And this is the message which we have heard from Him and are informing you, that God is light, and darkness in Him there is none.

It seems pretty clear to me that the wicked are not in the light and want to stay in the darkness rather than light. Therefore, wicked people will not be in the presence of God (i.e., eternal life, heaven or whatever concept you have of this) but will be placed in some other location apart from God.”

The verses referenced do not (not one singular time) speak to the eternal damnation of those who do not believe at present. We read of God’s love for the whole world in John 3:16, and the beautiful faith of some into life eonian, which will take effect when the kingdom is established (Rev. 20:5.) We read in John 3:17 of the pre-planned judging of those who do not believe at the time of John’s writing (which discards the element of “free will” in Alex’s conclusion,) the judging itself in 3:19, and the explanation for the judging in 3:20-21. This does not, however, denote some permanent, eternal punishment (for it would contradict John’s statement in 3:16 to claim that the God of love will perpetually punish the wicked instead of curing them of their acts, as He says He will in 3:17.)

As such, Alex’s claim (that I am contradicting the concordant version) is found lacking with the verses he presents, and as such his conclusion is faulty. The paragraph he replied to above was a compilation of clear and direct statements made by God. These clear and direct statements were not randomly twisted by me, but presented. Don’t shoot the messenger!

Alex seems to have a bone to pick with the presented verses, which undeniably speak of a worldwide and universal salvation (Luke 3:6-7, 1 Tim. 2:4, 4:10, Col. 1:20.) These scripture verses are not contradicted by other verses in the Bible. You can’t use other parts of a perfect book to disprove another part of it. You may use other parts to contextualize another part of it (so long as this contextualization is self-evidential and fits with the grammatical and contextual passage,) but not to straight up dismiss what is presented.

(to be continued)

- GerudoKing