Translating and Afterlife Doctrine

Have you ever wondered why different Bible translations give such conflicting pictures of what happens after death? Some paint vivid scenes of immortal souls floating up to heaven, while others speak simply of sleep and resurrection. What’s going on here?

The answer lies in a pattern of translation choices. When we look at how different Bibles handle key terms about death and the afterlife, we discover something shocking: many modern translations subtly reshape ancient Jewish concepts to match ancient Greek and medieval Christian ideas about ‘immortal souls’ and ‘eternal torment’ in a ‘hellfire’!

This reshaping happens through careful word choices that most readers never notice. Words that originally meant simple things like ‘breath,’ ‘life,’ or ‘grave’ are transformed into mysterious concepts like ‘soul,’ ‘spirit,’ and ‘hell.’ It’s more about medieval theology than the original Bible text!

Let’s explore some key examples.

Our List

The Misleading Translation of ‘Hell’ from Gehenna
The Misleading Translation of ‘Hell’ from Hades and Sheol
The Misleading Translation of ‘Spirit’
The Misleading Translation of ‘Soul’
Genesis 2:7 — Living Soul or Living Being?
1 Kings 17:22 — Soul Re-enters the Body or Life Returns?
Psalm 16:10 — Soul in Hell or Life in the Grave?
Ecclesiastes 9:5 — Solomon’s Pessimistic View?
Ecclesiastes 12:7 — The Soul Returns to God?
Isaiah 14:9-11 — Conscious Spirits in Sheol?
Ezekiel 18:4 — Just an Idiom?
Matthew 10:28 — Soul vs Body?
Luke 16:19-31 — Lazarus and the Rich Man
Luke 23:43 — Paradise Today?
2 Peter 2:4 — Demons in Tartarus?

Note that there are other verses relevant to the afterlife. However, those are more about interpretation; this page is about translation bias.

The Misleading Translation of ‘Hell’ from Gehenna

Most modern Bibles translate gehenna as ‘hell’ or ‘hellfire,’ suggesting an otherworldly place of eternal torment. But there’s a problem — it’s actually just the name of a garbage dump!

The Greek word gehenna comes from the Hebrew Ge Hinnom (Valley of Hinnom), a real place outside Jerusalem’s walls. This valley had a dark history: once a beautiful park, it became notorious when some Jews sacrificed their children there to a god named Moloch. After their return from Babylon, the Jews turned it into the city’s garbage dump to desecrate this place of evil memories.

What’s particularly revealing is how Jesus used this familiar location to teach about judgment. When he spoke of people being ‘thrown into gehenna,’ his listeners wouldn’t have thought of some mysterious otherworldly underground torture chamber; rather, they would have pictured being thrown out with the garbage!

Some key points to consider:

Gehenna was Jerusalem’s actual garbage dump.
It was above ground, not underground.
Fires burned constantly to consume refuse.
Sulfur (‘brimstone’) was added to keep fires hot.
Maggots bred at the dump’s edges.
Bodies of notorious criminals were sometimes thrown there.
Being denied proper burial was considered a terrible fate.

Did you know that when Jesus spoke of ‘unquenchable fire’ and ‘undying worms’ in Mark 9:47-48, he was actually quoting Isaiah 66:24? But there’s a crucial difference — Isaiah describes dead bodies lying on the ground, not immortal souls being tortured in an underground torture chamber.

The pattern of deliberate mistranslation reveals itself in how different Bibles handle this term:

Word	Real Original Meaning	Common Biased Translation	Deceptive Effect
gehenna	Valley of Hinnom	‘hell’ or ‘hellfire’	Implies eternal torment
worms	maggots	‘worms that never die’	Suggests conscious suffering
unquenchable	continuously burning	‘eternal fire’	Implies endless duration

Modern translations:

Never mention that gehenna was a real place.
Add explanatory notes about ‘hell’.
Use dramatic terms like ‘eternal fire’.
Hide the connection to Jerusalem’s garbage dump.

Interestingly, Jesus’ choice of imagery is not original to him. It comes from Psalm 21, which confirms that it’s a reference to a garbage dump where God’s enemies are simply thrown away:

‘In Your rage, please send them disturbance,
And then, destroy them in fire.
[…]
So, throw them away with Your garbage,
And prepare their faces for this.’

Yes, it’s possible that Jesus was just referencing this Psalm – a song everyone was familiar with. Yet Bible translators turned this simple reference to a garbage dump into an otherworldly torture chamber.

For example, at Matthew 5:22, the NIV says:

‘..anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.’

Our translation correctly says:

‘…anyone who [calls his brother] a moron will be [condemned] to the garbage-dump fires.’

Our Editor Comments:

I really find the choices made by Bible publishers here to be quite disturbing. Translators and publishers know that the original text is about a garbage dump. They know it’s about being destroyed like garbage, referencing Psalm 21. They simply choose to layer their own churches’ interpretation over the text to expand on what the original text says. This is especially inappropriate given that it’s a later doctrine that only arose in the 2^nd century AD.

The Misleading Translation of ‘Hell’ from Hades and Sheol

Some older Bibles translate hades and sheol as ‘hell’, yet these ancient terms simply referred to the grave, where all dead people go, yes, even the righteous.

The word hades comes from the name of the Greek god of the underworld. Using the term avoided the need to introduce a foreign Hebrew term. Also by the time the Septuagint was translated, Greeks were treating their myths more as literature than literal teachings, so hades had lost its religious connotations; it simply meant the grave, just like the Hebrew sheol.

These terms only became associated with hellfire centuries later, when Greek religious concepts began influencing Christian thought.

Some key points to consider:

Sheol appears 65 times in the Hebrew Bible.
Every time, the Septuagint translates it as hades.
Both terms simply meant ‘the grave’.
The Jews never saw these as places of torment.
The idea of eternal hellfire came much later.

Here’s how different translations handle these key terms:

Word	Real Original Meaning	Common Biased Translation	Deceptive Effect
sheol	the grave	‘hell’ or ‘underworld’	Suggests ongoing existence
hades	place of the dead	‘hell’	Implies eternal punishment
death	non-existence	‘realm of the dead’	Hints at consciousness

The original readers would have understood sheol and hades to simply mean the grave, where the dead rest until resurrection. This matches Jesus’ own teaching about death:

‘Our friend Lazarus is lying down and I’m going there to wake him up.’ (John 11:11)

Our Editor Comments:

I’m very happy that most modern translations have fixed this issue and now correctly say ‘death’ or ‘the grave’ where the original text says sheol or hades. You will only see ‘hell’ in older ones such as the King James Version. However, their treatment of ‘Gehenna’ in key verses is still grossly misleading.

The concept of an underground torture chamber did not arise among Christians until the 2^nd century AD.

The Misleading Translation of ‘Spirit’ from Pneuma, Ruhah, and Ruach

Most modern Bibles translate these words as ‘spirit’, and older ones use ‘ghost’, suggesting mysterious, supernatural entities. But there’s a simple truth about these words — their literal meaning is ‘breath’ or ‘wind’, and the ideas suggested by modern translations did not arise until centuries after the Bible was written.

The Greek word pneuma (where we get words like pneumonia) and its Aramaic equivalent ruhah literally refer to moving air. Yet translators often transform these authentic terms into later terms which conjure up ideas of mysterious ‘spirits’ that survive death.

What’s particularly revealing is how translators handle these words differently in different contexts. When the same word describes ordinary breathing, they translate it naturally. But when a deliberate mistranslation might work to support later doctrines about immortal souls? Suddenly it becomes a mysterious ‘spirit’ or ‘ghost’.

Some key points to consider:

The words literally mean ‘breath’ or ‘wind’.
They’re used for both ordinary and divine breathing.
Early readers understood them as concrete terms.
Later theology transformed their meaning.
The English word ‘spirit’ comes from Latin spiritus — which also just means ‘breath’!

This issue dramatically changes how we read Jesus’ death. Most translations say he ‘gave up his spirit’ (John 19:30), which, to modern ears,sounds like a Spirit floated away. But the text simply says he ‘gave up his breath’ — yes, he stopped breathing!

This pattern of mistranslation reveals itself in how different Bibles handle these terms:

Context	Real Meaning	Common Biased Translation	Deceptive Effect
Normal breathing	breath	‘breath’	none
Divine action	God’s breath	‘Holy Spirit’ (capitalized)	Implies it’s a person
Death scenes	stops breathing	‘gave up spirit’	Suggests a soul floats away
Evil beings	evil sons of God	‘evil spirits’	Implies ghost-like nature

The original meaning would have been clear to first-century readers: these were concrete terms about breath and wind which simply meant ‘breathing’. This understanding perfectly matches other Bible teachings about death:

‘Their breath goes out and they’re gone from their land…
In that day, their thoughts pass away.’
(Psalm 146:4)

There is a different meaning for God’s breath, however. His ‘breath’ is described as acting as a life-giving force and performing actions, such as when creating the world.

Our Editor Comments:

It’s very important to not impose later ideas on the text. Since ‘Spirit’ has gained vastly different connotations over the centuries, it’s best to go back to the original meaning, and let the text speak for itself.

The Misleading Translation of ‘Soul’ from Psyche, Naphsha, and Nephesh

Most modern Bibles translate these words as ‘soul,’ suggesting a mysterious immortal essence that lives on after death. But there’s a problem: they simply meant a ‘breathing creature’ or ‘breather’!

The Greek word psyche (where we get words like psychology) underwent a remarkable transformation. In early Greek literature, it simply meant ‘breath’ or ‘life.’ By the time of Plato (428-348 BC), Greek philosophers had transformed it to mean the ‘inner person’ — and eventually, an immortal essence that could never die!

What’s particularly revealing is how this Greek philosophical development never appeared in Jewish thought. The Hebrew word nephesh and Aramaic naphsha retained their original concrete meaning of ‘breather’ or ‘breathing creature’ — which is why God could declare:

‘I’m the One who owns all their lives…
Yes the souls of both the fathers and sons.
And since they are all really Mine;
The sinning soul among them will die!’ (Ezekiel 18:4)

Notice how these ‘souls’ are said to die. Well, yes, they do. They die when they stop breathing.

Some key points to consider:

The words originally meant ‘breather’ or ‘breathing creature’.
They’re used for both animals and humans.
Greek philosophers changed psyche’s meaning around 400 BC.
This new meaning never entered Jewish thought.
Souls are said to die because they stop breathing.
Christians only began to adopt the concept of an immortal soul after AD 125 through Justin Martyr.

This inaccurate translation dramatically changes how we read about the creation of Adam in Genesis 2:7. Most translations say God made a body and put a soul in it. But the text actually says God formed a person from dust and breathed life into him, making him become a living soul, literally, a breather!

However, translators often cherrypick how they translate these terms. They do this, because using the same term all the time would expose the bias as nonsensical:

Context	Real Meaning	Common Biased Translation	Deceptive Effect
Animals	living creature	‘creature’ or ‘being’	none
Humans	breathing being	‘soul’	Implies immortality
Death scenes	stops breathing	‘gives up soul’	Suggests soul floats away
Inner person	self/person	‘soul’	Implies separate entity

Yes, modern translators mistranslate by:

Using ‘soul’ only for humans, not animals.
Hiding the connection to ordinary breathing.
Ignoring the historical development of the concept.

The original meaning would have been clear to early Bible readers: these were concrete terms about living, breathing creatures, not mysterious spiritual essences. There were certainly no concepts of an immortal soul in the Bible.

Our Editor Comments:

Simple terms for ‘breather’ became transformed into immortal souls! Isn’t that incredible? It really shows the power that translators wield, yes, even over our perception of life and death!

Genesis 2:7 — Living Soul or Living Being?

Here’s where translation bias starts right at the beginning of the Bible! The King James Version famously says:

‘And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.’

To some, this suggests humans have souls rather than are souls! The Hebrew word here is nephesh, which simply means a ‘breather’ or ‘breathing creature’. It’s the same word used for animals in Genesis 1:20-21, where most Bibles translate it as ‘living creatures’.

What’s particularly revealing is how translators handle this same word differently when it refers to animals versus humans. When it’s about animals, they translate it naturally as ‘creature’ or ‘being’. But when it’s about humans? Suddenly it becomes a mysterious ‘soul’!

Some key points to consider:

The word nephesh appears 754 times in the Hebrew Bible.
It’s used for both animals and humans.
When it’s about animals, it’s translated as ‘creature’ or ‘being’.
When it’s about humans, it’s translated as ‘soul’.
It never suggests an immortal part of a person, as the Jews understood it as referring to the whole person.
The idea of an immortal soul was adopted from Greek religious thought via the Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, it did not come to Christianity from the Jews or the Bible.

Notice how the same words get more mysterious and ‘spiritual’ when applied to humans. This reveals a theological bias where the translator tries to separate humans from other living creatures, despite the Bible using the same terms for both!

The original meaning would have been clear to ancient readers: God formed a human from earth, breathed life into him, and he became a living, breathing creature. No mysterious immortal soul, no spiritual essence — just a living being made from dust and animated by God’s breath.

Our translation maintains this original meaning:

‘Then The God formed the man from the dust of the ground. He breathed the breath of life against his face, and he became a living creature.’

Our Editor Comments:

I always thought it rather cheeky that the King James Version starts the Bible with a verse that suggests humans have souls rather than are souls! Thankfully, nearly all modern translations, including the NIV, now translate this correctly as ‘the man became a living being’. Even the New King James Version has now corrected it to ‘a living being’.

1 Kings 17:22 — Soul Re-enters the Body or Life Returns?

Here’s where translation bias dramatically changes how we understand death and resurrection! When the prophet Elijah prayed for a widow’s dead son, Yahweh brought the little boy back to life.

However, the King James Version has the verse read like this:

‘And the LORD heard the voice of Elijah; and the soul of the child came into him again, and he revived.’

This translation conjoures up the image of an immortal soul floating down to re-enter the boy’s body. However, this picture is entirely artificial, created by the translators.

The Hebrew word here is nephesh, which simply means ‘life’ or ‘living thing’, literally a ‘breather’. It’s the same word used in Genesis 2:7 when God breathed life into Adam, making him a living nephesh (a living breather).

What the text actually describes is the restoration of life, that the boy started breathing again.

There is a clear sequence:

The child stops breathing (verse 17)…
Elijah prays for the child’s life to return (verse 21)
God restores the child’s life and breath (verse 22)

This matches perfectly with other resurrection accounts in scripture, where death is portrayed as a sleep from which people are ‘awakened’ (Daniel 12:2; John 11:11-14).

The original meaning would have been clear to ancient readers: The body stopped breathing and died; God restored the child’s life, so he started breathing again and woke up.

Most modern translations now translate it correctly, such as in the NIV:

‘The LORD heard Elijah’s cry, and the boy’s life returned to him, and he lived.’

A slightly different account in the Greek Septuagint

What’s very strange is that this verse in the Septuagint doesn’t mention a ‘soul’ or ‘life’ returning at all! After Elijah prays to God to ask for the boy’s life to return in verse 21, in verse 22 it simply states:

‘And at that, the boy suddenly shouted aloud!’

Yes, there is no mention of a ‘soul’ or ‘life’ returning.

Is the Septuagint missing the words? Or were the words added to the Hebrew text at some point (presumably after the Septuagint was translated)? We simply don’t know. And unfortuntately, none of the surviving Dead Sea Scrolls contain this chapter of 1 Kings, so they can’t help us.

Whatever happened, it’s interesting to note that manuscript problems like that (which are pretty rare compared with the great length of the Bible) seem to appear far more often in key ‘proof texts’ for certain doctrines than in other, less controversial passages.

Our Editor Comments:

I’ve seen many people use this incorrectly translated verse in the King James Version to support the Greek idea of an immortal soul that flies around in the afterlife.

Now, if someone wishes to believe such things, they can do so. However, that does not give them the right to distort the text. I’m very happy that most modern translations have corrected this verse.

Psalm 16:10 — Soul in Hell or Life in the Grave?

Most Bible readers never see the fun word play happening in this verse. The King James Version says:

‘For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.’

But there’s something remarkable about this translation — it transforms a simple statement about preservation from the grave into mysterious theology about souls in hell! The Hebrew uses two common words here: nephesh (life/breather) and sheol (the grave).

What’s particularly revealing is how Peter quotes this verse in Acts 2:27, using Greek psyche for nephesh and hades for sheol. Why is this significant? Because it shows that the early Christians understood these terms as referring to:

The person themselves (not a mysterious ‘soul’).
The grave (not a place of torment).

Some key points to consider:

Nephesh/psychē refers to the whole living person.
Sheol/hadēs is where all dead people go.
The context is about bodily resurrection.
David’s body did decay in the grave.
Jesus’ body did not decay (Acts 2:31).

Did you know that Peter’s speech in Acts 2 actually explains this verse? He points out that David, who wrote the psalm, did die and was buried, and his tomb was still there! Therefore, the prophecy wasn’t about David’s ‘soul’ avoiding ‘hell’ — it was about Jesus’ body being preserved from decay!

Modern translators often reveal their bias by:

Using ‘soul’ instead of ‘life’ or ‘me’.
Rendering sheol as ‘hell’ rather than ‘grave’.
Adding notes about afterlife doctrine.
Ignoring Peter’s inspired interpretation.

The original meaning would have been clear to ancient readers: ‘You won’t abandon me to the grave or let your faithful one decay.’ It’s a prophecy about Jesus’ resurrection, not about souls floating around in hellfire!

Our translation maintains this resurrection focus:

‘For, He won’t abandon my life in the grave,
Or, let His holy one see corruption.’

Ecclesiastes 9:5 — Solomon’s Pessimistic View?

Here’s where translator bias gets really creative! Most translations can’t completely hide what this verse plainly says:

‘For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing at all.’

Translators often handle this clear statement by adding explanatory notes suggesting it’s just the author’s ‘pessimistic view’ or that he’s only talking about what things look like ‘from an earthly perspective’! Some even dismiss it entirely by claiming it’s only man’s wisdom, not God’s wisdom.

What’s particularly revealing is how selective this dismissal is. These same translations don’t add such disclaimers to other statements in Ecclesiastes about basic facts of life. When the writer says the sun rises and sets (1:5), or that people need food and drink (5:18), no one suggests these are merely ‘pessimistic observations’ or just ‘man’s wisdom’!

This is a classic example of special pleading; they accept everything else in Ecclesiastes as divine wisdom, but conveniently label the parts they don’t like as merely human opinion. These ad hoc explanations (or rather, excuses) weren’t derived from studying the text, but were invented specifically to dismiss verses that contradict the doctrine of certain Churches.

Some key points to consider:

The Hebrew is crystal clear and straightforward.
No ancient manuscript adds qualifying statements.
The context discusses actual death, not metaphors.
This matches other Bible teachings about death (see below).
Early Jewish readers took this verse literally.
The ‘man’s wisdom’ excuse is never applied to verses they agree with.

This verse perfectly aligns with other Bible descriptions of death. Consider these parallel teachings:

‘Their breath goes out and they’re gone from their land…
In that day, their thoughts pass away.’
(Psalm 146:4)

‘The dead won’t praise You, Jehovah,
Nor will those who are going into the grave.
It’s only the living who’ll offer You praise,
Both now and into the ages.’
(Psalm 115:17-18)

Even Jesus taught this:

‘Then Jesus told her:

‘Your brother will stand again!’

‘And Martha said:

‘I know that he’ll stand again in the resurrection on the last day.’’

(John 11:23-24)

The pattern is clear: when the Bible contradicts popular teachings about immortal souls, translators often try to soften or qualify the message. Their bias compells them to even sully their Bible translations with notes that undermine the text, contradicting Jesus himself, who taught that the dead are unconscious, like in sleep (John 11:11-14), and that the dead will rise again (John 5:28-29).

It is well-documented history that the doctrine was adopted from Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle after the Bible was written. It started in the 2^nd century AD with Justin Martyr and peaked in the 5^th century AD when Augustine of Hippo wrote his City of God.

We can even read what the early church fathers said about it, in their own words, as they argued for and against the doctrine. Irenaeus was against it; Clement of Alexandria was for it. The Western Church embraced it, the Eastern Church was more skeptical.

Ecclesiastes 12:7 — The Soul Returns to God?

Here’s where translator bias completely flips the meaning of a simple verse! The King James Version puts it like this:

‘Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.’

This translation makes one imagine a person separating into two upon death: the body turns to dust, and their ‘spirit’ floats away up to heaven.

However, the Hebrew word here is ruach, which simply means ‘breath’ or ‘wind’, because generally, things that are alive are breathing.

What’s particularly revealing is how this same word is used in Psalm 104:29-30:

‘And if you should hold back their breath,
They’d die and go back to the dust.
Then, with Your breath, You’ll create them again,
When You renew the face of the earth.’

This parallel usage shows something remarkable: the ‘breath’ returning to God isn’t a conscious soul floating up to heaven — it’s simply our bodies being alive.

Some key points to consider:

The word ruach means ‘breath’ or ‘wind’, not the Greek concept of a ‘soul’.
The same word is used for both humans and animals.
The context is about death reversing creation.
Early Jewish readers saw no ‘immortal soul’ here.
The verse agrees with Genesis 2:7 and 3:19.

Did you know that this verse actually contradicts the idea of souls going to heaven? If conscious souls went to heaven at death, why does the Bible consistently describe resurrection as the hope for the dead? As Jesus said:

‘No one has gone up to heaven except the one who came down from heaven.’ (John 3:13)

The answer is that the Bible doesn’t teach that souls go to heaven at death. That belief only arose later.

Modern translators often reveal their bias by:

Using ‘spirit’ instead of ‘breath’.
Adding notes about immortal souls.
Ignoring how animals share the same ‘breath’.
Hiding the connection to Genesis’s creation account.

The original meaning would have been clear to ancient readers: at death, our bodies return to dust (just as God said in Genesis 3:19), and the possibility of you living again is now in God’s hands — your breath has returned to God. There’s no hint here of conscious existence after death; as Jesus said, the dead are unconscious, like in sleep (John 11:11-14), and that the dead will rise again (John 5:28-29).

Our translation puts the verse like this:

‘For, that which is dust went back to the ground
From which it once had been taken;
And the breath has also returned
To the God by whom it was given.’

Isaiah 14:9-11 — Conscious Spirits in Sheol?

Have you ever wondered why some translations make this passage sound like a scene from a ghost story? The King James Version says:

‘Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth…’

But there’s something remarkable about this translation — it completely misses the poetic nature of the text! This is part of a taunt song against Babylon’s king, using vivid poetic imagery to mock his downfall.

What’s particularly revealing is how the Hebrew word rephaim is handled. While some translations suggest these are conscious spirits of the dead, the context shows this is poetic imagery — like the trees that sing for joy (Isaiah 14:8) or the earth that trembles (Isaiah 14:16).

Some key points to consider:

This is explicitly labeled as a ‘taunt’ (mashal) in verse 4.
Similar poetic taunts appear in Ezekiel 32:21-32.
The passage uses vivid metaphorical language throughout.
The context is about Babylon’s loss of power.
The same word rephaim appears in similar poetic contexts elsewhere.

Did you know that ancient Near Eastern literature often used similar imagery of the underworld to mock fallen kings? This was a common literary device — not a theological statement about conscious existence after death!

Modern translators often reveal their bias by:

Translating sheol as ‘hell’ instead of ‘grave’.
Suggesting the rephaim are conscious spirits.
Adding notes about afterlife doctrine.
Ignoring the poetic and satirical context.

The original readers would have understood this as biting political satire: the once-mighty king of Babylon would become just another corpse in the grave. Modern translators should not be adding afterlife implications to this passage.

Ezekiel 18:4 — Just an Idiom?

Here’s a verse that many translators struggle with! The traditional rendering states plainly:

‘The soul that sinneth, it shall die.’ (KJV)

But there’s something very telling about how modern translations handle this challenging verse. Many try to soften its impact by replacing ‘soul’ with ‘person’ or adding explanatory notes suggesting this is just a ‘Hebrew idiom’!

What’s particularly revealing is that the Hebrew word here is nephesh — the exact same word that Genesis uses when describing humans becoming ‘living souls.’ If souls can die here in Ezekiel, what does that say about their supposed immortality?

This is a classic example of special pleading; they accept everything else in Ezekiel as divine wisdom, but conveniently label the part they don’t like as merely a ‘Hebrew idiom’. This is an ad hoc explanation; it was invented specifically to dismiss a verse that contradicts their Church doctrine, not from studying the text.

Some key points to consider:

The Hebrew is crystal clear and straightforward.
The same word nephesh is used for both living and dying.
No ancient manuscript suggests this is metaphorical.
The verse appears in a context about literal death.
The ‘idiom’ excuse is never applied to verses supporting traditional doctrine.

Did you know this verse perfectly aligns with other Bible descriptions of death? Consider these parallel teachings:

‘Their breath goes out and they’re gone from their land…
In that day, their thoughts pass away.’
(Psalm 146:4)

‘For the living know that they’ll die,
While the dead know nothing at all.’
(Ecclesiastes 9:5)

The pattern is clear: when the Bible contradicts popular teachings about immortal souls, translators often try to soften or qualify the message. Their bias compels them to add notes that undermine the text’s plain meaning.

Modern translators reveal their bias by:

Replacing ‘soul’ with vaguer terms like ‘person’.
Adding notes about Hebrew idioms.
Suggesting this isn’t literal.
Ignoring how this contradicts immortal soul doctrine.

The original meaning would have been clear to ancient readers: souls (living creatures) can and do die. This matches perfectly with God’s warning in Genesis:

‘For in the day that you eat from it, you will surely die.’ (Genesis 2:17)

Our translation maintains this clear meaning:

‘I’m the One who owns all their souls [nephesh]…
Yes the lives of both the fathers and sons.
And since they are all really Mine;
The sinning soul among them will die!’

Matthew 10:28 — Soul vs Body?

Have you ever noticed how this verse seems to contradict itself in most translations? The traditional rendering states:

‘And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.’ (KJV)

Wait a minute… if the soul can’t be killed by humans but can be destroyed by God, doesn’t that mean souls aren’t immortal after all? This contradiction reveals how translator bias can create theological puzzles that don’t exist in the original text!

The Greek word here is psychē, which simply means ‘life’ or ‘living being.’ Jesus was making a practical point about persecution: humans can only end your physical life temporarily, but God can permanently end your existence at the final judgment.

Let’s look at how major translations handle psychē differently depending on context:

Verse	Context	Same Word (psychē)	NIV Translation	NASB Translation
Matthew 6:25	Daily life	psychē	‘life’	‘life’
Revelation 8:9	Sea creatures	psychē	‘living creatures’	‘creatures’
Matthew 10:28	Death	psychē	‘soul’	‘soul’
Acts 2:43	People	psychē	‘everyone’	‘every soul’

Yes, they are happy to imply immortality when they want it to, but not when they don’t want it to.

Some key points to consider:

The word psychē appears 102 times in the Gospels, usually translated as ‘life’.
Jesus consistently taught resurrection, not immortal souls (John 5:28-29, 11:11-14).
The context is about persecution and martyrdom (Matthew 10:16-39).
The word ‘destroy’ (apolesai) means complete destruction, not eternal torment.
The doctrine of immortal souls wasn’t introduced to Christianity until Justin Martyr (c. AD 160) began incorporating Greek philosophy.

In fact, Justin Martyr’s writings mark a crucial turning point. In his Dialogue with Trypho, he began merging Christian teaching with Plato’s religious beliefs about the afterlife. Before this, early Christians understood death as unconsciousness followed by resurrection — just as Jesus taught when he compared death to sleep.

Did you know that the Aramaic text confirms this understanding? It uses naphsha, which simply means ‘breather’ or ‘living being’ — the same word used for animals in Genesis 1:20-21!

This matches perfectly with Jesus’ other teachings about death:

‘Our friend Lazarus is lying down and I’m going there to wake him up.’ (John 11:11)

‘Don’t be surprised at this, because the time is coming when everybody in the tombs will hear his voice and come out… Those who did good things to a resurrection of life, and those who practiced what’s foul to a resurrection of judgment.’ (John 5:28-29)

Modern translators often reveal their bias by:

Using ‘soul’ instead of ‘life’ in death contexts.
Adding notes about immortality.
Ignoring how the same word is used for animals.
Downplaying God’s ability to ‘destroy’ both.
Hiding the connection to resurrection hope.

The original meaning would have been clear to Jesus’ listeners: don’t fear those who can only kill you temporarily, because God can raise you back to life. Instead, fear the one who can permanently end your existence at the final judgment! There was no suggestion of a conscious soul floating away to heaven.

Our translation maintains this clear meaning:

‘Don’t fear those who can kill the body,
But can’t kill the person within.
Rather, fear the One who can fully destroy
The person and his body in the garbage.’

Luke 16:19-31 — Lazarus and the Rich Man

Have you ever wondered why Jesus suddenly switched from clear, practical parables to what seems like a detailed description of the afterlife? The answer reveals how translators handle Jesus’ parables.

Most translations present this story as if it were a literal teaching about conscious existence after death. But there’s something remarkable that most readers miss: this story follows a series of parables about money and status (Luke 16:1-13), using storytelling elements that Jesus’ audience would have found familiar. Remember, Matthew tells us:

‘Jesus said all these things to the crowds in parables. And it’s a fact that if he wasn’t using parables, he wasn’t talking to them. This was done so as to fulfill what was spoken through the Prophet, who said:

‘With parables, I’ll open my mouth.’

(Matthew 13:34-35)

What’s particularly revealing is how this parable draws from a well-known Jewish folk tale about a rich man and a poor scholar. The story’s structure — with its dramatic reversal of fortunes and conversation across the grave — would have been instantly recognizable to Jesus’ listeners as a teaching device, not a literal description of the afterlife.

Some key points to consider:

The story appears in a sequence of parables about wealth.
It uses familiar storytelling elements from Jewish tradition.
The rich man has a physical body in ‘hades’ (eyes, tongue, etc.).
He can speak, feel thirst, and see across a ‘great chasm’.
Abraham’s ‘bosom’ was a common Jewish metaphor for honor.
The parable’s focus is on helping the poor, not afterlife doctrine.

Did you know that the Greek word translated as ‘hell’ here is hades, which simply means ‘the grave’? This is the same word used throughout the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew sheol, the place of the dead.

Modern translators often reveal their bias by:

Adding explanatory notes about hell and torment.
Using dramatic language about ‘flames’ and ‘agony’.
Ignoring the parable’s context about wealth.
Treating symbolic elements as literal details.
Downplaying or ignoring its connection to known Jewish storytelling traditions.

The original audience would have understood this as a powerful parable about justice, using familiar storytelling elements to make its point. This understanding fits perfectly with Jesus’ other teachings about death and resurrection:

‘Our friend Lazarus is lying down and I’m going there to wake him up.’ (John 11:11)

‘…the time is coming when everybody in the tombs will hear his voice and come out…’ (John 5:28-29)

Isn’t it interesting how people have transformed a vivid parable about wealth and poverty into a doctrine about the afterlife? Yet this change didn’t happen in the Bible — it happened when teachers and translators in later centuries started importing pagan theological ideas into Jesus’ teachings.

Luke 23:43 — Paradise Today?

Here’s where a single comma dramatically changes theology! Most modern Bibles translate Jesus’ words to the criminal like this:

‘Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.’

But move that comma one word to the right:

‘Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.’

And suddenly the meaning changes completely! The first version promises immediate transport to paradise on that very day. The second version simply emphasizes when Jesus is making the promise, with paradise coming at some future time.

What makes this so perplexing is that the original Greek had no punctuation at all! That’s right — no commas, periods, or even spaces between words. The placement of that single comma is entirely up to the translator, and it completely changes the theology.

What’s particularly revealing is how the Codex Vaticanus, our oldest complete copy of Luke (4^th century), actually contains a rare dot after the word ‘today’ — suggesting an ancient reader understood this as ‘Truly I tell you today, you will be with me in paradise.’

Some key points to consider:

Ancient Greek and Aramaic used no punctuation.
Jesus wasn’t in paradise that day (John 20:17).
The word ‘paradise’ means a garden on Earth, not heaven.
The resurrection hadn’t started yet (John 5:28-29).
Early Christians expected a future resurrection, not immediate heaven.

Did you know that the earliest Aramaic copy of Luke’s Gospel (2nd-5^th century) actually includes a word separator (that) after ‘today’? This ancient evidence suggests early Christians understood Jesus was making a promise on that day, not for that day!

Modern translators often reveal their bias by:

Adding a comma before ‘today’ without explanation.
Ignoring the historical evidence.
Not mentioning the punctuation ambiguity.
Supporting later church doctrines about immediate heaven.

The original meaning would have been clear to Jesus’ listeners: he was making a promise that day about the future paradise when he returns. This matches perfectly with Jesus’ own words after his resurrection:

‘I haven’t ascended to the Father yet.’ (John 20:17)

And with how early Christians understood death, as Martha said about her dead brother:

‘I know that he’ll stand again in the resurrection on the last day.’ (John 11:24)

Isn’t it amazing how a single comma can transform a promise about Earth’s future paradise under Jesus ruling as King, into evidence for immediate transport to heaven? This change didn’t happen in the original text — it happened when translators started importing later Church doctrines about immortal souls into Jesus’ words!

Our translation maintains the original meaning:

‘Truly I tell you today, you’ll be with me in the Paradise.’

2 Peter 2:4 — Demons in Tartarus?

Most Bible translations mask an intriguing reference to Greek mythology in this verse:

‘For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them down to hell…’

The Greek text uses the word tartarōsas, which specifically refers to Tartarus, the deepest abyss of the Greek underworld. This is the only time this word appears in the entire Bible — Peter uses neither gehenna (Jesus’ term for destruction) nor hades (the grave).

By translating this unique term simply as ‘hell,’ translators merge it into their broader doctrine of hellfire, losing the specific context of temporary imprisonment that Tartarus carried in Greek literature. The same word appears in Greek myths about the Titans being imprisoned until their final judgment — a parallel that Peter’s Greek readers would have immediately recognized.

Some key points about this translation choice:

Translators consistently replace ‘Tartarus’ with generic ‘hell’.
This obscures the temporary nature of the imprisonment.
The mythological context of awaiting judgment is lost.
Notes rarely mention this unique word choice.

Our translation preserves the distinct reference:

‘Notice that God didn’t spare the [spirit] messengers who sinned, for He threw them into the dark pits of ‘Tartarus’ where they’re still awaiting His justice.’

A slightly different account in the Aramaic text

What’s surprising is that the Aramaic text doesn’t mention Tartarus at all! It simply says that God…

‘…[put them] in chains of darkness [and] shut them in the deeps, and delivered them to be kept [until] the judgment’. (Etheridge translation)

The Aramaic avoids the Greek mythological reference entirely, focusing instead on the basic facts: rebellious spirits are imprisoned in darkness until judgment.

This simpler description matches the other account of imprisoned spirits, at Jude 1:6:

‘He also locked up those [heavenly] messengers that didn’t keep the position they’d [been assigned to] long ago, and left the place where they lived. So He’s now keeping them in perpetual darkness where they’re awaiting their judgment on the Great Day.’

This raises interesting questions:

Did Peter add the Tartarus reference to connect with his Greek readers?
Or was it added later by others?
Or did the Aramaic text originally include it, but it was removed because it was considered heretical?
Or was it removed because it wasn’t relevant to a Jewish audience?

We don’t know. But it’s noteworthy that the Aramaic preserves a simpler, more traditionally Jewish way of describing these events.