The Bible makes use of figurative language which are often misinterpreted.. In the Original languages, the Bible used the Hebrew word "SHE'OHL" and the Greek word "HAI'DES" to represent the common grave of mankind but Bible translators by allowing their personal understanding of the words mixed with their own beliefs have rendered these words as "hell" and "grave" which does not convey the actual sense of these words resulting in this misconception.
They changed the basis of Sheol in Judaism to match their Greeco-Roman influence mixed with Zoroastrian punishment/saved dynamics during the exile and post exile periods
Prior to the exile Sheol never had any reference to the changes found in the NT and later OT texts. In the NT this became a place of the wicked only with the "saved" being sent to Heaven. Yet in Judaism no one could avoid it as it was part of the purification process of the soul. So no there was not a misconception as these were ideas already present prior to Jesus' birth. The religion changed, assimilated and evolved. All you are doing is arguing your idea of doctrine, dogma and theology but ignoring the actual dogma, theology and doctrine of the time these texts were created.
The reason for your confusion is that you are using two translations which make the mistake of mixing all these concepts together and are unreliable compared to modern translations. Both your sources do this which shows you have only read one bible no one outside the JW accepts or an archaic Protestant biased translation made centuries ago based on "Relieved Texts" ie the texts they think are accurate are by the Will of God. When one attempts to make a translations going in with dogma and doctrine already in mind will end is problems.
The Bible also use the Greek word GEHENNA, symbolic of eternal destruction, not eternal torment.. Gehenna is associated with fire and got its name from a garbage dump located outside of ancient Jerusalem.. Garbage and dead bodies of convicted criminals considered to be unworthy of a burial were burned there. Agreed most Churches in Christendom understand this as a literal place where God will punish disobedient mankind. But is that so? Consider what is mentioned at:
Which just shows the mixing and matching of text such as the KJV you cite below. All 4 were one in the same in the KJV and the JW version
Psalm 146:4: "His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth and in that very day his thoughts perish." KJV.
Which only shows that have expectation in the Prince, the subject of the chapter, and mentioned directly prior, can not save people. His goals, aspirations are like dust at death. You are reading what you want into the text with ignoring the point is that faith in God is the only path not faith in mortals. Read the whole chapter next time. Read all the sources I mention. Again the KJV treats all as synonymous. You are reading something into the translation your own translation contradict in it's theology.
When Adam was told that he would return to the dust, it meant to a state of unconsciousness (a state of nonexistence as he was before he was created).
No it doesn't. You are projection your flawed theology above on to earlier scripture and calling it true.
The Bible does not teach that a person experiences anguish after death as punishment for his sins. It does not teach that a person possesses an immortal soul which survives the death of our body. It does not teach that we can think, hate and feel anger or pain at death.. The whole concept of Hell may have been rooted in the religion of ancient Egypt..
The book of Daniel does which shows the assimilation of Persian, not Egyptian, ideas. The post-exile period repeats the idea of an immortal soul and resurrection so your absolute claim is false. Read the book of Daniel, 2 Maccabees. Read about Samuel rising and Enoch.
There is so much more to it. However we'd have to continue this in a new Thread.. People differ greatly in their interpretations. And no Bogart. I may have said things that I did not quite understand at first when I joined this forum, things I wanted to withdraw but I'm not of any religion and I'm not a Christian.. Maybe I might be.. I try to be unbiased in my approach and open-minded to learn religious teachings. I was sooo close to converting to Islam but have so many unanswered questions and discovered a lot of absurdities.. You can say I'm on a search so I'll accept my mistakes as I go along. For now I'm reading and gathering information... I value other's views and reasoning and if something sounds logical I go for that.. It's my humble request in this forum to not be associated with any religion..
First off do not read The New World Translation, its not credible. It is edited to include doctrine and dogma of a cult like sect of Christianity. It denies the divinity of Christ which no other version of the Bible even thinks about let alone writes about. You are reading their theology as if it was really the Bible. It isn't. The KJV version also has doctrine and dogma issues especially with divine right of Kings and the very man behind the project was a King with his own agenda as Head of the Church of England. It has over 30,000 errors, interpolations, horrible understanding of Hebrew, mistranslated both Greek and Hebrew. It is based not on early manuscripts but those passed down by the Church, and accepted as authentic by said Church. Modern translations are far more reliable as Biblical Hebrew is considered which was not present during the KJV creation. These also include clear parameters identifying later additions to the Bible. If you need to use one version use NIV or at least something modern based on Greek (NT) and Hebrew Texts (OT), KJV is based not based on Biblical Hebrew but Mishnaic Hebrew (OT) and translation of it into Greek (OT along with NT references to OT).
If you want have a discussion about the Bible fine by me. However I am going to ask you to consider that your theology does not equate scholarship. If you wish to express Jehovah Witness theology I have no interest. Their view is based on doctrine not scholarship, scholarship is misused to reinforce doctrine. It's translations and view have no merit outside of their group. More so the group has discredited themselves for over a century. I am sure many are good people but their views on the Bible are nonsense.
If a mod wants to move this and relevant posts feel free to.