Sunday, January 25, 2026

Walter Balfour on the Word HELL in the Bible (1832)

 

From: An Inquiry Into the Scriptural Import of the Words Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna
All Translated Hell, in the Common English Version
By Walter Balfour · 1832

WORDS are signs of Men's ideas, and were used as such by the inspired writers, as they must be by every man who speaks and writes to be understood. To understand their writings, it is necessary to ascertain what sense they affixed to their words, and this we can only learn, by consulting Scripture usage of them. That men have attached ideas to some Scripture words and phrases, which they never meant to convey by them, will not be denied. That this is not the case with the words Sheol, Hades, Tatarus, and Gehenna, which we propose to examine, ought not to be taken for granted.

THE idea which most Christians have attached to the word hell, is a place of eternal punishment for all the wicked. Wherever they meet with this word, it 
calls up the idea of such a place of punishment, and by many it will be deemed the worst of heresies, to give it any other signification. The cry of heresy ought not, however, to deter us from candidly inquiring, "what is truth?" on this deeply interesting question.

It is well known that there are four words in the original languages of the Bible, which are all translated by the word hell, in our common English version. These are Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Gehenna. The two first of these words are sometimes translated grave, as well as hell; the two last always hell in the common translation.

There is one fact, which deserves attention at the outset, of which many readers of the Bible are ignorant. The fact I allude to, is, that the word sheol, hell does not occur in the Old Testament, where it means a place of eternal misery for the wicked. The fact is indisputable; no man can doubt it who will take the trouble to examine this matter for himself. Nor is this a novel opinion, or a new discovery of mine. The fact is attested by some of the ablest writers, who believed in this doctrine. Dr. Campbell, in his 6th Preliminary Dissertion, thus writes :-" as to the word Hades which occurs in eleven places of the New Testament, and is rendered hell in all, except one, where it is translated grave, it is quite common in the classical authors, and frequently used by the Seventy, in the translation of the Old Testament. In my judgment it ought never in Scripture to be rendered HELL, at least in the sense wherein that word is now universally understood by Christians. In the Old Testament, the corresponding word is Sheol, which signifies the state of the dead in general, without regard to the goodness or badness of the persons, their happiness or misery. In translating that word, the Seventy have almost invariably used Hades. This word is also used sometimes in rendering the nearly synonymous words or phrases bor and abne bor, the pit, and stones of the pit, tsal moth, the shades of death, dumeh, silence. The state is always represented under those figures which suggest something dreadful, dark, and silent, about which the most prying eye, and listening ear, can acquire no information. The term Hades, is well adapted to express this idea. It was written anciently, as we learn from the poets (for what is called the poetic, is nothing but the ancient dialect) aides, ab a privativo et eido video, and signifies obscure, hidden, invisible. To this the word Hell in its primitive signification, perfectly corresponded. For, at first, it denoted only what was secret or concealed. This word is found with little variation of form, and precisely in the same meaning, in all the Teutonic dialects.

"But though our word hell in its original signification, was more adapted to express the sense of Hades than of Gehenna, it is not so now. When we speak as Christians, we always express by it, the place of the punishment of the wicked after the general judgment, as opposed to heaven, the place of the reward of the righteous. It is true, that in translating heathen poets, we retain the old sense of the word hell, which answers to the Latin orcus, or rather infernus, as when we speak of the descent of Eneas, or of Orpheus, into hell. Now the word infernus, in Latin, comprehends the receptacle of all the dead, and contains both elysium, the place of the blessed, and Tartarus, the abode of the miserable. The term inferni, comprehends all the inhabitants good and bad, happy and wretched. The Latin words infernus, and inferni, bear evident traces of the notion that the repository of the souls of the departed is under ground.* This appears also to have been the opinion of both Greeks and Hebrews, and indeed of all antiquity. How far the ancient practice of burying the body, may have contributed to produce this idea concerning the mansion of the ghosts of the deceased, I shall not take upon me to say; but it is very plain, that neither in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, nor in the New, does the word Hades convey the meaning which the present English word HELL, in the Christian usage, always conveys to our minds.

"It were endless to illustrate this remark, by an enumeration and examination of all the passages in both Testaments wherein the word is found. The attempt would be unnecessary, as it is hardly now pretended by any critic, that this is the acceptation of the term in the Old Testament. Who, for example would render the words of the venerable patriarch Jacob, Gen. xxxvii. 35, when he was deceived by his sons into the opinion that his favorite child Joseph had been devoured by a wild beast, I will go down to hell to my son mourning? or the words which he used, ch. xlii. 38, when they expostulated with him about sending his youngest son Benjamin into Egypt along with them, Ye will bring down my gray hairs with sorrow to hell? Yet in both places the word, in the original, is Sheol, and in the version of the Seventy, Hades. I shall only add, that in the famous passage from the Psalms, xvi. 10, quoted in the Acts of the Apostles, Acts ii. 27, of which I shall have occasion to take notice afterwards, though the word is the same both in Hebrew and in Greek, as in the two former quotations, and though it is in both places rendered hell in the common version, it would be absurd to understand it as denoting the place of the damned, whether the expression be interpreted literally of David the type, or of Jesus Christ the antitype, agreeably to its principle and ultimate object." -I have made this long quotation from Dr. Campbell at the outset for several reasons.

1st, It shows that Sheol of the Old Testament, and Hades of the New, both translated by our English word hell, did not originally signify a place of misery for the wicked, but simply the state of the dead, without regard to the goodness or badness of the persons, their happiness or misery. It follows of course, that wherever those two words are used in Scripture, though translated by the word hell, we ought not to understand a place of misery to be meant by the inspired writers.

2d, It establishes also, that our English word hell, in its primitive signification, perfectly corresponded to Hades and Sheol, and did not, as it now does, signify a place of misery. It denoted only what was secret or concealed. What we wish to be noticed here, is, that people generally have connected the idea of misery with the word hell, but it is evident that it is a very false association. It is beyond all controversy, that the word hell is changed from its original signification to express this idea.

3d, It is also obvious from the above quotation, and from other authors which might be quoted, that Gehenna is the word which is supposed to express the idea of a place of endless misery. The correctness of this opinion we shall consider afterwards. At present it need only be observed, that if the opinion be correct, it is somewhat surprising that the English word hell must assume a new sense to accommodate it with a name. Nor, was this the original sense of the term Gehenna, as I shall show afterwards.

4th, I add, in regard to the statements made in the above quotation, that they are not opinions broached by a Universalist, in support of his system. No; they are the statements of Dr. Campbell, who was not a Universalist. Nor are they his own individual singular opinions, but are now admitted as correct by learned orthodox critics and commentators. In Mr. E. J. Chapman's critical and explanatory notes, we find very similar statements made, on Acts ii. 27, which, to save room I forbear transcribing.

5th, It is now generally conceded, that the doctrine of endless punishment, is not taught in the Old Testament. Mr. Stuart does not pretend that it is taught there; but begs of his readers to grant, that probably, future punishment may be taught in five texts. Was it then brought to light by the gospel? This cannot possibly be true; for the fact is indisputable, that the doctrine of endless punishment was current among the heathen nations, long before the appearance of Jesus Christ. Who then I ask, revealed this doctrine to the heathen nations, yet left the Jewish nation in ignorance concerning it? If it is said, it originated in early revelations which are now lost, I ask, how happened it, that the heathen knew so much, and the Jews so little about them? And if Moses, learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, believed that the doctrine of endless misery originated in lost revelations, why did he not teach it in his writings? But how could he refrain from teaching it, had he believed it true? The Jews could not avoid endless misery, for they knew nothing about it, they died, went down to hell, and the torments of the place, give them the first notice that such misery awaited them. If they did know any thing about it, they might thank the heathen around them for the information; notwithstanding God had prohibited intercourse with them, or learning doctrines from them.



Sunday, November 9, 2025

Shakespeare and the King James Bible

 

From the Detroit Free Press 1920:

The Harvard Faculty has done the cause of American culture solid service by demanding that all students who concentrate in English or in ancient or modern languages shall have a good working acquaintance with the English Bible and with twelve plays of Shakespeare when they appear for their final examination. Without this knowledge there is to be no graduation.

The announcement setting forth the requirements laid down is significant and fully interpretative of the action of the faculty. It says that the Bible and the plays of Shakespeare are works of literature without which an adequate appreciation of English letters is impossible, and it adds:

"The King James version of the Bible is one of the great monuments of English prose, but any standard version, ancient or modern, may be used. The plays of Shakespeare as foremost among the masterpieces of the English tongue are indispensable to all students of literature. Moreover, the language of Shakespeare, like that of the Bible, has become part and parcel of our familiar speech."

Considered purely from the educational standpoint, the fragmentary knowledge of the text of the English Bible possessed by tens of millions of Americans is a deplorable, almost appalling, thing. And the widespread lack of knowledge regarding even the relatively best known of the plays of William Shakespeare is absolutely pitiable. Altogether the prevalent and, we fear, growing ignorance of the contents of the Bible and the works of the bard of Stratford is responsible for a large amount of superficiality and flatness of outlook among present-day Americans, and it is refreshing to find the oldest institution of higher learning in this country taking so firm and thoroughgoing a stand in behalf of these fundamental masterpieces of the language. 



Saturday, September 20, 2025

Ben Shapiro and Bill Maher on Morality and the Bible

 

WOW. Ben Shapiro made the audience ERUPT after stating a simple fact.  https://x.com/realDailyWire/status/1966706767074677241/video/1

BILL MAHER: “The Bible is full of nonsense and wickedness.”

SHAPIRO: “But you and I agree a lot on morality, right? Because we were born in a society built by the Bible. You can think you formed your own morality, but you were born morally on third base.”

Christian societies are better societies. This is why atheist Richard Dawkins calls himself a "cultural Christian."




Tuesday, April 8, 2025

John Pye Smith on Hebrews 1:8 - "God is thy Throne"

 

Buy The Doctrine of the Two Natures in Christ EXPOSED! for only 99 cents on Amazon by clicking here. Click here for a local listing.

"This (Hebrews 1:8) is a quotation from Psalm 45:6. And it is well known that the words of the original will equally well bear to be translated, God is thy throne;' that is, the support of thy throne. See Grotius, Clarke, and Peirce in loc. Mr. Lindsey contends that this must be the proper translation, because it is most analogous to the language of Scripture. 2 Sam. 7:13, 16. 1 Chron. 17:12, 14. Psalm 89:4. Archbishop Newcome translates, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever;' but he remarks, that in the Psalm the same words are addressed to Solomon." - Calm. Inq. p. 230. ""But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and 'ever' or, 'God is thy throne,' i. e. the supporter of thy throne. Psalm 45:6, 7.-q. d. The power and authority of former prophets, such as Moses, Elijah, and others, however great and awful for a time, was but transitory and evanescent; but thy kingdom is immoveable, thy dominion is everlasting." -Ib. p. 208. ~The Scripture Testimony to the Messiah: An Inquiry with a View to a Satisfactory Determination of the Doctrine Taught in the Holy Scriptures Concerning the Person of Christ, Volume 1 By John Pye Smith 1829, p. 343

2 Samuel 7:13, 16 reads: He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever...And thy house and thy kingdom shall be made sure for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

1 Chron 17: 12, 14 reads: He shall build me a house, and I will establish his throne for ever...but I will settle him in my house and in my kingdom for ever; and his throne shall be established for ever. 

Psalms 89:4 reads: Thy seed will I establish for ever, And build up thy throne to all generations. 




This book, "The Impersonality of the Holy Spirit by John Marsom" is available on Amazon for only 99 cents. See a local listing for it here; Buy The Absurdity of the Trinity on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here

Wednesday, February 19, 2025

Introducing the Unitarian Standard Version New Testament

 

This work is an update of the American Standard Version of 1901. Corrections were made to reflect the findings discovered in the newer editions of the Critical Greek Texts. This is a Unitarian version of the ASV. Most other Bibles reflect a Trinitarian theology, which is a belief that was alien to the early church. Read more at https://usvbible.blogspot.com




1 Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, astrologers(a) from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, 2 "Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we saw his star in the east, and are come to pay homage(b) to him." 


"The voice of one crying in the wilderness, 'Make ye ready the way of Jehovah(a), Make his paths straight(b).'"

"The Bible has now been pretty well rescued from the control of clerics and theologians and restored to the common people, where it belongs."~Edgar J. Goodspeed


"Ye shall not tempt Jehovah your God, as ye tempted him in Massah." (see Darby & Bullinger). "Thou shalt not tempt - To expose myself to any danger naturally destructive, with the vain presumption that God will protect and defend me from the ruinous consequences of my imprudent conduct, is to tempt God." Adam Clarke

Friday, February 14, 2025

Pagan Philosophy and the Trinity Doctrine by Otto Augustus Wall

The Pagan Influence of the Trinity Doctrine by Otto Augustus Wall M.D., Ph.G., Ph.M. 1920

About the time of the beginning of our Era there was a period of great unrest among the thinkers of the world. Greek philosophy, Platonism, Neo-Platonism, Manichaeism, Montanism, Gnosticism, made great inroads on the older faiths, and Judaism underwent many changes. Then, when Christianity came, it too met with all the other competing ideas, and while at first it was fairly free from Pagan ideas, it soon adopted the policy of making converts by adapting itself to their views, so as not to make a change from one of the other faiths to Christianity too abrupt or difficult.

The Christian Church took over everything it possibly could and gave Christian explanations for the Pagan festivals, philosophy, etc.; in this way the simple faith of the early Christians became swamped with foreign ideas, but the church-fathers amalgamated all the ideas into one more or less congruous mass of doctrines, so that it has been fairly said, that "modern Christianity is based on pre-Christian Paganism and post-Christian metaphysics." Much of what modern Christians believe is not based on the Bible, but is derived from other sources.

For instance, at a very early stage of Christianity, they believed in One God; the belief was Unitarian; by about the beginning of the third century the belief that Jesus was a son of God, and was himself a God, prevailed quite generally, and then when a third person, the Holy Ghost, was accepted by the church, the belief was Trinitarian. These two divisions were fairly even in numbers; but the influence of Origen (a fanatical self-castrated zealot) established the theory of the Trinity more and more firmly, until by about 400 A.D. the belief in the Trinity was general.

The philosophical definition of the Trinity varied much; some holding that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were but different names for the same God, but manifesting himself in different phases, and that the Trinity was of the same order as when Plato and the later philosophers said of man that he was a Trinity of Soul, Mind and Body. So God manifested himself as the Creator (Father), the Redeemer (Son), and the Giver of Life (Holy Ghost); but all three were but manifestations of different functions or phases of the same thing, of the same God. Others, and possibly the majority, believed that each of these three was a distinct individuality, and while they still spoke of One God, they really had in mind Three Gods.


This book, "The Impersonality of the Holy Spirit by John Marsom" is available on Amazon for only 99 cents. See a local listing for it here; Buy The Absurdity of the Trinity on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here 


Wednesday, February 12, 2025

Isaiah 9:6 - A Misunderstood Passage of Scripture

Isaiah 9:6: A Misunderstood Passage of Scripture

In Isaiah ix, 6, Revised Version, we may find these words, - "For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, and the government shall be upon his shoulder; and his name shall be called Wonderful Father, Prince of Peace." These words are by most people supposed to contain an accurate picture of the coming Jesus. Following the popular tradition, the ordinary Christian of to-day will quote these words and in good faith maintain that they prove three things at least. They prove that the prophet has power to foretell future events; that Jesus was God; that he was identical with the everlasting Father, or Jehovah, of the Old Testament.

Let us look at the passage very closely and see whether it warrants these conclusions. Prof. Briggs, the eminent Presbyterian scholar, translates the verse for us thus: "And his name is called Wonderful Counselor, Divine Hero, Distributor of Spoils, Prince of Peace." If we turn to our Hebrew Bibles we shall find ample reason for rendering the verse as Dr. Briggs does. The other words going in pairs we would naturally expect that the first two should also. The Hebrew word Pele is used quite as often as an adverb as an adjective, and literally then the first two words should read "counseling marvelously." If we confine ourselves strictly to the Hebrew words, "Mighty God" is a fair rendering of El Gibbor. Immanuel means "God with us," Bethel means "House of God," and so on. But among the Hebrews there was great looseness in the use of the word God. The common word for God is Elohim and occurs in the Hebrew Bible 2,555 times, and in 245 passages it is used in a lower sense.

Idols are called gods (Gen. xxxv, 1-4). The Judges of Israel are called gods (Exodus xxii, 8, 28). The angels are called gods. (Compare Psalms viii, 5, old and new versions and margins, with Hebrews ii, 7).

If the revised version of Ps. viii, 5, is correct, the argument in Heb. ii, falls to the ground, Jesus is made lower than God, and the author of Hebrews has perverted Scripture. If the new version is not correct it means nothing to call Jesus god, for as we have seen angels are gods, and we shall have Jesus an angel, or Arianism; judges and warriors are gods, and we shall have Jesus a man, or Unitarianism.

El, the shorter and earlier form of Elohim, occurs 222 times in the Hebrew Bible, and 18 times it refers to judges, priests or warriors. If El must always be rendered god, Nebuchadnezzar is called "the god of Nations" (Ezekiel, xxxi, 11), tall mountains and cedars are called gods (Ps. xxxvi, 7, lxxx, 11). Angels are called "sons of god" (Ps. xxxix, 7).

Finally, the very words we have here occur in Ezekiel xxxii, 21, where it is said the "mighty gods" of the Egyptians shall be slain. The reference is plainly to the warriors "or the strong among the mighty," as the remainder of the chapter shows. Prof. Briggs's translation, "divine hero," is perhaps the best, though in Ezekiel xxxii, 21, the "uncircumcised" are referred to, and these were far from being "divine heroes" in the Jewish conception.

There is manifestly a great deal of difference between a "distributor of spoils," and an "everlasting Father." The vulgate translates, "Father of the future age," and this idea is the one commonly attached to the Hebrew words. But in Hebrew the word father often means a possessor or distributor. And there are two words in Hebrew spelled alike, one meaning "eternity," the other "booty." Prof. Briggs and a long line of famous Hebrew scholars think "distributor of spoils" the true rendering of the Hebrew. The words "prince of peace" sufficiently explain themselves.

Isaiah, then, seems to have in mind when writing these words a lineal successor of David who shall improve the policy of the kingdom and restore peace to the realm. As Robertson Smith said, "Isaiah's ideal is only the perfect performance of the ordinary duties of monarchy." And does not Prof. Briggs's translation give us just such a picture? Israel is to be led to victory by a man who counsels marvelously well. To his plans the victory is due. He will prove himself a hero, a valiant warrior, of "godlike prowess"; when the victory is won he will distribute the spoils to the people, and they will be glad in the rewards of their victory. Then peace will settle down upon them, their prince will lead them to war no more, "and the increase of his government and of peace there should be no end." With this conception of the passage, the thought moves gracefully and logically forward and is wholly and keeping with the thoughts and ideals of Isaiah‘s pages. by A.B. Curtis, in The Unitarian, October 1890

"Wonder-Counsellor, Divine Champion, Father Ever, Captain of Peace." Byington
"A wonder of a counsellor, a divine hero, a father for all time, a peaceful prince." Moffatt
"in purpose wonderful, in battle God-like...." New English Bible
"Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty Hero, Eternal Father...."Revised English Bible

This book, "The Impersonality of the Holy Spirit by John Marsom" is available on Amazon for only 99 cents. See a local listing for it here; Buy The Absurdity of the Trinity on Amazon for only 99 cents by clicking here - see a local listing for this here