Diminishing the Doctrine of Hell
- Shane Rice
- Oct 13
- 3 min read
The mo
st
The most commonly used Spanish Bible in the Spanish-speaking world diminishes the doctrine of hell, as do most modern Bibles in English. The doctrine of hell is not a pleasant doctrine, and yet, indisputably, it is a BIBLE doctrine. Most modern corrupted Bibles soften the Bible’s teaching of a literal place called hell. In the majority of modern Bibles, hell is not mentioned one single time in the Old Testament! They chose to transliterate the Hebrew word ‘Sheol’ instead of translating it. It is true this word can be translated several ways.
Never in the history of Bible translation, has there been a team of translators more capable, more educated, more accomplished, more protected than the team of people who translated the King James Bible. Many modern-day critics of the King James Bible don’t hold a candle to the best translators on the team, and in all reality, they probably don’t have the linguistic skill of the least known translators involved in the translation of the King James Bible. So when they try to correct the King James Bible, I just dismiss their comments as completely ignorant of the King James translators and therefore give them no authority on the topic.
This issue is not limited to the English Bibles, but is also a problem in many modern Bibles that contain critical text readings like the Reina Valera 1960. It becomes clear that they deliberately made changes to the text between 1909 and 1960, and in so doing, they diminish the Bible doctrine of ‘hell’. In the New Testament, many times they transliterate the Greek word ‘Hades’ instead of actually translating the word. You will notice in one of the clearest passages teaching on hell, Luke 16:23, they used ‘hades’ instead of ‘infierno’ which is the Spanish word for ‘hell’. The Spanish Bible in the 1800s used ‘infierno’.
I have highlighted the word in the chart which follows and identifies all 54 times the word hell is used in the King James Bible. It also shows how the doctrine has been diminished by reducing the number of times the word hell is used to only 13 times. The Reina-Valera 1960, like many modern-day Bibles, uses hell only 13 times, just as the American Standard Version of 1901 did. We should not be surprised, since the Reina-Valera 1960 clearly stated that they would use the American Standard Version of 1901 as a guide in their revision process.co
N
ever in the history of Bible translation, has there been a team of translators more capable,
more
ated, more accomplished, more protected than the team of people who tra
nslated the King James Bible. Many modern-day critics of the King James Bible don’t hold a candle to t
he best translat
ors on the team, and in all reality, they probably don’t have the linguistic skill of the least known translators in
volv
ed in the translation of the King James Bible. So when they try to correct the King James Bible, I just dismiss
their comments as completely ignorant of the King James translators and therefore give them no authority on the topic.
This issue is not limited to the English Bibles, but is also a problem in many modern Bibles that contain critical text readings like the Reina Valera 1960. It becomes clear that they deliberately made changes to the text between 1909 and 1960, and in so doing, they diminish the Bible doctrine of ‘hell’. In the New Testament, many times they transliterate the Greek word ‘Hades’ instead of actually translating the word. You will notice in one of the clearest passages teaching on hell, Luke 16:23, they used ‘hades’ instead of ‘infierno’ which is the Spanish word for ‘hell’. The Spanish Bible in the 1800s used ‘infierno’.
I have highlighted the word in the chart which follows and identifies all 54 times the word hell is used in the King James Bible. It also shows how the doctrine has been diminished by reducing the number of times the word hell is used to only 13 times. The Reina-Valera 1960, like many modern-day Bibles, uses hell only 13 times, just as the American Standard Version of 1901 did. We should not be surprised, since the Reina-Valera 1960 clearly stated that they would use the American Standard Version of 1901 as a guide in their revision process.
