The Instigator
Jerry947
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
daley
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Is There a Waiting Period People Go to Before Heaven and Hell?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/8/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 454 times Debate No: 84719
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

Jerry947

Pro

I am a Christian who loves God. I believe that people will go to heaven and hell and will remain there for the rest of eternity. But...I do not believe people are currently in heaven and hell. I believe that people are in Sheol/Hades.

Definitions:
Heaven-the abode of God, the angels, and the spirits of the righteous after death; the place or state of existence of the blessed after the mortal life. Link: https://www.google.com...
Hell-the place or state of punishment of the wicked after death; the abode of evil and condemned spirits. Link: https://www.google.com...
Sheol/Hades-waiting place composed of two sections. One section for the righteous and one section for the wicked. Note: The place for the righteous is generally called paradise.

a. Lets kick things off by talking about the thief on the cross. Do you remember when Jesus promised the thief on the cross that he would be with him (the following day) in paradise? But how could this be the case when Jesus had not yet ascended to the father (John 20:17) in heaven? Jesus didn't do that until 40 days later. Therefore Jesus must have been referring to the paradise section of Sheol/Hades.

b. Then in 2 Peter we find out that the wicked are being held before the great day of judgment. The Bible says that "then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment" (2 Peter 2:9). This must mean that no one is in hell yet.

c. Then there the matter of the fact that the people in the Old Testament couldn't have gone to heaven since Jesus had not yet died for their sins. Those who believed in God must have gone to a waiting place and then would eventually be moved into heaven when the day of judgement arrived. Jacob was an example of a person in the Old Testament who believed he was going to Sheol. In Genesis 37:35 Jacob says, "I will go down into Sheol unto my son (Joseph) mourning."

d. The Bible also says this "For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God; and the dead in Christ shall rise first. 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18 Therefore comfort one another with these words." (1 Thess 4:16-18). Notice how it says that the dead will rise first and then be with God. Why would they rise from the dead if they were already in heaven?

I am looking forward to the rest of the debate.

Additional Sources:
https://carm.org...
http://biblehub.com...
https://www.biblegateway.com...
daley

Con

"And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell (hades) were cast into the lake of fire." (Rev 20:13-14, KJV)

Since the wicked are resurrected out of hell, then hell cannot be their eternal resting place as my opponent claims. Since hell is CAST INTO the lake of fire, then hell (while itself a place of torment) cannot be the same thing as the lake of fire. In this debate, I therefore content that hell is not the final resting place of the damned, but is itself the temporary place where the wicked are held before being cast into the lake of fire - their final destination where they will spend eternity. The Bible gives a return from hell, but no resurrection from the lake of fire.

However, hell being a temporary place which will be removed when its consumed in the lake of fire (along with death) does not mean that its not also a place of punishment. It is.

In Luke 16:19-31 Jesus describes a PAST event saying "There WAS a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there WAS a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And IT CAME TO PASS, that the beggar DIED, and WAS CARRIED by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And HE CRIED and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but NOW he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence."

Notice that this event had already happened before Jesus went to the cross, and the rich man was already in hell. It was a past event Jesus was describing. So clearly, the intermediate place my opponent speaks of, is hell itself. And yet, is a place of punishment as if evidenct from the rich man's testimony of his torment.

This passage beautifully illustrates that Sheol/Hades has a chasm in the middle, separating the righteous from the wicked. Its the side where the wicked are that most Bible translations call "hell." (KJV, NKJV, NLT, ERV, ASV, NEB, RV, CEV, TEV, etc)

Now, I agree with my opponent that at this time, before Jesus went to the cross, that no one was in heaven, because Jesus explicitly said that no one had as yet ascended to heaven besides Him while He was still on earth as a man. (John 3:13) However, it is a mistake to think that even today, so long after the cross, that Jesus would have to wait until judgement day to allow the righteous on the other side of Sheol where Abraham and Lazarus were to go to heaven.

Hebrews 9:8 is very clear that the way into the Most Holy Place, heaven itself (Heb 9:12, 24) was not open while the first tabernacle was still standing - when the law of Moses was still in effect. But that sanctuary system has ceased to have validity before God centuries ago. Jesus has already inaugurated "a new and living way" for us to enter the Holy Place. (Heb 10:19-20) So there seems to be no reason why the righteous would have to wait in the lobby before entering into God's presence. 2 Corinthians 5:1-8 says that "if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, and eternal house in heaven." If Paul was going to go to a temporary Sheol when he died, he would have said "if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have another temporary home in Sheol/Hades." He doesn't say that, but skips right into HEAVEN. He even goes on to say in verses 6-8 that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord, but when we become absent from this body (when we die) we go straight to be with the Lord. Since the Lord Jesus is standing at the right hand of God in heaven, this suggests very strongly that the righteous no longer have to wait in a temporary place before going to heaven.

"And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled." (Re 6:9-11 KJV)

Here we have the souls of the righteous dead in heaven. While this is prophetic, we know it will take place before the return of Christ or judgment day because this takes place during the opening of the "fifth seal," and two more seals are to be opened before we get to the end. In fact, they complain that judgment against the wicked is taking a long time to come, so this must before the final judgment. We also know this takes place before the general resurrection because they have fellow brothers (Christians) on earth who are yet to be killed as they were before they can be avenged. And we know they are in heaven because the one opening the seals is the Lamb (Jesus) who has to come to heaven and take the scroll which is seals with the seven seals from the hand of the Father who is in heaven on His throne. (Rev 5:1-5) He is standing by the throne (Rev 5:6) where He is worshiped (Rev 5:11-14). The whole vision depicts events in heaven according to Revelation 4:1. The altar mentioned in Revelation 6:9 is described as being in heaven in Revelation 8:1-5. So no doubt, these souls are not in an intermediate place, they are in heaven.

Now, to respond briefly with the space I have left to my opponent's arguments:
(a) John 20:17 was referring to physical, bodily ascension ( Acts 1:9-11), but this does nothing to show that the invisible, immaterial spirit of Jesus could not have ascending to heaven, as Jesus said that same day: "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." (Luke 23:46) The Father was in heaven. Nowhere does the Bible locate the Father in Sheol. But more importantly, when Jesus told the thief "today you will be with me in paradise," (Luke 23:43), we must recall that Sheol/Hades is NEVER called "paradise" in the Bible, but the word "paradise" is associated with Heaven in Revelation 2:7. Barne's Notes on the Bible says: "Will I give to eat of the tree of life - As the reward of his victory. The meaning is, that he would admit him to heaven, represented as paradise, and permit him to enjoy its pleasures - represented by being permitted to partake of its fruits." Most scholars agree on this.

(b) Pro's own quote says "then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to KEEP the unrighteous UNDER PUNISHMENT until the day of judgment" (2 Peter 2:9). The very intermediate place they are held is itself a place of punishment, hell. Jude 7 says the people of Sodom "suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

(d) The "we" that will always be with the Lord in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 is the "we" who are alive and remain until He comes. This is the group Paul means, and he mentioned them separately from the dead who are raised in verse 16. Both will always be with the Lord, true, but Paul is talking about the latter group in verse 16. Even if Pro says it wouldn't make sense for people in heaven to resurrect on earth just to be in God's presence, Bible doctrine isn't decided by what makes sense to Pro, but by what the Scripture says.
Debate Round No. 1
Jerry947

Pro

That was a good response. Now it is time for me to do some rebuttals.

The main problem I see with my opponents arguments is that they are quoting from the King James Bible. This translation is very flawed and has messed up several Bible verses. For example, Hebrews 4:8 states that "for if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day" (KJV). This version mistakes Jesus' name when it should say Joshua's name. Another mistake with the KJV is that it mistakes Sheol for the place of Hell. But I will go more into that below.

The wicked are not resurrected out of hell. That is mistranslated in the KJV of the Bible. Most translations say that the people were removed from death and Hades which supports my argument. See link for what the majority of translations say: http://biblehub.com...

Therefore Hell (Matthew 25:41) and the lake of fire (Rev 20:10) are the same place since they are both described as eternal places of torment. Basically, the Bible supports that people in Hades/Sheol will be put into Hell in the last days.

The Luke 16 example is also an okay response but again...you are using a bad translation of the Bible. Most translations do not say that in Hell the rich man lifted up his eyes. Most translations say that "and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side" (ESV). See link for other translations: http://biblehub.com... So Lazarus was in the paradise section of Sheol and the rich man was in the not so fun section.

Then it was claimed that most Bible translations such as "KJV, NKJV, NLT, ERV, ASV, NEB, RV, CEV, TEV, etc" call the place the rich man was in hell. But this isn't true. See below for proof.

KJV: True https://www.biblegateway.com...

NKJV: False https://www.biblegateway.com...

NLT: False https://www.biblegateway.com...

ERV: False https://www.biblegateway.com...

ASV: False https://www.biblegateway.com...

NEB: Don't know what it says.

RV: Did you mean RSV? If so: False https://www.biblegateway.com...

CEV: True https://www.biblegateway.com...

TEV: Don't know what it says.

It was then said that "However, it is a mistake to think that even today, so long after the cross, that Jesus would have to wait until judgement day to allow the righteous on the other side of Sheol where Abraham and Lazarus were to go to heaven." I disagree. Jesus told the thief at the cross that he would be with him in paradise the following day. Was Jesus lying? Because Jesus did not ascend to the father in heaven until 40 days later. It is far more likely Jesus was talking about the paradise section of Sheol.

2 Cor 5:1-8 says this "For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens" (ESV). The heavens spoken of here does not indicate a specific place and if it did, it wouldn't mean that there is not a waiting place. It would merely mean that there is a eternal home waiting for us. Yes, Paul does claim that we go straight to be with the Lord. But Psalm 139:8 says that "If I ascend to heaven, you are there! If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!" (ESV). Therefore people will be with God even in Sheol.

The reason that people can not go to heaven yet is because no one has gone through the process of glorification (http://www.gotquestions.org...) yet. And this process will only occur in the end times. No one has been made perfect yet and has their perfect bodies yet. Remember the verse I gave from 1 Thessalonians? It makes it clear that in the end times, the dead will rise first to be with God in their new bodies. God at the cross made it possible for humans to have salvation and for us to be considered perfect by status. But we won't actually be perfect until we go through the process of glorification.

The verse from Revelation 6 does not mention heaven at all but yes...it does mention the dead. Yes, Jesus is there with them but this does not mean that they are in heaven. For the Lord's presence is also in Sheol.

Now to defend some of my arguments:

a. The Bible does locate the father in Sheol. I presented that verse to you earlier. But the most interesting thing is that the Bible never says that Jesus went to heaven after his death. Not his physical body or his immaterial spirit. However, the Bible does say that Jesus descended in Hades after his death. 1 Peter 3:18-19 says that "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit; in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits now in prison, who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water." So the Bible does mention that his spirit went to Hades but it mentions nothing about him going to heaven until 40 days later when his full self ascended to the father.

b. You assume that the immediate place spoken of in 2 Peter is hell. But this seems illogical considering Hell and the lake of fire are the same place (as mentioned before). The passage must have been talking about Sheol as the waiting place.

c. The verse in Thessalonians was just to show that there were people that had not received their glorified bodies yet. You can't go be with God and have the relationship be fully restored until people have been glorified. The only thing I said was that people that are in heaven have already been raised from the dead. There would be no need for them to be raised from the dead if they were already in heaven. Therefore no person has been glorified yet and no one has their new bodies yet until Christ comes a second time.

d. What about what I said about Jacob?

Thanks for the quick response. This is one interesting debate.
daley

Con

Pro wants to imply that if there is a translation error at Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV there must be errors in the specific verses I gave to support my argument. I don't see how this is logical. Is the KJV wrong in its reading of John 1:1? What about every other verse in Hebrews 4? I don't see what Hebrews 4:8 has to do with this debate since it doesn't address the fate of the dead. Further, it could be that "Jesus" is the correct translation for two reasons. 1, the same Hebrew word for "Joshua" also means "Jesus," and 2, Jesus is the God of the Old Testament. John 1:1, 14; 20:28; Isaiah 9:6 and Titus 2:13 proclaim Him to be God. 1 Corinthians 10:1-3 speaks of Jesus as being with Israel during the Exodus. So Jesus in His preincarnate state could have been the one leading them in the wilderness. And the "rest" offered to Israel was to ultimately come from God anyway. Hebrews 4:3 shows that the "rest" spoken of here is God's rest, so the rest was to come from Jesus who is God. In any case, an error at Hebrews 4:8 doesn't mean an error in every other text. I dare ask Pro if his preferred version of the Bible is without any errors.

Pro claims that "hell" is a mistranslation of Hades, saying that Hades is not Hell, yet, he identifies no other word at all in the Bible which should be translated as "hell." So if Hades isn't hell, what is the Greek word for "hell"? He doesn't tell us why the KJV is wrong for translating Hades as "hell" in Revelation 20:13-14.

He claims that Matthew 25:41 is talking about "hell" but the word "hell" isn't used here at all. He says that the lake of fire is hell, but nowhere does the Bible actually say so. The Bible says the lake of fire is the second death. (Rev 20:14) I dare him show us where the Bible says the lake of fire is "hell." Matt 25:41 is about the lake of fire, which isn't hell (Hades) since hell is cast into it. (Rev 20:13-14)

Again, those translations which use the word "Hades" in Luke 16 are not even translating it into English. They are using the Greek word Hades (which is just a transliteration, not a translation) in the middle of the English text. That would be like me saying "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with ho Theos, and the Logos was Theos." Surely, there is no justification for not using the English words "Word" and "God" instead of the Greek terms "Logos" and "Theos." Since we speak English and not Greek, we should not have, in an English Bible, a Greek word like Hades in the middle of the English text. The KJV uses "hell" as the English translation of Hades in Luke 16:19-31 and Revelation 20:13-14. At least it is translated. I ask my opponent, since he thinks these translations are incorrect, to tell us what he believes is the English equivalent. Clearly, those translators who disagree with the KJV in this point are unable to do any better, but leave the word unstanslated. So, if the Greek word for hell is not Hades, then what is it?

That this Hades is indeed "hell" is clear from the reference to the firy torment which goes on there in Luke 16. The rich man is not presented as being in the comfort of a lobby waiting for a meeting with the Judge who will sentence him to torment in hell, but rather, he is already in torment (vss. 23-25, 28) As for translations, the following link shows that most Bible translations which actually translates Hades into English, translates it as "hell," and no other English equivalent is offered by the others. God's Word Translation and KJV say "hell." Douay-Rheims and AKJV say "hell." Webster's Bible Translation says "hell." The only other option given by some is "the grave," but we know this isn't accurage because the rich man couldn't be buring six-feet-deep in the ground! https://www.google.com...

Notice this contradiction. Pro claims Jesus couldn't have gone to heaven where the Father is on the day He died because He said in John 20:17 that He had not yet ascended. So he claims Jesus went to Hades/Sheol. But he also argued that God the Father is in Sheol/Hades based on Psalm 139:8. In other words, Jesus' spirit DID ASCEND to be with the Father. So does this not show that John 20:28 only applies to a physical ascension and cannot be used to prove that the invisible part of Jesus did not ascend to be with the Father that day?

2 Corinthians 5:1 says "Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal HOUSE IN HEAVEN." (NIV) Now this "House" is clearly a reference to a place, as Jesus said "In my Father's house are many rooms;...I am GOING THERE to prepare a PLACE for you." (John 14:2) 1 Peter 1:4 speaks of our inheritance that cannot perish or fade as "kept IN HEAVEN," which reminds of the eternal house in 2 Corinthians 5:1. Verses 2-3 say that this "heavenly dwelling" place is necessary so that we are not "found naked." By inserting a dwelling place for two thousand years, Pro is saying that Christians have been found naked for 2000 years outside their heavenly dwelling since the writing of 2 Corinthians 5.

Pro says "The reason that people can not go to heaven yet is because no one has gone through the process of glorification (http://www.gotquestions.org......) yet. And this process will only occur in the end times." But "Glorification is the future and final work of God upon Christians where He transforms our mortal physical bodies to the eternal physical bodies in which we will dwell forever." https://www.google.com... The glorification of our physical bodies says nothing about the ability of our spirit/soul to enter heaven. For all his talk about not having perfect bodies yet, Hebrews 12:22-23 speaks of "the SPIRITS of righteous men MADE PERFECT (past tense)," showing that spirits have already been perfected. Thus, there is no imperfection to stop such spirits from entering into heaven. And I wonder how Pro would address Satan being in heaven in Job 1-2 and Revelation 12 since he, being evil, isn't perfect!

I don't believe Pro adequately addressed my argument on Revelation 6:9-11. I showed that the altar where these souls are seen is in heaven (Rev 8:1-5) and that this is a vision of events in heaven (Rev 4:1). Is the altar in Sheol? Can you prove this from the Bible? The altar was part of the OT tabernacle which represented things "in heaven." (Heb 9:1-5, 23-25)

1 Peter 3:18-19 doesn't use the word Hades at all, Pro assumes it was talking about Hades. Nor does it say this preaching took place while Jesus was dead, but rather, after He had been made ALIVE in the spirit. The spirits He preached to here are the ones that were disobedient in the days of Noah, which were the angels (sons of God: Job 38:6-7) who married the daughters of men during Noah's days in Genesis 6. 2 Peter 2:4-5 confirms that the wicked angels who sinned at that time are in such a prison. A detailed account can be found here https://www.google.com.... The Greek word in 2 Peter 2:6 isn't Hades/Sheol as you think, but is Tartarus, another place altogether. This is one of the places Jesus went some time after He ascended.

Pro says there is no need for a resurrection if people are already with God, but I don't need to make sense of it for Pro, I only need to show the Bible teaches it. I addressed Job when I said the righteous in Sheol went to heaven after the cross.
Debate Round No. 2
Jerry947

Pro

"Pro wants to imply that if there is a translation error at Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV there must be errors in the specific verses I gave to support my argument."

Not quite what I was trying to imply. I mentioned one of the many errors in the KJV to show that the version was flawed. My only issue with the verses you gave were that it mistranslated Hades/Sheol as Hell. I will expand on that later.

"the same Hebrew word for "Joshua" also means 'Jesus,'"

True but why not just translate Joshua as Jesus always? Or why not just translate Jesus as Joshua always? The verse in Hebrews was mentioning a mistake that Joshua made in the Old Testament. So therefore the verse couldn't have been referring to Jesus since it was talking about something the leader was not able to do. The person in question could not give his people rest. I assume that my opponent would agree that there is nothing Jesus cannot do. So clearly the verse was talking about Joshua. By the way, I do not believe that my version of the Bible is perfect (only the originals are) but I would argue that my version (ESV) is more correct.

"Pro claims that "hell" is a mistranslation of Hades, saying that Hades is not Hell, yet, he identifies no other word at all in the Bible which should be translated as "hell." So if Hades isn't hell, what is the Greek word for "hell"? He doesn't tell us why the KJV is wrong for translating Hades as "hell" in Revelation 20:13-14."

The Greek word for Hell is _4;a2;_5;^5;`3;_1; (Hebrew word for hell is גֵיהִנוֹם) and the Greek work for Sheol is Hades. But Hades and Hell are not the same word in the Greek. Hades in the original Greek is ^0;^8;_1;`2;. So you see, the words are different and the KJV translated the verses wrong.

"He claims that Matthew 25:41 is talking about "hell" but the word "hell" isn't used here at all. He says that the lake of fire is hell, but nowhere does the Bible actually say so."

This is true but they have the same characteristics as I mentioned earlier. They are both described as an everlasting place of torment (in fire) so therefore I think it is reasonable to assume that they are the same place. See Matthew 25:41 and Revelation 20:10 will show you the similarities. You can find out more information about Sheol at this link: http://www.matthewmcgee.org...

"The Bible says the lake of fire is the second death. (Rev 20:14)"

I agree with this statement. The verse says that "Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire."

"Clearly, those translators who disagree with the KJV in this point are unable to do any better, but leave the word unstanslated. So, if the Greek word for hell is not Hades, then what is it?"

Hades is the English translation of the Greek word ^0;^8;_1;`2; and Hell is the English translation _4;a2;_5;^5;`3;_1;. They are clearly different places.

"As for translations, the following link shows that most Bible translations which actually translates Hades into English, translates it as "hell," and no other English equivalent is offered by the others." Link: https://www.google.com...

The link you gave was the same one I supplied and it shows that most translations translates the words as "death and Hades. 20 of the 24 translations given in that link said "death and Hades" instead of Hell.

"Notice this contradiction. Pro claims Jesus couldn't have gone to heaven where the Father is on the day He died because He said in John 20:17 that He had not yet ascended."

No contradiction. I stated that Jesus couldn't have be with the father in heaven since he had not yet ascended to heaven yet. I never said that Jesus wouldn't be with the father in Sheol/Hades.

"So does this not show that John 20:28 only applies to a physical ascension and cannot be used to prove that the invisible part of Jesus did not ascend to be with the Father that day?"

I will admit that you have a good argument on this point. The problem is that we never hear of Jesus' invisible part going to heaven but we do learn that in the three days he was dead he was witnessing to the spirits in prison.

"Verses 2-3 say that this "heavenly dwelling" place is necessary so that we are not "found naked." By inserting a dwelling place for two thousand years, Pro is saying that Christians have been found naked for 2000 years outside their heavenly dwelling since the writing of 2 Corinthians 5."

Not quite...the paradise section of Sheol would be a dwelling place for Christians.

"The glorification of our physical bodies says nothing about the ability of our spirit/soul to enter heaven. For all his talk about not having perfect bodies yet, Hebrews 12:22-23 speaks of "the SPIRITS of righteous men MADE PERFECT (past tense)," showing that spirits have already been perfected."

We are perfect by status and are seen as perfect in the eyes of God. But our relationship will not be fully restored with God until the process of glorification happens. I mean, glorification is God's final removal of sin from the lives of Christians (Romans 8:18; 2 Corinthians 4:17)." Therefore until people have had sin be completely removed from them, they cannot enter the presence of God. There is no sin in heaven after all.

"I don't believe Pro adequately addressed my argument on Revelation 6:9-11. I showed that the altar where these souls are seen is in heaven (Rev 8:1-5) and that this is a vision of events in heaven (Rev 4:1)."

Let me try and do a little better. Revelation 20:4-6 says "then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years." These are the same souls spoken of in Revelation 6. They came to life in revelation 20 so therefore they were not alive before that point. In Revelation 6, John merely saw a vision. The "fact that something or somebody is shown in a vision does not require its physical presence in the vision. It is a picture that God gives to communicate a message to the one to whom He shows the vision" (http://www.jba.gr...).

"1 Peter 3:18-19 doesn't use the word Hades at all, Pro assumes it was talking about Hades."

True...but it mentions that Jesus went down and spoke to the spirits in prison. It had to be Hades. As far as I remember, Tartarus is another name for Hades. Either way this passage shows that Jesus did go to a place where prisoners were being held. We agree that these people will eventually go into the lake of fire. The problem is that it can't be hell since hell is eternal (Mark 9:43). It must be a waiting place.

"Pro says there is no need for a resurrection if people are already with God, but I don't need to make sense of it for Pro, I only need to show the Bible teaches it. I addressed Job when I said the righteous in Sheol went to heaven after the cross."

I have already explained why I disagree with the last sentence. As for the first, I don't think someone can show that the Bible teaches such a thing. A person must be glorified (sin completely removed from them) before they ante heaven as I have already mentioned.
daley

Con

"I mentioned one of the many errors in the KJV to show that the version was flawed."

No Bible version isn't. So this is irrelevant.

"My only issue with the verses you gave were that it mistranslated Hades/Sheol as Hell."

Until you provide the correct translation of Sheol/Hades, you should not go around condemning the translations of others. It's not like you can do better.

"True but why not just translate Joshua as Jesus always?"

The ESV translates the Hebrew "Messiah" and its Greek equivalent "Khristos" as "Anointed" in Psalm 2:2, but as "Messiah" and "Christ" in other verses. (John 4:25) It translates Elohim as both "God" and "gods," so if you demand Yeshua to be translated the same way all the time, to be consistent, you should expect the same of your pet version ESV with all other words. By the way, why not use Isaiah all the time instead of Jesus and Joshua since his name also is Yeshua/Yehoshua in Hebrew? Isn't this a double standard? Amazingly, you ignore the obvious mistake the ESV makes in Hebrews 4:4-5. God did not say "they shall not enter my rest" in the SAME PASSAGE as it says "God rested on the seventh day. Genesis 2 is not Psalm 95. Rather, the KJV was correct by saying God made that statement in the same PLACE; He was speaking from heaven on both occasions.

"The verse in Hebrews was mentioning a mistake that Joshua made in the Old Testament."

I'll leave it up to the readers to see that Hebrews 4 doesn't accuse Joshua of making any mistake. It was God, not Joshua, who swore "they shall not enter my rest." They were unable to enter God's rest because of disobedience, not because of any shortcoming on Joshua's part. (see Psalm 95)

"So therefore the verse couldn't have been referring to Jesus since it was talking about something the leader was not able to do."

Saying Iesous/Yeshua didn't give them rest (which is what Hebrews 4 "implies") is not the same as saying He "couldn't" give them rest. I challenge Pro to show me where Hebrews says Joshua COULDN'T give them rest. If the Israelites had been obedience, Jesus/God could have led them into that rest, and so could Joshua, so this passage could be referring to any of the two.

"my version (ESV) is more correct."

Yet to be proved. Even if so, that doesn't mean Hell is a mistranslation of Hades.

On Matt 25:41, you say "This is true but they have the same characteristics as I mentioned earlier. They are both described as an everlasting place of torment (in fire) so therefore I think it is reasonable to assume that they are the same place." This assumes what you are yet to prove, that hell is everlasting, as opposed to hell being the temporary place and the lake of fire being the everlasting place. So you need to show a verse that says "hell" is eternal before you can claim its the same thing as the lake of fire.

You also argued that the Greek word for hell is kolasin, now where does the Bible translate this word as "hell?" Nowhere. Not a single verse in the Bible where the word "hell" is used has the word kolasin as its equivalent. Hades, however, is used for "hell." Strong's Concordance tells us that kolasin means "punishment," it could even mean "torment," but nowhere does the Bible translate this word as "hell." https://www.google.com...

Kolasin is used for the punishment of men who are still alive on earth. (Acts 4:21) That's not hell, is it? In Luke 16, was not Hades a place of punishment? How is that not hell? Its the place of fiery torment, so there really is NO WAITING PERIOD before the unsaved dead are punished. Punishment began for the rich man as soon as he died, and he will suffer worse punishment in the lake of fire.

"The link you gave was the same one I supplied and it shows that most translations translates the words as "death and Hades. "

This is NOT true. They don't TRANSLATE it into English at all, but merely transliterate it. This means they write with English letters, the way the word sounds when pronounced in Greek. But that's not a translation into English. Logos, Theos, and Hades are transliterations of Greek words appearing at John 1:1 and Luke 16:23. The English TRANSLATIONS of these three words are Word, God and Hell. see https://www.google.com...

"I stated that Jesus couldn't have be with the father in heaven since he had not yet ascended to heaven yet."

The word heaven isn"t used in John 20:28 at all. If on the basis of John 20:28 you claim His spirit couldn"t have gone to heaven to be with the Father, then his spirit couldn"t have ascended anywhere else either.

"The problem is that we never hear of Jesus' invisible part going to heaven but we do learn that in the three days he was dead he was witnessing to the spirits in prison."

Your argument here is that this is the only place Jesus went, in prison, so this leads to the ridiculous conclusion that the thief on the cross went into prison as well! Is prison paradise?

"Not quite...the paradise section of Sheol would be a dwelling place for Christians."

But the dwelling in the context of 2 Corinthians 5 is IN HEAVEN according to verse 1, not Sheol. So you are ignoring the context to make the dwelling place where you want it to be.

As for glorification, Romans 8:30 says: "And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified (past tense)." We have been glorified. Pro has shown me no verse that says (1) only when the physical body has been fully glorified can a spirit/soul enter heaven, or (2) any proof that souls that have left the body being saved in Christ are not free from sin, or glorified enough for heaven, or (3) any proof that sin cannot exist in heaven. Satan, the epitomy of sin was in heaven in Job 1-2, Revelation 12. Since Pro hasn't shown these things, he is just speculating. He claims "until people have had sin be completely removed from them, they cannot enter the presence of God;" yet this is the same man who made the contradictory claim that these same people DO ENTER THE PRESENCE OF GOD in Sheol! So he won't have them enter God's presence in the hotel room, but they can meet Him in the lobby?

Rev 20:4-6 is talking about the PHYSICAL resurrection that occurs at the start of the 1000 that Satan is abyssed. That happens long after the 5ht seal is opened. Are you denying the clear testimony that these souls in Rev 6:9-11 will be in heaven talking to God during the releasing of the 5th seal? Surely the 5th seals isn't opened during the 1000 years. And I showed that the altar where these souls stand is in heaven via Rev 8:1-5, so you'll have to try again. You need to explain what it means when God tells these souls about those brothers on earth that are yet to die. Isn't this before the resurrection? Isn't this a vision of heaven according to Rev 4:1, and chap 5? Yet, this is before the return of Christ.

"Tartarus is another name for Hades."

Another assumption with no proof. Where does the Bible say Tartarus is Hades? The prisoners are angels, not human souls. https://www.google.com... 1 Pet 3:19-20 connects these spirits with the days of Noah because that's when the angels mated with humans as you see in my link. There is no reason for all unsaved humans to be connected to Noah's day. see Jude 6. Out of space.
Debate Round No. 3
Jerry947

Pro

"No Bible version isn't (flawed). So this is irrelevant."

I would be careful saying that even though in a sense it is true. The problem with the KJV is that it mistranslated words which is a huge problem. Other versions do a better job.

"Until you provide the correct translation of Sheol/Hades, you should not go around condemning the translations of others. It's not like you can do better."

Let me just once again define a few words to help you with confusion. I will be using one of Douglass Jacoby's books as a source.

Sheol: The abode of the dead (used 67 times). It is translated as Hades in the New Testament and is never associated with hellfire.
Hades: Same as Sheol.
Paradise: The part of Hades/Sheol reserved for the righteous (Luke 23:43). It is used as a synonym for heaven in the Old Testament but it is not used this way in the New Testament.
Tartarus: Place where the wicked angels were put in 2 Peter 2:4. Many consider it the wicked part of Hades.
Hell: The translation of Gehenna (Not Hades/Sheol). Hell is eternal and I will give you the same verse I gave you in the last round supporting this. Mark 9: 42-48 says that "And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, "where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched." Hell is certainly eternal.
Lake of fire: Revelation depicted Hell as a lake. We know this because the verse in good translations says that death and Hades will be thrown into a place called the lake of fire. Revelation describes the lake of fire as eternal as you already know and the verse I just gave you shows that Hell is eternal. Therefore they are the same place.

"By the way, why not use Isaiah all the time instead of Jesus and Joshua since his name also is Yeshua/Yehoshua in Hebrew? Isn't this a double standard? Amazingly, you ignore the obvious mistake the ESV makes in Hebrews 4:4-5. God did not say "they shall not enter my rest" in the SAME PASSAGE as it says "God rested on the seventh day. Genesis 2 is not Psalm 95. Rather, the KJV was correct by saying God made that statement in the same PLACE; He was speaking from heaven on both occasions."

First of all can you give me evidence that Isaiah's name is also Yeshua in Hebrew. I have never heard that before. That said, I don't think you understand the passage in the book of Hebrews. The passage is mentioning the fact that Joshua failed to give his people rest. The name should not be translated as Jesus since Jesus does not make mistakes. Not only that but "In English, we have two names, "Joshua" and "Jesus", so when the translators see "Iesous" in the Greek, they must choose which English name to use, since it can either mean Jesus or Joshua. Context is the key, and the correct choice for Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 is Joshua" (http://www.kjv-only.com...).

And again, Hebrews 4 talks about the fact that Joshua failed to give his people rest when then got into Canaan and the Bible elsewhere speaks about how Moses failed to give his people rest when he only got two people into Canaan (https://books.google.com...).
The point of Hebrews 4 was to show that rest could only be found in Jesus.

"Yet to be proved. Even if so, that doesn't mean Hell is a mistranslation of Hades."

I have showed you that the majority of translations translate the words differently. I have even showed you that Hell comes from the word Gehenna in the New Testament. I am not sure what else I can do to show you that the KJV is wrong.

"So you need to show a verse that says "hell" is eternal before you can claim its the same thing as the lake of fire."

See Mark 9. This is the third time I have given you this verse.

"You also argued that the Greek word for hell is kolasin, now where does the Bible translate this word as "hell?" Nowhere. Not a single verse in the Bible where the word "hell" is used has the word kolasin as its equivalent."

The translations got ruined when I submitted the argument. I was trying to show you that the Greeks had different words for Hell and Hades. The Bible derives the word Hell from the word Gehenna and as you have stated, Hades comes from the Hebrew word Sheol. But they (Hell and Hades) are different words as I keep showing you.

"Punishment began for the rich man as soon as he died, and he will suffer worse punishment in the lake of fire."

I agree with this. But as I keep telling you, the rich man was suffering in Hades. Hell is eternal (Mark 9) and therefore this place the rich man was in couldn't have been hell since 2 Peter states that people will be kept under punishment until the day of judgment.

"The English TRANSLATIONS of these three words are Word, God and Hell. see https://www.google.com...;

Your link led me to a translation of John 1. There was no mention of heaven or hell in that verse so your point means nothing. That said, Hell is different from Hades. Do I have to prove this to you again? The majority of translations agree with me and the words are different in the original languages as I have shown. Gehenna (translated hell) and Hades are different words.

"Your argument here is that this is the only place Jesus went, in prison, so this leads to the ridiculous conclusion that the thief on the cross went into prison as well! Is prison paradise?"

No, my argument is that Jesus went to Sheol/Hades which is has two sections. One for the righteous and one for the unrighteous. The thief was in the paradise section.

"The word heaven isn"t used in John 20:28 at all. If on the basis of John 20:28 you claim His spirit couldn"t have gone to heaven to be with the Father, then his spirit couldn"t have ascended anywhere else either."

Jesus in John 20:28 said "for I have not yet ascended to the Father." In Acts 1:11, the ascension happens and angels tell the disciples "this Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven." Therefore the ascension Jesus was referring to in John was the ascension to heaven. And notice how Jesus doesn't say "My physical body hasn't ascended yet" or notice how he doesn't say "My spiritual body hasn't ascended to heaven yet." Jesus says "I have not yet ascended to the Father (acts lets us know he was referring to heaven)."

"But the dwelling in the context of 2 Corinthians 5 is IN HEAVEN according to verse 1, not Sheol. So you are ignoring the context to make the dwelling place where you want it to be."

Again, the verse says "For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." The point is that God has a home for us. God does have an eternal home for us in heaven in which we will eventually go to but this verse doesn't mean that we won't go to the Paradise portion of Hades.

"Yet this is the same man who made the contradictory claim that these same people DO ENTER THE PRESENCE OF GOD in Sheol! So he won't have them enter God's presence in the hotel room, but they can meet Him in the lobby?"

But being in God's presence in Hades is different than being in God's presence in heaven. In heaven, our relationship with God will be completely restored as I have already shown you. In Hades, our relationship will not be the same and we will still be disconnected with God. I mean...we are technically in the presence of God right now since the Lord is omnipresent. The difference is that our relationship with God is not completely restored yet.
Out of characters....please read links: http://www.gotquestions.org...
http://www.gotquestions.org...
I answered the Rev verse.
daley

Con

"Sheol: The abode of the dead (used 67 times). It is translated as Hades in the New Testament and is NEVER associated with hellfire."

Wrong, Sheol/Hades IS ASSOCIATED WITH HELLFIRE in Luke 16:23-24, 28: "In Hell (Greek text has "Hades" here), where he (the rich man) was in TORMENT... I am in agony in this FIRE....this place of Torment." (NIV)

"Paradise: The part of Hades/Sheol reserved for the righteous (Luke 23:43). It is used as a synonym for heaven in the Old Testament but it is not used this way in the New Testament."

So, you are willing to admit "Paradise" refers to heaven in the OT, but not in the NT? Coming from the man who wants Yeshua to be translated the same, and mean the same thing all the time? But there is not a single verse in the Bible that mentions Hades and Paradise in the same sentence, let alone uses them interchangeably. Its only an assumption that Paradise is a word for Hades, you gave no proof. At least you admit it means heaven in the OT.

"Tartarus: Place where the wicked angels were put in 2 Peter 2:4. Many consider it the wicked part of Hades."

Finally you admit Tartarus is the abode of wicked angels, not disembodies spirits of unsaved humans. That concedes my point on 1 Peter 3:18-20 which was not talking about a prison housing all wicked people through the thousands of years of man's history, but a prison housing the specific set of angels who disobeyed in the days of Noah by cohabiting with humans as I showed in my link. Unless we understand the sons of God in Genesis 6 to be angels who mated with women, we have nothing in the Bible to explain what the sin of these angels was who disobeyed in Noah's day. The term "in a similar way" at Jude 6-7 (NIV) compares what the angels did in leaving their natural habitat to live with women on earth to the homosexual sin of Sodom because both are unnatural. Just as man was not created to cohabit with man, angels were not designed to mate with humans. The whole story is found in my link in the previous round. But Pro argues now that Tartarus is part of Hades, a claim that has absolutely no evidence. Tartatus is not even mentioned in the same verse as Hades. This is just pure speculation on his part. Furthermore, 1 Peter 3:18-20 does not even put Jesus' preaching to the spirits in prison within the 3 days that he was dead, but after his resurrection.

"When and how did Jesus preach to these spirits in prison? Peter writes that this occurred after Jesus was MADE ALIVE in the spirit. Note, too, that Peter says that Jesus "preached."" Peter's use of the past tense suggests that the preaching occurred before Peter wrote his first letter. It seems, then, that sometime after his resurrection, Jesus made a proclamation to the wicked spirits regarding the fully justified punishment they are due to receive. (1 Pet. 3:18, 19)" https://www.google.com...

"Hell: The translation of Gehenna (Not Hades/Sheol)."

Wrong. Hell is not the correct translation of Gehenna. Unlike Pro, who claims Hell is not the right translation of Hades but can't give the right translation, I will give the correct translation of Gehenna from the Bible. "Valley of Hinnom." (Jos 15:8; 18:16; Jer 19:2, 6; 2Ch 28:1, 3; 33:1, 6; Jer 7:31, 32; 32:35) In all these verses Gehenna is translated from the 3rd century B.C.E. Greek Septuagint copy of the OT as "Valley of Hinnom." This is the equivalent of the Lake of Fire, and is indeed eternal, but "hell" is not a proper translation. I would ask Pro to defend any justification for changing it from "Valley of Hinnom" to "hell." He can't. Gehenna isn't "hell," its the "Valley of Hinnom" because the OT says so.

"The passage is mentioning the fact that Joshua failed to give his people rest. The name should not be translated as Jesus since Jesus does not make mistakes."

Not giving disobedient people who deserve to die, rest, can hardly be called a mistake. (Heb 3:7-11) They couldn't enter rest because of their lack of faith, not because of any failing on Joshua's part. "They were not able to enter, because of their unbelief." (Heb 3:16-18) Can God give an unbeliever spiritual rest, Pro? Wouldn't you need faith in order to enter God's rest? The rest spoken of here isn't Joshua's rest, but God's seventh day rest. Hebrews 4:4-9 makes it plain that this rest isn't found only in the physical promised land in the Middle East, but can be entered even today by believers. No verse says that Joshua's job was to give Israel rest. He was only to lead them to the Promised Land, but it was God who was to give them rest as stated in Joshua 1:13 "the Lord your God is giving you rest," Joshua 1:15 "until the Lord gives them rest." So if anybody FAILED to give them rest, it was God/Jesus. This makes sense of using Jesus in the verse we dispute about.

You claim that God cannot FAIL to do anything, but even in your ESV it say that God "desires ALL PEOPLE to be saved," and that Jesus "gave himself as a ransom for ALL," and yet the fact that many are on the road to destruction and will end up in the lake of fire proves that God will FAIL to save ALL. (Rev 20:15; Matt 7:13-14, 21-23) But to not give rest to the unfaithful isn't a failing on Joshua's part.

"I have showed you that the majority of translations translate the words differently."

No, you showed the majority don't translate it all. I'm sorry you don't see the difference between translation and transliteration. Using "Hades" in the middle of the English text is the equivalent of rendering John 1:1 this way: "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with ton Theon, and the Logos was Theos." Logos and Theos are not English words, but transliterations. The way the Greek is pronounced using English letters, but the English "translations" are "Word" and "God." The Greek "ton Theon" also means "the God," but the word "the" is dropped in the English translation. Similarly, Hades is a transliteration like Logos and Theos. Its not an English translation. "Hell" is the English translation. Another English translation is "grave." Pro argues against the English translation without having any better suggestion as to what it means in English.

Furthermore, truth isn't decided by majority vote. Those who don't like "hell" as a translation have not done any better by leaving Hades as it is.

(1) You gave no adequate response to the souls in heaven before judgment day in Rev 6:9-11
(2) No Scripture saying our souls/spirits are not glorified enough to be in God's presence at death
(3) No Scripture saying we must be fully glorified physically to be in heaven

Rev 21-22 which Pro's link cited fails to refute my claim that sin could exist in heaven because those verses only talk about what heaven will be like AFTER the removal of all who chose the side of evil. It doesn't address RIGHT now. I'll say more on this next round, but let me mention it wasn't Satan alone. He had a whole army in heaven (Rev 12), and they must have been there for some time before that war. His link says God "restrained" Satan's sin so he could stand in God's presence, so why can't God "restrain" ours? Further, how does he know that a soul/spirit that has been saved in Christ isn't free from sin completely when it leaves the body? Heb 12:23 says the spirits of the saved are already "perfect." It's the "flesh" that entices us to sin (Rom 8:1-16). Without it, a soul that is saved might very well be able to live totally holy before God. It seems Pro is suggesting that Abraham is still sinning in Hades even in spirit form. What proof does he give? None. If he admits Abraham's soul isn't sinful right now, what problem does he have with Abraham being in heaven? God was in the womb of Mary, a sinner (Rom 3:23; Isa 9:6). He is in our sinful presence every day, so why not in heaven?
Debate Round No. 4
Jerry947

Pro

a. Sheol/Hades are not associated with hellfire
The Verse in Luke 16:23-24 speaks of Hades which does include fire...but it isn't the same as the eternal fire that the rich man in going to face in Hell. And you have failed to address the issue of the lake of fire and Hell being the same place. I have established multiple times that they are both eternal so this makes things complicated for you. Revelation 20:14 in the KJV says "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire." In other words Hell was cast into Hell. This makes no sense at all. The KJV has failed to notice the difference between Hades and Hell. Hell can't be the waiting place because it is eternal (Mark 9). Until you address this problem your argument has no meaning.

b. Paradise is not a word for Hades
You made this statement and I agree with it. I never once claimed that Paradise was a synonym for Hades. However, I did claim that Paradise is a section of Hades. In the Old Testament, Paradise was described like heaven. But notice how no one thought that they were going to heaven in the Old Testament. Remember Samuel? In 1 Sam 28 we see Samuel come up out of the grave (Sheol is the abode of the dead). He didn't descend from heaven obviously. You agree with me earlier that people did not go to heaven in the Old Testament. So...it is perfectly reasonable to say the people in the Old Testament went to a place called Paradise. Then there is Jacob who thought he was going to Sheol. Gen 42:38 says "If harm should happen to him on the journey that you are to make, you would bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to Sheol." The KJV translates the word Sheol as the grave instead of Hell. How do you resolve this issue?

c. Tartarus
To be honest I have no idea why you went on and on about this issue. I never claimed that Tartarus was another name for Hades. I said that I thought it was another name for Hades but I didn't know for sure. For some reason you think I am claiming something as a fact. I am well aware that it is the abode of wicked angels. That said, Matt 25:41 says "Then he will say to those on his left, "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." Notice how Hell is where the demons will eventually go? According to Jude the wicked angels are kept under chains until judgement day. Therefore the angels are in a waiting place (whether it is a section of Hades or not) and will eventually be tossed into Hell along with the wicked people in Hades. And note that Jesus' preaching in 1 Peter has no affect on my argument. It is totally possible that Jesus went to all portions of Hades (including the section for the angels) during his time there.

d. Hell is translated from Gehenna in the NT but not in the Septuagint
I did give you the right translation of Hell. It is the translation of Gehenna in the New Testament. I would never claim that it is used in the Septuagint. Again, Mark 9 says "It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into Hell (Gehenna), where "their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." The word Hell isn't even mentioned in the Old Testament. The Old Testament uses the word Sheol which is a different place as I have well established.

e. God does not fail to save people or fail to give people rest
I can't believe that you are so desperate to make an argument that you would accuse God of failure just to protect the KJV of the Bible. It was Joshua who failed to give the people rest. And God does not fail to save all people. Whether you believe in freewill (or in predestination...God still controls where a person goes), God still knows where people are going and gives people the freedom to make their own choices. It is not God who fails his people, it is his people who fail him. As for Joshua, he got his people into the promise land but yet they still didn't have rest in God. While this is partly the peoples fault for not having faith in God, Joshua gets the blame since he represents the people. His leadership is very poorly seen when his people had no faith in God.

f. So lets get this straight, you still claim that Hades is the same as Hell even though Hell is the same as the lake of fire? And you still claim they are the same words (Hell and Hades) even though the majority of scholars who read Hebrew and Greek tell you that they are different? And now to back up what you claim you say that " truth isn't decided by majority vote. Those who don't like "hell" as a translation have not done any better by leaving Hades as it is." Your argument has officially fallen apart with this claim. Leaving Hades (a place) untranslated is not a problem. Although, it is sometimes translated as the grave or as the Pitt. The fact is that Hades and Hell are different words whether you like it or not. Sheol is never associated with Hellfire so it cannot be the same place as Hell but it must be the waiting place. Your argument about Hell being the waiting place is false. Hell, an eternal place of torment cannot be the waiting place you think it is. No...the KJV is wrong about the translations and you should know that by now.

g. Rev 6:9-11 verse
I did give a good response. The link gave a more in detail explanation but I guess you didn't read it. John saw a vision in Rev 6 and for some reason you take this to mean that something was literally happening at that moment. The verse in Rev 20 says that "Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years." In other words, the people that were slain were not alive and reigning with God until the (physical) resurrection happened. This goes back to my point about people not being in heaven until they are physically resurrected.

h. Not glorified enough
I gave plenty of scripture. You merely just ignored it all. Revelation 21:4 says that there will be no more sorrow in heaven, Revelation 21:7 says that there will be nothing impure in heaven and Revelation 22:15 says that outside of heaven are those who sin. People can only go to heaven once sin has been purged from their being. As for Satan, my link said that "it is possible for God to command a sinful being to stand (temporarily) in His presence in order to commission him (Isaiah 6), to exact an account from him (Job 1-2), or to judge him (Revelation 20:11-15) without compromising His holiness." God was judging Satan and showing his power over him.

i. Why can't God just withhold people from sinning in heaven?
Same reason he doesn't restrain Satan from sinning and allow him to live in heaven. It is all about choice. Judgment day will happen at the second coming of Christ and he will send people to heaven or Hell. In Hell, there will be nothing good and in heaven, there will be no sin. Those who will reside in heaven will be freed from the powers of sin. No person could be in heaven now since we have not been glorified yet.

j. Is Abraham sinning in Hades?
I never once suggested that Abraham is still sinning in Hades. That said, he still has not been glorified and until the mark of sin has been destroyed and until God completely renews our relationship with him, we cannot go into heaven. God saved us at the cross but our relationship with him will be fully healed when we are glorified and when sin is removed from the world.

k. He is in our sinful presence every day, so why not in heaven?
Yes but he is also disgusted by our sin everyday. Sin is the thing that separates us from God. And our relationship with him will not be fully restored until sin is completely removed from us. Heaven is the place for people to be free of sin and Hell is the place for people to be enslaved to sin. God will not to allow us to sin in heaven.

I thank my opponent for a really good and thought provoking debate. I will look forward to his last response.
daley

Con

a. Sheol/Hades are associated with hellfire
I have shown that in Hades the rich man was tormented in fire, which proves that there was no comfortable waiting period before he was sentenced to punishment in the flames of hell. I have shown repeatedly that Hades means "hell" and might I add that it was translated this way for hundreds of years. I have shown that all of the other Bible translators who think "hell" is a bad translation are unable to come up with a better one, and refuse to even translate Hades into English - leaving the Greek word "Hades" in the midst of the English text, which is like saying "the Logos was Theos" instead of saying "the Word was God." I have also shown that this hell (hades) is not eternal, and Pro keep assuming that hell is eternal without proof, his only argument being a citation of texts which talk about the Lake of Fire (Gehenna), and assuming that this must be hell. So assumption is piled on top of assumption. I have made no such assumptions in this debate.

b. Paradise is not a section of Hades
There is no verse that says paradise is a section of Hades. Again this was speculation by Pro. I made it clear via Heb 9:8, 12, 24; 10:19-20 that the way into heaven was not open while the Mosaic tabernacle system was in force, so the righteous did go to Hades/Sheol, but that since Jesus has made a way into the holy place (heaven), there is no longer a need for the righteous to go to Hades because the way into heaven has now been opened. Pro continued to overlook this fact when he claims that even till this day they still have to go into Sheol and wait.

Notice also that while Pro says Paradise is a section of Sheol, he gave not a single OT verse saying that any of the righteous dead went there, which supports my view that Paradise is indeed not part of the Sheol they went to, but is heaven itself.

The KJV translates the word Sheol as the grave instead of Hell because the same word can have different meanings depending on the context. Elohim means the true God sometimes, other times it means false gods. (Gen 1:1; 31:30) Malakh/aggelos means "angels," but also refers to human "messengers." (Gen 32:3; Rev 22:8) Sheol means "hell" sometimes, other times it means "the grave."

c. Tartarus
Tartarus is never associated with "fire" at all in the Bible. Pro admits he wasn"t sure if it was part of Sheol.

I showed that Peter places Jesus" preaching to the spirits in prison AFTER he was resurrected (raised in the Spirit). Thus, we can"t claim the three days Jesus was dead he was in that prison. Also, since Sheol also means "the grave," its clear this is where Jesus" body was as reported in the book of Acts. That tomb was his grave. This had nothing to do with where his spirit went when he died.

Matt 25:41 doesn"t use the word "hell" at all.

d. Gehenna is the Valley of Hinnom
Ge"henR42;na: Greek form of the Hebrew Geh Hin"nomR42;, "Valley of Hinnom." I gave multiple examples where the Greek word Gehenna is used in the Septuagint Greek of the OT and is correctly translated as Valley of Hinnom. (Jos 15:8; 18:16; Jer 19:2, 6; 2Ch 28:1, 3; 33:1, 6; Jer 7:31, 32; 32:35) Pro gave no justification for changing the meaning of this word from Valley of Hinnom to "hell."

e. God"s rest and Joshua"s leadership
Pro says "His leadership is very poorly seen when his people had no faith in God." So Joshua"s leadership is poor because other people didn"t have faith? Could Joshua force them to have faith? Noah and his family of 7 didn"t get a single person aboard the ark, was that poor leadership? Jesus" own people rejected Him. (John 1:11) Was it because He lead poorly? Despite God"s perfect leadership, Satan got a third of the stars of heaven to rebel. (Rev 12:4, 7) Good leaders are not to blame when the flock goes astray. Joshua did all he could. The good effect of his unswerving loyalty to God is evident from the fact that "Israel served the Lord throughout the lifetime of Joshua and of the elders who outlived him.""Jos 24:29-31; Jg 2:7-9. Pro conveniently leaves out that God Himself was the ultimate leader of Israel, yet doesn"t assign him any blame. Joshua can"t be blamed for them not entering God"s rest because even God desires all men to be saved but will not have his way. So you can"t call one a failure without calling the other a failure. I never intended to accuse God, only to draw a comparison that vindicates Joshua.

f. You gave no reference to where the Bible says "hell" is eternal.

g. Rev 6:9-11 verse
"John saw a vision in Rev 6 and for some reason you take this to mean that something was literally happening at that moment."
No, I didn"t. I specifically said that the vision itself tells us WHEN these events take place, during the opening of the 5th seal, not at the moment John had the vision. You claimed these people couldn"t be alive until the physical resurrection, but I never claim their physical bodies were alive during the opening of the 5th seal. I said their "souls" were in heaven and were alive before the physical resurrection. Matt 10:28 makes a distinction between body and soul. Jesus says they can kill the body, but cannot kill the soul. Then he mentions "BOTH soul AND body," showing there are not the same. The souls that were in heaven during the opening of the 5th seal ask God "how long" would He wait to avenge their blood, showing that these are people who had been killed. And God replies that they must wait until their Christian brothers on earth are killed as they were. This must be during a time of tribulation on earth, and thus, before judgment day, before the physical resurrection, and before the coming of Christ. Pro didn"t respond to my question about the 6th and 7th seals. Are they not open BEFORE the physical resurrection and judgment day? If so, these souls are in heaven talking to God before judgment day. I showed that the altar where they are seen is in heaven via Rev 8:1-5, so Pro"s response to this simply isn"t enough.

I agreed that physical bodies can"t go to heaven BEFORE the physical resurrection, but this doesn"t prove that the soul/spirit can"t do so.

h. Not glorified enough?
Revelation 21:4 says that there WILL BE no more sorrow in heaven, AFTER God has dealt with the sin problem, but that doesn"t prove there can be no sorrow there NOW! Furthermore, Pro hasn"t shown any evidence that when the souls/spirits of saved believers leave their bodies at death, that they are still "in sin," or in a state of mourning or pain. That was merely his assumption. The fact that their physical bodies have not been made perfect doesn"t imply their souls haven"t, and I did show their spirits are perfected in Heb 12:23.

Pro"s argument about sin being able to stand in God"s presence for brief periods for certain reasons didn"t show that sin could not be in God"s presence for longer periods of time. The Bible clearly teaches that God dwells in us, and yet, we all sin, so some level of sin is in God"s presence. (1 Cor 3:16-17; 6:19; 1 John 1:8-10; Rom 7:8-11, 14-20) A whole war was fought in heaven. (Rev 12:7-9) So sin must have been up there long enough to corrupt so many angels. Since God is omnipresent, sin must be in his presence. (Ps 139:7-12)

i. Why can't God just withhold people from sinning in heaven?
"Same reason he doesn't restrain Satan from sinning and allow him to live in heaven." Yet he argues no sin can be in heaven?

j. Is Abraham sinning in Hades?
"I never once suggested that Abraham is still sinning in Hades." Ok, so if he isn"t sinning, why can"t he be in heaven now? I thought you said the sin was the reason why we can"t go to heaven? You"ve just admitted Abraham doesn"t need to be glorified to stop sinning. I also showed that we are glorified already (Rom 8:30) So I see no reason why Abraham can"t be in heaven now.

I thank Pro for a fun debate.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Jerry947 1 year ago
Jerry947
Last two links I give address your points about Satan being in heaven and about sin being in heaven.
Posted by daley 1 year ago
daley
I don't see why being in eternity would require a waiting period. And yes, many scientists claim there is a beginning of time, many claim we evolved from apes. I don't accept theories that have no evidence outside of mere speculation. Many scientists accept there is a multiverse, yet they have no evidence there is one. So, beginning of time? If God created the universe, there must have been a state of affairs BEFORE there was a universe, but "before" implies time. If God has thoughts, then one thought obviously comes before another, but that implies time to, one even before the other. If everything happens at the same time, that in itself implies time. So you can't escape time. Some postulate an impotent God who had no thoughts before He created the universe. An idol God who was just doing absolutely nothing before creation began. I don't believe in that God.

Also, the Bible backs me up on this. Micah 5:2 tells us that the Messiah's going forths were from everlasting. But everlasting means time as well. Ever heard the expression, "the days of eternity"?
Posted by Jerry947 1 year ago
Jerry947
When I submitted the argument, the Greek translations didn't show up right for some reason. See these links for the translations:

https://www.google.com...

https://www.google.com...
Posted by TheKryken 1 year ago
TheKryken
Well, if you believe linear time is false, then you are saying only a slightly different version of what I say. Same result, different method. I also believe that God's view (and therefore the true view) of time is not linear. When I say "outside of time" what I should say is non-linear time, or non-human time. Anything non-linear is not really understandable by humans, as the entirety of our experience is linear, hence the term "outside of time".

If linear time is false, then I still think it makes sense that there need not be a waiting period between our death and the final resurrection, as our soul could step out of our limited, physical view of linear time.

I think the idea of a beginning of time (as we know it) is backed up by the Bible (In the beginning) and by science (many scientists say that the Big Bang marks the beginning of time in our universe).
Posted by daley 1 year ago
daley
I don't believe in such a thing as "outside of time." Nor do I believe in such a thing as "a beginning of time." I think linear time is just our own false perception of the part of eternity we inhabit. Time always existed.
Posted by TheKryken 1 year ago
TheKryken
I find it very interesting that the entire concept of time was not yet brought up.

If God is outside of time, then it would make sense that Heaven (the final Heaven) is also outside of time. This is also the only way that 'eternal life' seems to make sense. Life cannot be eternal - unless time is only an earthly concept, and Heaven has no need for it. After all, God existed before the beginning. Otherwise, we are stuck with the question, "when will the life have been eternal"? Because at no point during an existence can one say "I have experienced eternity".

However, if Heaven is outside of time, then this whole debate becomes a moot point.

Personally, I think that when we die, our spirit steps outside of time.

I have found no other satisfactory explanation for "Today you will be with me in paradise". Semeron, Strong's 4594, literally means 'today, now'. Every passage I looked at that used it meant it literally. The exact word for Paradise, paradeisos (3857), is only used three times. Once in second Corinthians, in which it is hard to tell what exactly it means, but also in Revelation 2:7, when it says that the Tree of Life is in paradise. This tree of life is in the final Heaven in Revelation 22.

So I don't know that there is a scriptural basis to say that 'paradise' regularly refers to one side of Sheol.

To me it is perfectly logical to say that when we die, we step out of time and into the final resurrection of the dead, when all the believers are taken up into heaven.

Good luck in this debate! Hopefully it doesn't turn into a translation issue.
No votes have been placed for this debate.