The Instigator
Pro (for)
4 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
6 Points

Hell is not a Bible teaching

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/3/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 948 times Debate No: 79348
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (31)
Votes (2)




Hell was adopted by apostate Christianity from Pagan teachings. Though the word itself appears in older translations of the Bible the meaning of the word has changed over time, and is either mistranslated or a misleading translation considering the changing of the meaning of the word.

Definition of Hell: Eternal punishment of the immortal soul in a fire, often mistaken for the lake of fire.


First of all, your argument that the definition means eternal punishment in a fire is not the lake of fire is a mute point, and very petty, nevertheless, allow me to prove to you that hell is not misinterpreted, and is very much so a lake of fire where all those who do not know Christ will go.

Argument #1: "The lake of fire is mentioned in the bible, and there for it IS biblical, very much so"

The word hell is translated from several different words. The Hebrew word is Sheol which means "pit"
Numbers 16:33 "So they and all that belonged to them went down alive into Sheol, and the earth closed over them, and they perished from the midst of the assembly."

Greek: gehenna (from the Hebrew Valley of Hinnom)Translated “hell” meaning place of everlasting torment

Matthew 10:28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Read more:

Revelation 19:20, "And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast
alive into
a lake of fire burning with brimstone."

These scriptures above as well as their grammatical origins prove your statement is false, and if you need more information, follow the link I posted which was one of my sources, besides the bible of course.

Argument #2: The core of the Earth is Hell

Scientists in Siberia drilled into the core of the Earth, and it they recorded the cries from the lake of fire below the Earth known as the core.

Amos 9:2 proves it is possible to dig into hell, and this was very possibly a prophecy for this event:
it reads: "“Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, whence I bring them down.”

If you look at the second sentence of the verse and remember the tower of Babel, then you know it is not symbollically suggest they climb up to heaven but it is speaking in literal terms. Therefore, if the second part of the verse was not symbolism rather a literal statement, then one has to suggest that the first part of the verse talking about digging into hell is literal as well.

I will provide a summary of the article but I suggest my opponent as well as the voters to copy and paste the below URL and read the entire article before placing your votes, or your opposing argument.

A Scientists and crew dug to the core, getting closer then anyone had before. The DR. in charge of the drilling came back with a sound clip off the crying souls his team and he had heard, and his telling of the event is bone chilling. The sound clip was investigated by the top scientists in signapore said their results were inconclusive. Of coures, they say the Doctor and his team could have falsified the findings using fake voices, but if you read the article you will be able to discern the truth for yourself.

Even if you don't buy the story of the doctor and his team hearing the souls of hell on their mission to the core, this point is real more substantial then anything as far as the point goes. The argument was the hell is not biblical. The first argument I posed in this post was a direct response that disproved his point. EVEN IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE OR ITS PRINCIPLES, this is not the issue here. The issue is rather or not a lake of fire/hell is IN THE BIBLE i.e. is it biblical? the answer is yes, it is in the bible. That's just a fact. Rather you worship Jesus or Budha, you still can't deny the lake of fire's presents in the bible of Christianity.
Debate Round No. 1


The Old English Word Hell

My definition of hell was a necessary courtesy due to the meaning of the word having changed since it appeared, especially in older translations like the King James Version. The Old English word hell in 1611 comes from a root word which means to cover or conceal. Words from the same root word have a similar meaning. Shell, for example, is a covering. Hull is the covered part of a ship or the covering of a nut. Whole is an uncovering, heal is the covering of a wound, hill is the covering of earth or stone of the flat ground. Hall is the covered part of a building for storage or the gathering of people.

To hell potatoes meant to store them underground, as in a cellar, a book heller was the worker who put the cover on a book and to hell a house meant to cover a portion of it with tile.

The Hebrew Word Sheol And Greek Hades

The Hebrew word sheohl (transliteration Sheol) doesn't mean pit, though it can be translated as pit, death, or grave. The Catholic Douay Version translates Sheol as hell 64 times and once as death. The King James Version translates Sheol 31 times as hell, 31 times as grave and 3 times as pit. The English Revised Version (1885) transliterated Sheol in many cases but most of the occurrences were translated as grave, or pit. Hell being used 14 times. The American Standard Version (1901) transliterated Sheol in all 65 occurrences and Hades in all ten of its occurrences.

"Sheol was located somewhere 'under' the earth . . . . The state of the dead was one of neither pain nor pleasure. Neither reward for the righteous nor punishment for the wicked was associated with Sheol. The good and bad alike, tyrants and saints, kings and orphans, Israelites and gentiles - all slept together without awareness of one another." - Encyclopaedia Britannica (1971, Volume 11, page 276)

your use of Numbers 16:33, where the ground opens up and covers the people doesn't support an eternal torment, only a covering, much like a grave. When Jonah was in the belly of the great fish he said he was in Sheol (KJV Hell, Jonah 2:1, 2) which he thought would be his grave, not a pit under the earth.

The Greek word Haides (Transliteration Hades) corresponds to the Hebrew Sheol as is indicated by the apostle Peter's reference to Psalms 16:10 at Acts 2:27-31 where Jesus had fulfilled David's prophecy that Jesus would not be left in hell. Peter quoted Psalms and used the Greek Hades in place of Sheol.


The Christian Greek Gehenna is a literal place - a valley that lies South and South-West of ancient Jerusalem. It is the modern day Wadi er-Rababi (Ge Ben Hinnom), a deep, narrow valley. Today it is a peaceful and pleasant valley, unlike the surrounding dry and rocky terrain, and most certainly unlike the pagan / apostate Christian hell.

In the days of unfaithful Kings Manasseh and Ahaz idolatrous worship of the pagan god Baal was conducted in the place which was then known as Geh Hinnom, (the valley of Hinnom) including human sacrifices to fire. It is ironic that the pagan custom of burning in fire, as in hell, would have so clearly infiltrated the Christian teachings, considering that this practice was a detestable thing to Jehovah God, and his prophets spoke of a time when this place would be turned into a defiled and desolate place. (2 Chronicles 28:1-3; 33:1-6 / Jeremiah 7:31-32; 32:35).

The prophecy was fulfilled in the days of faithful King Josiah, who had the place, especially the area known as Topeth polluted into a refuse heap. (2 Kings 23:10)

So it was that in the days of Jesus and the early Christian congregations, that the valley was known as a literal place where the carcasses of criminals and animals were thrown, having no hope for resurrection. The refuse there was kept burning with sulfur, which is abundant in the area. When Jesus used Gehenna as a figurative or symbolic reference to the spiritually dead the people in the area knew what he was talking about.

Image Of Gehenna

The link you provided seems to present the Valley of Hinnom as a place of literal punishment, but says very little of it as eternal or it's later use. The scripture they use, Jeremiah 7:31, points out that God didn't approve of the sacrifices of children to fire for Baal. If he didn't approve of it then he had nothing to do with it, especially as eternal torment.

The Lake Of Fire

Since death is thrown into the Lake of Fire, and death can't literally be thrown anywhere this implies the Lake of Fire is symbolic. Since the Bible itself reveals what it symbolizes it isn't necessary to speculate what it is. The second death. Also, since Hell itself is also thrown into the lake they can't both be hell. (Revelation 20:14)

The Core Of The Earth Is Hell

Your claim that the core of the Earth is Hell doesn't establish the Bible's supporting a hell as a literal everlasting torment. The Scripture you use to support hell as the core of Earth, Amos 9:2, only demonstrates that God is in Sheol (Hell KJV). The verse doesn't indicate a digging to the core, only to the grave as the Hebrew word, you yourself stated is a pit, or as I contend, a grave.

The author of the article you linked to regarding the sound clip of tortured souls in hell himself says: "That is why I will also not confirm to you that the story is true or not because I have not met any of these scientists." The 'Scientists" investigating the clip itself are paranormal investigators. Even they concluded they could be fake.


I was very clear that the travelers to the core and what they reported to have heard was discarded due to speculation of falsehood by people who didn't even care to meet them. There is no evidence that suggests the meeting failing to exist between the scientiests and the signapore scientiests was the fault of the travelers and not the fault of the speculators easy dismissal of the findings.

Again, this point wasn't the ENTIRE point, just a supporting idea.
You use Jonah comparing being in the belly of a fish as SHEOL, which is funny that you would use that verse to automatically claim a general standard of symbolism for the entire hell references. This is funny because some would say Jonah being stuck in the belly of the fish was actually the symbolic portion of the text and not the reference made to Hell.

It is great that you were able to look up the origins of words, but none of your origin based philosophy disproves the lake of fire's existence. It's simply word play. However, if you want further points to be made for the existence of the lake of fire, here:

You say verses like "death was cast into the lake of fire" is symbolic due to deaths immaterial nature, I would say that your logic is simplistic at best. Jesus said I give you life. In order to receive life we must take it. But how then could we "take" life using your logic, this too is a symbolic verse. What is it symbolic for? I guess life would mean eternal existence, happiness joy, the pleasure of heaven, and what ever else he has instore for us, but we will still be ALIVE, which is the material nature of the word life, just not being dead.
Therefore, "Death being cast into hell" means that anyone who chose not to come to Jesus and accept the gift of life, because notice that is exactly what life is, a gift that can only come from Jesus (remember, we are arguing about what the BIBLE says and not our own belief systems or opinions on the text itself. It states clear as day Jesus gives life, and no one can go to the father except through him, and any who is not for Jesus is against Jesus) Therefore, if we CHOOSE LIFE and GO WHERE IT GOES....
Why then would those who do not choose Jesus/life not GO WHERE DEATH GOES? This is the biblical explanation that can be found by any coherent reader of the text. Those who choose life FOLLOW LIFE INTO HEAVEN and those who CHOOSE DEATH FOLLOW DEATH INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE....

OKAY So it is abundandly clear that those who do not choose life but choose death do not go where life goes... it seems the problem here is you believing that Hell is a literal place. It seems perhaps you think that we just sleep forever or remain in our caasket with our dead corpse? I find it hard to argue with someone who hasn't given their idea of hell or rather or not they even believe in one. I think saying you DON'T believe in one, however, would be contradictory to your arguments that you've made against the "lake of fire" but not hell itsself.

Another example: "you said DEATH CAN NOT BE "THROWN" ANYWHERE (because of it's immaterial nature), and so this means the verse saying death is thrown in hell is symbolic and therefore hell is not a real place in the verse. Look at this verse: John 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

In this verse it states clearly that we "pass from death unto life"... This would insinuate that we are " in death".... if we connect our "symbolic dots" we will see that death is thrown into hell, and we are all IN DEATH until we hear and believe and pass out of death and into life by believing in God/Jesus. Therefore, if Death is cast into hell, and we are "IN DEATH" then we would be "IN HELL" unless we were "IN JESUS"....

I'll leave you with a few verses:

Mat 18:8 Wherefore if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire

Job 18 describes, " the place of him that knoweth not God" (vs 21), as, "brimstone shall be scattered upon his habitation." (vs 15) Psalm 11:5 says of the wicked, "fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup." The wrath of God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with "brimstone and fire." (Genesis 19:24) The demonic locusts from the bottomless pit of Revelation 9:17 issued "out of their mouths fire and smoke and brimstone.

revelation 21:8, again describes eternal damnation as "the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone."

HOWEVER, You do appear to be right that Hell was not directly mentioned in the original bible... but it is directly mentioned in all the new editions.

Remember this verse then, as I shift a little hear:

"God has given us the power of life and death, and that power is in the tongue"

" Proverbs 18:21 - Death and life [are] in the power of the tongue: and they that love it shall eat the fruit thereof"

James 3:5
Verse Concepts

So also the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it boasts of great things See how great a forest is set aflame by such a small fire!

- See more at:

He who guards his mouth and his tongue, Guards his soul from troubles - See more at:

The plans of the heart belong to man, But the answer of the tongue is from the LORD. - See more at:

Debate Round No. 2
31 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
>Reported vote: roguetech// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Con (Arguments, Sources), 2 points to Pro (S&G, Conduct). Reasons for voting decision: Con cited verses describing both eternal punishment and punishment of fire. Pro failed to rebut it except for Revelations. Pro had better grammar, and I give Pro better conduct due to Cons use of colors. Despite giving Con the win for arguments and sources, the claim that someone has drilled into hell is asinine and wasn't sourced. That also factored into my conduct vote. The further claim that scientists in Singapore investigated something in Siberia is contradictory, implying Con is aware that there's no evidence. Providing a blog that in turn cites a newspaper quoting a fictitious person is dishonest, and very nearly enough to *take* points from Con.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) It is not enough to say that one side had better grammar. The voter must explain how the argument of the side with worse grammar was significantly more difficult to read and understand in order to award this point. (2) Conduct cannot be awarded on the basis of a single color change. Unless the voter is literally making reading the debate a headache by switching colors constantly, that is no basis for a conduct vote. (3) It's unclear why the voter gave sources to Con, especially given that the only analysis he provides of sources is negative towards Con. The voter mentions that the verses were integral to the debate, but the source vote evaluates the sources themselves, not just whether or not they are dropped.
Posted by DavidHenson 1 year ago

Actually, it has been a great experience, with comments like allieo66 saying "I didn't agree with pro before, but I believe it now." And Max Sterling saying "Overall I feel Pro has both won this debate and made Christianity a more tolerable consideration personally."

That made for an awesome experience, and all the people who couldn't vote who would have voted for my presentation was pretty cool too.
Posted by MadCornishBiker 1 year ago
@ DavidHenson

Yeah, that's part of the reason I stopped doing debates.

Plus they don;t really prove who is right or wrong, just whose ideas are the most popular.

I restrict my debates to the "public arena" now, lol.
Posted by roguetech 1 year ago

>" the claim that someone has drilled into hell is asinine and wasn't sourced. That also factored into my conduct vote. The further claim that scientists in Singapore investigated something in Siberia is contradictory, implying Con is aware that there's no evidence. Providing a blog that in turn cites a newspaper quoting a fictitious person is dishonest, and very nearly enough to *take* points from Con.

Providing a dishonest source for a dishonest claim is bad conduct. Perhaps I should have reversed this and use of colors as the order of factors. However, the use of colors was distracting and arbitrary. If they had limited the colors to quotes, it would have been fine, but there was no rhyme or reason to it. Hence, poor conduct. But blatantly lying was the worse of the two.
Posted by roguetech 1 year ago
I notice you didn't mention slavery"

>Jehovah is the God of Love.
I didn't say Jehovah doesn't love. The bible states 37 separate time Jehovah loves the smell of burning meat.

>His sending his only begotten son to the earth to pay the price which will enable us to be rid of Adam's sin when the time is right shows that.
First, Jehovah is said to have at least two children. Perhaps you are neglecting Jacob. Second, (and I *assume* you are referring to Jesus), I was under the impression that Christian doctrine claims Jesus has lived and will live forever. In what way is that an "ultimate sacrifice"?
Posted by MaxSterling 1 year ago
I can't vote yet, as I just started here, but here's my input

I side with pro as his explanations of the topic make, put simply, more sense. In the context of the time and origins of the Abrahamic faiths it does lend more credibility to his arguments. While Con's arguments are more conventional and well worded, I find that his assessments seem to be more denial in DEFENSE of the conventional rather than evidence to support it. Overall I feel Pro has both won this debate and made Christianity a more tolerable consideration personally.
Posted by DavidHenson 1 year ago
Its like I'm in an American election with G.W. Bush as an opponent. Everyone's for me but I'm losing the election. ;~}
Posted by Valkrin 1 year ago
"I give Pro better conduct due to Cons use of colors."
Posted by MadCornishBiker 1 year ago
@ roguetech

It is because I know Jehovah, and the scriptures far better than you obviously do that I know only too well that Jehovah has never authorised either Genocide or rape.

Say what you will you cannot change that fact.

You may "know" the scriptures, though I doubt it, but you most definite;ly do not understand what they are telling us all.

Jehovah is the God of Love. His sending his only begotten son to the earth to pay the price which will enable us to be rid of Adam's sin when the time is right shows that.

Many people will give their own lives for the sake of others, but how many will put the lives of their only begotten son?

Jehovah did. That is the extent of his love and his insistence of justice, even at his own cost.
Posted by DavidHenson 1 year ago
What The Bible Says

If the Bible says we are acquitted from our sins upon our death we are not obligated to be punished further.

Romans 6:7 "For he who has died has been acquitted from [his] sin."

If the soul dies it can't be punished forever in hell.

Ezekiel 18:4 "Look! All the souls - to me they belong. As the soul of the father so likewise the soul of the son - to me they belong. The soul that is sinning - it itself will die."

If only those who are unrighteous, who don't know Jesus and accept him, and sin, go to Hell then Jesus himself would not have gone to hell.

Acts 2:31 (KJV) "He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption."

If hell were a separation from God, then God wouldn't be in hell.

Amos 9:2 (KJV) "Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up to heaven, thence will I bring them down:"

Psalm 139:8 "If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there."

If Hell were the core of the Earth, Jonah from the belly of the fish, wouldn't have been in hell.

Jonah 2: 1, 2 (KJV) "Then Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the fish's belly, And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction unto the Lord, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice."

If the fire of everlasting destruction in the Bible were literal, Sodom, now probably buried under the Dead Sea, would still be burning.

Jude 1:7 "So too SodR42;om and Gomorrah and the cities about them, after they in the same manner as the foregoing ones had committed fornication excessively and gone out after flesh for unnatural use, are placed before [us] as a [warning] example by undergoing the judicial punishment of everlasting fire."
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Balacafa 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Con cited many verses regarding punishment and punishment of fire. Pro failed to make rebuttals regarding these points. Pro only refuted what he knew he could refute. He failed to make rebuttals to all of Cons points and therefore arguments go to Con. Sources go to Pro due to the use of bad sources with false information (ie. drilling into hell). Conduct was equal and no forfeitures were made. Con did make spelling mistakes and capitalization errors however there weren't enough to give the point to Pro. Pro did also make some spelling mistakes such as: "Hull" instead of Hell. So Spelling and grammar is equal.
Vote Placed by roguetech 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Con cited verses describing both eternal punishment and punishment of fire. Pro failed to rebut it except for Revelations. Therefore, I give arguments to Con. I give Pro better conduct due to Con's dishonest claim and citation that someone has drilled into hell (providing a blog that in turn cites a newspaper quoting a ficticious person goes beyond bad sources to bad conduct). In addition, they switch colors *multiple times*, making it more difficult to tell what is a quote, and use of CAPS. Grammar vote goes to Pro for Con's numerous run-on sentences and missing periods, making it more difficult to read. In reviewing arguments following vote appeal, I withhold any source points. Most of Pro's are inline, making them difficult to judge. (I may take the time to attempt a fair evaluation and edit vote.)