Why is There Death and Suffering if God is all Loving

[total relism]

Proverbs I grant you. None of the others refer to hell. They all refer to rising - none leaving the earth.

You ask me to demonstrate that letters sent from Rome and the surrounding areas and with entire Gospels written in Greek that these were written by Greeks or Romans and yet are quite happy to provide a quote as "proof". Just because I say I'm dead and have arisen doesn't make it true.

Believe what you want - that's fine. But when you try to make beliefs somehow evidenced-based it all rather falls down.

sheol is the place of the dead, hell is an eternal place where nobody in the OT times is or was, not until the final judgment. Daniel clearly makes a distinction of two separate eternal places, one to "everlasting contempt" [hell] one to everlasting life [haven]. Isiah describes a place of

"For their worm does not die,
And their fire is not quenched.
They shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

does this not seem hell? those other passages that speak of rising, no more death and a world with god, means those who do not go to this place [haven] go to everlasting contempt etc hell. Let me add another verse. Also see below

“Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.”
Isiah 14.15



So back to your question, why is Hell mentioned so much more in the N.T. than the O.T.? Well, first of all it should be noted that in older versions (KJV, Geneva, and Douay-Rheims) the word "hell" appears 31 times in the O.T. and only 23 times in the N.T. In all 31 O.T. instances, the Hebrew word is "Sheol" and this word has a couple of different meanings. It can mean simply "the grave" or "the tomb in the earth where a body is laid after death". It can also refer to the two separate places where the righteous and the wicked went after death. There are also other times in Hebrew where the term Sheol is not used, but the concept of a destination place for the dead souls of mankind is clearly implied or directly stated. In the newer English translation, the majority of times Sheol is just transliterated into English as Sheol, although "hell" is kept in many places (19 of the 31 times in the NKJV) but zero times in almost all other English translations (ESV, NIV, NAS)

Psalm 63:9 and Ezekiel 32:24 both seem to imply that Hell (Sheol in Hebrew) is in the lower parts of the earth. Sheol in O.T. theology had two components; the grave for the righteous (called Abraham's bosom in Luke 16) and a place of conscious torment for the wicked, the Pit (usually shachath or bowr in Hebrew) which seems to be where the rich man in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus was. The N.T. contains one reference to the lower parts of the earth in Eph. 4:9, which is often viewed as relating to Sheol, specifically Abraham's bosom. Other references to the Abyss or the Bottomless Pit also seem to indicate a physical opening at the earth's surface to a physical location in the interior of the earth. It must be pointed out however, that in each of these cases where the lower parts of the earth, the Abyss or the Bottomless Pit are mentioned, the genre is either parable, poetic or prophetic, not historical narrative, and the verses do have symbols and/or symbolic language (with the exception of Eph. 4:9 but this passage has been hotly debated among theologians in any event).

However, in Luke 16, Abraham says to the rich man that there is a great gulf (Mega-chasm would be the transliteration) between Abraham's bosom and Sheol/Hades. The rich man looked up and saw Abraham, which seems to make an earthly hades unlikely. (Would there really be an upper Hades for the good and lower Hades for the wicked, and if so, how could the rich man see Abraham through miles of rock)? We must also remember that in this parable, Christ had not yet died and resurrected, and therefore the physical bodies of Abraham, Lazarus and the rich man were still in the ground. We look forward to a physical and spiritual resurrection when we die, because of what Christ accomplished (1 Cor. 15:20-23), even the limited understanding of resurrection by O.T. saints and first century Jews reveals that they understood the body would not be raised until the time of the end (Dan. 12:2 and John 11:24).

But to the crux of your question, even though Sheol is mention more than hell (O.T. vs. N.T.) the concept of an eternal place of torment for the wicked is mentioned more in the N.T. Why is this? One could claim that it is just a matter of progressive revelation. {For example the concept of the Church is termed a mystery in the N.T. meaning it was not revealed until then. It was unknown even in principle in the O.T. If a person wanted to "know the Lord" in O.T. times he had to proselytize to Judaism, and place himself under the Law. Of course we know that the just shall live by their faith (Hab. 2:4) and that O.T. saints were not justified by the Law, but the Law did point out their sinfulness and their need for a Savior. But even Christ said in His Day that at that time in history "salvation is of the Jews" (John 4:22).} In some degree this is correct. Since the O.T. saints had to look forward to Christ with only 39 books of Scripture, and we as Christians have the privilege of looking back at Christ and having 66 books of Scripture, one could say we have a greater degree of Truth given to us. This ties in with heaven, hell, resurrection, indwelling of the Holy Spirit, immortal bodies, etc. So of course we have had more revealed to us, and it makes sense that if Christ and His Apostles tell us much about heaven, how our new bodies will be, how God will finally judge the world at the end of the age, he would have to also give us more detail on the "flip side of the coin".

We are told much more in the N.T. about demons, demonic activity, Satan's purposes with human government (in Matthew especially), and of course where all these wicked beings and the wicked humans will go after the consummation occurs (especially in 1 and 2 Thess., 2 Pet. Jude and Revelation). Of course we are given hints of these things in Daniel, (and we actually have greater detail about "end times" human battles and governments in the O.T. prophets) and a few of the minor prophets, but since the concept of hell is tied into resurrection of the dead, and this concept is much more fully examined in light of Christ's Resurrection and subsequent judgment of the world at the consummation, of necessity the concept of hell is going to get more treatment in the N.T.

But on top of just the fact of progressive revelation, one other reason that hell is mentioned in the N.T. more than the O.T. is that the events are closer to consummation, and many theologians think that our concept of Hell (especially as outlined by Jesus in the Gospels) is really a description of the Lake of Fire (see for example, Matt. 18:8 and Mark 9:43-48). Since the Lake of Fire is currently not in use (and will not be so until the events of Rev. 19:20 and 20:10-15) and won't be fully utilized until the Great White Throne judgment, and since the Lake of Fire is not mentioned until Rev. 19:20, there was no need to get into the concept of the differentiation of the two in O.T. times, or even in early Apostolic times. Remember also that until the time of Christ's resurrection (contrast the parable in Luke 16 to 2 Cor. 5:8) the condition of an Abraham's Bosom Sheol for the righteous and a Sheol (in Luke 16:23 linked with Hades in the N.T.) for the wicked was in place, but now when a Christian dies, he is present with the Lord in heaven. Therefore something had to have changed between O.T. times and the resurrection of Christ, in regards to where righteous souls went after death. When you read through the O.T., there is a concept of being with God after death (Job 19:25-26, Psalm 16:9-11), but as stated earlier, it appears that this concept was thought to occur at the time of the end or the end of the age. Before then, it seems to appear that O.T. saints thought that they would just sleep until the final resurrection of the just in death (2 Sam. 7:12, 2 Kings 20:21, Job 14:10-12, Ps 6:5 30:9 88:10,11 and Isa. 38:17-19), or if they thought of an afterlife, it was one of being with family and (maybe?) God (Gen. 15:15, 49:29, Psa. 16:11 if viewed in this light, Psa. 17:15). Therefore since we are not looking forward to a promise, but backwards to a Savior, and since we know that Savior will also judge the world and that those not written in His book of Life will be cast into the Lake of Fire (along with Hades and death), whereas the O.T. saints did not know this, or knew only dimly and in part, we can expect there to be a fuller revelation of what these things are, both heaven and hell in the N.T..





I am surprised you have claimed to base your beliefs on evidence, when you cannot provide evidence to suport your claim the NT was written by greeks and romans [of course some were roman citizens like paul] . I do not believe jesus died and came back simply because the bible says so. However that is for a future thread. I will ask if you have anything to say about the op's topic of How Could God Send Those he Loves to Hell?, I would love to discus them.

[Fragony]

There is no evidence that parts of the NT were Roman propaganda, some historians suspect it.

[rory_20_uk]

Total realism, I never claimed to base my beliefs on evidence. To do so and to think others do is, well, moronic. A belief is something that is not bound by evidence. You appear to neither have the manners to ask nor the wit to infer that I am Agnostic

I am happy to critique the body of "evidence" - perhaps have a discussion on the canonical process, the politics that went on and so forth and the reasons that these decisions were made to fit the needs of the geopolitical reality and hence the hangover of these vestiges to today.

There is no evidence that parts of the NT were Roman propaganda, some historians suspect it.

There is precious evidence for most of it. Interpreting any text that has gone so many edits to the point where large parts of the original texts are only known from senior church officials at the time declaring them heretical is nonsensical. Of course, discussing the reasons for the creation of the versions that were created it itself has value.

[Fragony]

The definitive gutenberg-bible was probably made for a reason, could also justt be handy because of the invention of printing books. That a lot of it has been lost or altered makes perfect sense to me though, theory is that christian forves had to be pacified. It doesn;t seem all that outlandish to me

[total relism]

Total realism, I never claimed to base my beliefs on evidence. To do so and to think others do is, well, moronic. A belief is something that is not bound by evidence. You appear to neither have the manners to ask nor the wit to infer that I am Agnostic

I am happy to critique the body of "evidence" - perhaps have a discussion on the canonical process, the politics that went on and so forth and the reasons that these decisions were made to fit the needs of the geopolitical reality and hence the hangover of these vestiges to today.



There is precious evidence for most of it. Interpreting any text that has gone so many edits to the point where large parts of the original texts are only known from senior church officials at the time declaring them heretical is nonsensical. Of course, discussing the reasons for the creation of the versions that were created it itself has value.

This kind of posts just reassure me that large portions of the population accept things they are told and cannot support them other than repete the same stuff they were told to believe. It seems I think some think the da vinci code was actually history. This thread more than any needs a translation of the bible thread to be done. Please allow me the time to address each issue one at a time.

[rory_20_uk]

This kind of posts just reassure me that large portions of the population accept things they are told and cannot support them other than repete the same stuff they were told to believe. It seems I think some think the da vinci code was actually history. This thread more than any needs a translation of the bible thread to be done. Please allow me the time to address each issue one at a time.

Yes... they are broadly called those who follow religions.

You appear to be missing the point - translating an unreliable source doesn't make it more reliable.