Christians, why do major English bibles continue to blur the distinctions between sheol/hades, gehenna and tartarus?

Question

I mean these words as they are used in the CANONICAL biblical sense. I know they have peculiar meanings in Greek mythology or intertestamental non-canonical Judaism.

Hades and sheol are synonyms if you compare Psalm 16:10 and Acts 2:27 in the original manuscripts. But there is no biblical indication that when tartarus was mentioned, or when gehenna was mentioned, it was the same entity as sheol/hades that was referred to. As a matter of fact, in the single instance where tartarus is mentioned, it makes no reference to humans in it, or fire. So it cannot be gehenna. Also, gehenna is never tied to hades/sheol in canonical usage.

But all these have been conflated into one entity and rendered as a single word 'hell'. This 'hell' is a mixture of sheol/hades, tartarus and gehenna, which the bible mentions and treats separately.

Why have such mistranslations persisted in major English translations?

Answer 1

Perhaps for the same reason those versions continue to keep the words that demand death to witches, death to Sabbath breakers, etc. Tradition. It's sad that Christians can't admit their bibles are evil.

Answer 2

the people who wrote the books weren't big on logic sense or even as much thought and research as you've put into this question (good show, by the way).



The fact is that plenty of the bible's mythos has ripped off the folklore and cultural backgrounds of so many pre-christianity civilizations (the distinct similarities between the story of Jesus and the story of Ra alone is laughable), only without the good taste of doing it very well.







it really doesn't matter. The true believers will follow the word without question, will never show curiosity to it's origins or similarities to other cultures, or will just blame similarities on Satan or something...



You can't reason with a people who abhor reason.

Answer 3

The purpose of the bible translations are not to be readable. The KJV specifically uses an "old English" dialect that was never actually spoken by anyone at any time in history. Why? Because it is all but impossible to know for sure what is being said.

Answer 4

1) Christians, why do major English bibles continue to blur the distinctions between sheol/hades, gehenna and tartarus?



Some do it for the sake of traditional wording. That is: some Bible translations (notably the New King James Version, but it is not the only one - the ESV and NLT are also guilty) use traditional wording *specifically to make the Bible version more palatable* (or "acceptable" or "desirable") to the target audience.



However: by far, most modern Bible versions:

- clearly distinguish "hades" using the transliteration

- clearly distinguish "sheol" using the transliteration

- but typically do not clearly distinguish "geena" ("gehenna") in the New Testament (they do in the Old Testament) because scholars believe the word is used in the NT euphemistically or metaphorically, and the word-for-word literal euphemism/metaphor does not exist in modern English. Though I agree that "hell" *might* not be the best rendering in the NT, the expert scholars all seem agreed that "hell" is the best rendering in English.

- but typically do not clearly distinguish "tartaroo" ("tartarus") simply because that term is not one widely recognized in English (That is: the average literate person has no idea what "Tartarus" is!)



Some versions I have evaluated *partially* in this regard:



"Gehenna" - 2Ki 23:10

KJV - "valley of the children of Hinnom"

NIV 1984 - "Valley of Ben Hinnom"

NIV 2011 - "Valley of Ben Hinnom"

NKJV - "Valley of the Son of Hinnom"

NASB - "valley of the son of Hinnom"

NLT2 - "valley of Ben-Hinnom"

NJB - "Valley of Ben-Hinnom"

ESV - "Valley of the Son of Hinnom"

HCSB - "Valley of Hinnom"

REB - "valley of Ben-Hinnom"



"Gehenna" - Mrk 9:43 (Note: even the very-prone-to-transliterate and very scholarly NJB uses "hell"! Scholars seem agreed on the usage in this passage.)

KJV - "hell"

NIV 1984 - "hell"

NIV 2011 - "hell"

NKJV - "hell"

NASB - "hell"

NLT2 - "hell"

NJB - "hell"

ESV - "hell"

HCSB - "hell"

REB - "hell"



"Hades" - Mat 16:18

KJV - "hell"

NIV 1984 - "Hades"

NIV 2011 - "Hades"

NKJV - "Hades" (surprising here!)

NASB - "Hades"

NLT2 - "hell"

NJB - "the underworld" (perfectly acceptable, accurate and fairly precise translation)

ESV - "hell"

HCSB - "Hades"

REB - "death" (poor rendering in this particular case from an overall excellent translation)



"Hades" - Rev 1:18

KJV - "hell"

NIV 1984 - "Hades"

NIV 2011 - "Hades"

NKJV - "Hades"

NASB - "Hades"

NLT2 - "the grave" [notice the switch!]

NJB - "Hades" [notice the switch! - but in this case, little significance]

ESV - "Hades" [notice the switch!]

HCSB - "Hades"

REB - "Hades" [notice the switch!]



"Sheol" - Gen 37:35

KJV - "the grave" [ok but not best]

NIV 1984 - "the grave"

NIV 2011 - "the grave"

NKJV - "the grave"

NASB - "Sheol"

NLT2 - "grave"

NJB - "Sheol"

ESV - "Sheol"

HCSB - "Sheol"

REB - "Sheol"





2) Hades and sheol are synonyms if you compare Psalm 16:10 and Acts 2:27 in the original manuscripts.



There are two problems with that statement.

a - "sheol" has several meanings, and whenever it is used it is used with one (or maybe more than one) of those meanings. However: "hades" as used in the Bible has *only one [general] meaning*, and it is *always used with that meaning*.



b - One pair of statements in which two different words are used synonymously does not logically demonstrate that the two words are *always* synonymous! It ONLY demonstrates that the two words are used synonymously **in those two particular statements**.



Analogy in English:

- In this sentence, "tear" is synonymous with "rip"

- - "I tear my pants every time I go mountain climbing."

- Does that allow you to conclude that "tear" is *always* synonymous with "rip"?

- - "I saw a tear trickle down her cheek."

The point: "hades" is synonymous with **only one meaning** of the word "sheol" (the one meaning that both words have in common, that being "land of the dead" or "underworld that is the land of the dead"). "Hades" is NOT synonymous with ALL meanings of the word "sheol"!





3) As a matter of fact, in the single instance where tartarus is mentioned, it makes no reference to humans in it, or fire. So it cannot be gehenna.



This is a "non sequitur". The premise simply does not logically support the conclusion. From the argument, it seems that you believe that all references to "gehenna" **must** include mention of humans and fire, and any mention of a place that lacks those things cannot be a reference to gehenna. That is not reasonable!





4) But all these have been conflated into one entity and rendered as a single word 'hell'. This 'hell' is a mixture of sheol/hades, tartarus and gehenna, which the bible mentions and treats separately.



It's unfortunate, but in the time of the KJV, the word "hell" had an additional meaning that it no longer has in modern English: "land of the dead". Because of this, it was a reasonable translation of "hades" and of "sheol" (in passages where that meaning is used) at that time. In modern English, it simply does not include that meaning - and so it is, in fact, inaccurate to render "hades" as "hell". However, as a term meaning "place of after-life punishment", "hell" is OK in modern English - and so it can reasonably be used for the NT "geena" ("gehenna") and for "tartaroo" ("tartarus") as well, since both of those usages in the NT indicate a place of after-life punishment.





Conclusion: your argument is not *entirely* sound, but you definitely make a valid point. It is true, however, that many readers are "stumped" when they see the transliterated words:

- "Hades"

- "Sheol"

- "Gehenna"

- "Tartarus"

These words simply are not well-known to the "average reader" in English. This is why you always see translations of one sort or another in the very-easy-to-read Bible versions (such as the NLT).



However, in my opinion - for the sake of precision - "sheol" and "hades" should **always be transliterated**. The readers can (and should!) determine for themselves - based on the context - the meaning of the word in that context (though fairly, "hades" can be wordily translated "land of the dead" in every case in the Bible, and that is both accurate and precise - and wordy, which is why it is not used). I feel that the arguments for transliterating "geena" and "tartaroo" in the New Testament are less...**urgent**. The meaning "land of after-life punishment" is conveyed - *perhaps* imprecisely, but still accurately - by the word "hell". The problem is that "hell" refers to a *specific* place of after-life punishment (the Christian place), and therein lies the lack of precision...but to make it more precise would require not only a transliteration, **but also an explanation** - so it's reasonable that translators

- use the word "hell"

- instead of using the words "gehenna" and "tartarus" and adding an explanation of how those words are used in those contexts