This is Olam

This עלם - is olam

One of the unique things about language is its dependence upon its own beneficiary’s view of the world – not only to the immediately observable physical world in which they exist, but to the beneficiary’s greater concepts of time, space, and events in which their world’s journey is ultimately conceptualized. Language verbal systems (tense and aspect) are most sensitive to, and often directly reflect, the beneficiary’s concepts of time, space, and events. In fact, lingustical studies of current modern languages often speak in terms of “deictic center”, “event time”, and “reference time” in models developed for academic application.

Specifically for English, nearly the entirety of its verbal system can be explained as a function of tense and aspect relative to our current abstract view of linear and geometrical time, space, and event, according to many if not most of these models. And to a greater extent, extrapolation of these models to the English ancestral verbal systems – e.g., Latin, Indo-European, and Greek, such models are quite sufficient in establishing tense and aspect which are clearly defined; just as in English. The primary reason for this is that our English ancestral languages held very similar views of time, space, and events; that is – in the abstract sense. Without going into too much boring detail, suffice to say that our current modern views of time, space, and events are abstract based (that is to say, we presume space to be the primary dimension, and so time is described in terms of an abstract special phenomenon), allowing for metaphors such as “time line” and “point in time” as related to geometry - thus facilitating abstraction wherein time is now a construct independent upon its contents.

This primarily Greek way of conceptualizing time was quite alien to the ancient Hebrew way of thinking in regards to the world around them. Semitic languages are much older than Greek (based on the best information which we currently have in order to make such estimates), and the further back in time one goes, the further language departs from abstract views, and centers on the concrete. The Hebrew language of old, is very attached to the concrete – i.e., that which one can see, feel, hear, touch, or smell – the five basic human senses. In this sense, the phrase “concrete language” is often invoked. Hebrews did not say "I think, therefore I am," they said, "I am, therefore I think”. Nor did they see events stemming from cause, but rather cause, which stemmed from events.

To the concrete thinking Hebrew, there was no separation between an event, and the “time” in which it occurred – the distinguishing characteristic of the Hebrew verb forms is in fact the expression of continuity, rather than past, present, and future.

And to often, the above discussed linguistic models, which operate so well against the abstract based languages, fail miserably when extrapolated to the concrete languages. It possible to extrapolate from English to Greek, and even Latin, but quite difficult to do so to Hebrew. Case in point, because it concrete concept of time, space, and events, Hebrew verbs can refer to past, present, and future (tense) as well as events which are incomplete as well as complete. For all practical purposes, Hebrew lacks tense (a grammaticalized location in time) and aspect (in the English sense of the word) – yet aspectual qualities are indeed found. To further your confusion, the same words used to describe time, are also used to describe direction.

For example, the exact same Hebrew word, qedem, means both the ancient past, as well as the direction east – case in point, Genesis 3:24, “He drove out the man; and at the east [qedem] of the garden he placed the cherubim” as compared to say, Psalms 77:5, “I consider the days of old, I remember the years of long ago [qedem].”

And so we finally get to subject of this post – which is to consider one of my favorite Hebrew words – olam. Olam has a unique characteristic which so eloquently describes, in my opinion, how the Hebrew language works. While olam is most frequently translated into English as eternal, everlasting, or forever (abstract based concepts which were foreign to the Hebrew understanding of time, space, and event) – it means literally, a “distant time”, equally in the past, as well as the future. For example –


Psalms 77:5, “I consider the days of old [olam], I remember the years of long ago [qedem].” As compared to –

Genesis 9:12, “This is the sign of the covenant which I make between me and you ad every living creature that is with you, for all future [olam] generations.”


The Hebrew word olam is most likely descendant from the Hebrew root alam (Laird Harris/Gleason Archer – TWOT, page 671-672) meaning specifically “to be hidden” and is most frequently used in the very literal sense of hiding to a place where one cannot be seen (one of the five senses in that details are not often clearly detected when looking off at the far distance – that to which is beyond the immediate horizon cannot be seen – or as relates to time, and olam, the distant past or distant future, like that which lies beyond the horizon, cannot be seen – hence, olams relationship to its parent root, alam. In this sense, the word if often conceptualize in the western, Greek based mind, as meaning a continual span of unending time. But the Hebrew did not see it that way, for as all nomads knew, as you walked towards the horizon, what was once hidden and unseen, becomes clearer, more focused, until you are upon it.

A common phrase in Hebrew is "l'olam-va'ed" and is sometimes translated as "forever and ever" but to the Hebrew it simply meant "to the distant horizon and again" - meaning "a very distant time and even further then" and is used to express the idea of a very ancient or future time.

Departure from Base Text

In Judges 7, verse 5, the NRSV renders, "All those who lap the water with their tongues, as a dog laps, you shall put to one side; all those who kneel down to drink, putting their hands to their mouths, you shall put to the other side.'

A comparison of the NRSV rendering to the various Hebrew base text, does not show the phrase "putting their hands to their mouths" occurring in verse 5, but rather, verse 6 (where the NRSV leaves it out - yet the Hebrew places the words 'putting their hands to their mouths' after the word 'lapped' in verse 6).

It would also appear that the phrase "you shall put to the other side" does not find support in the Hebrew in verse 5, nor in any verse prior or subsequent (likely a dynamic license in place of "likewise" or "also") The NRSV has apparently inserted the phrase "putting their hands to their mouths" into verse 5 from 6, and has added as a bolt from the blue "you shall put to the other side".Most other translations remain loyal to the underlying Hebrew and render "All those who lap the water with their tongues, as a dog laps, you shall put to one side; likewise (or also) all those who kneel down to drink"

In verse 5, the Hebrew (BHS and WLC base text) reads, "Yarad'am mayim Yhwh 'amar Gid`own laqaq mayim lashown keleb laqaq yatsag kara` berek shathah" It is not until verse 6 in which the phrase "yad peh" (hand to the mouth) appears in the Hebrew base text.The NRSV is not known for its bolts from the blue as is the NIV and a few other dynamic translations – so their removal from verse 6 and placement to verse 5 was likely based on a textual variant, or some other indicator, which the committee was convinced adequately justified a departure from the base text.

Unfortunately, the NRSV (at least that I can find) does not notate or otherwise explain the departure.As far as the indications of why the lappers from their hands were chosen over those who got down to the water level to drink? Take your pick – Rabbinical tradition holds that the lappers were chosen because they refused to bow down to an idol (see Tanhuma – Buber; Toledot 19; Yalqut Shim'oni, Judges 62:1 and 1 Kings 29. On the other hand – Josephus (Antiquities V.vi.3, 216-217) claims that the lappers were the cowards, scared to turn their backs kneel and drink, supposedly highlighting an even more important victory miracle by choosing cowards.

Anarchy or Monarchy

"Really, can you blame them for wanting a monarch? We just finished a book, Judges, which is all about what happens when there is no leader—mass murder, gang rape, anarchy, and so forth." ~ Unknown


That was the whole point of the book of Judges - there was a leader – a leader who forewarned them that their failure to drive out the inhabitants of the land, as divinely commanded by said leader, would lead to their adopting the debased religious beliefs and practices of the Canaanites – which would result in Jehovah's disfavor and his abandoning them to their enemies (as noted earlier in Exodus 23:32-33; Ex 34:11-17; again at Numbers 33:55; and De 7:2-5). The historical record found in the book of Judges shows how the warning became a reality.The books of Judges was not all about what "happens when there is no leader" – indeed, it is all about what "what happens when one rejects the leader" – especially when said leader is the creator (Judges 8:23, Genesis 1:2).


It is not that Samuel desires anarchy over monarchy – no – it is not ideological preference which gives him internal grief and causes him to pray – rather it is his recognition that the sovereign leader, God, has been rejected yet again by this people – for why "appoint for us a King" when the King already exists (1 Samuel 10:19, 1 Samuel 12:12, Psalm 74:12, Isaiah 33:22).

"for it is not you whom they have rejected, but it is I whom they have rejected from being king over them. In accord with all their doings that they have done from the day of my bringing them up out of Egypt until this day in that they kept leaving me and serving other gods, that is the way they are doing also to you."

There is coming a time, and it is here already, when not all will prove their desire to reject, but to voluntarily accept, by their own free will and choice – the creator as their King (Isaiah 33:22-24). Skin in behalf of skin, and everything a man has he will give in behalf of his life and existence (ne'phesh – Job 2:4). Really? Is mankind that selfish? The creator holds that he can be loved, respected, and obeyed unselfishly – and for no other reason that the desire of one's "lev" - so just as the people who approached Samuel made an authoritative choice from the lev - all will eventually choose from the same source.

Shib'im (70) Versus Hamishshim (50) and Daniel's 70 Weeks

Shib’im is literally 70 (ten sevens), as the numbering system in Hebrew is base 10, as is said, “Shib'im Panim la-Torah" (Seventy Methods of the Explanations of the Torah)” – The Jubilee, the 50th year (not 49th year which you would get by multiplying 7 x 7 under your method), is not referred to as shib’im, as that would mean 70, not 50 – you are confusing hamishshim (means 50) with shib’im, two completely different words, as is evidence in a comparison to Leviticus 25:10 (which defines the Jubilee in terms of hamishshim) to Daniel 9:24 (which speaks not of hamishshim, but rather shib'im) – they are separate cardinal numbers.

Hamishshim (50) comes from the root hamash (fifth), whereas shib’im (70) comes from the root sheba (seven).

Misquoting Babylon the Great Has Fallen

"Since Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years until 562 BC"


This statement is based solely upon the Parker and Dubberstein (P&D) 1956 Babylonian Chronology - unfortunately, P&D (as did Sollberger subsequent to them) erroneously excluded over 7,000 Babylonian business cuniform tablets, of which 1,450 cuneiform tablets dated during the reign of the Kings in question (Nabopolassar through Nabonidus) reveals reigning years for most of the kings which contradict the P&D established timeline (P&D based their timeline on only two tablets - the first and the last tablets dated to each King).

On this evidence, current academic and scholarly opinion is nearly in agreement - P&D err'd, and the 50 year old chronology is in dire need of radical revision - and in fact, is already underway.

In regards to your claimed "quotes" - the 581 BCE date as the year in which Amel-Marduk succeeded Nebuchadnezzar II is based upon the biblical record at 2 Kings 25:27-30 - they then assign a 2 year period to Amel, 4 years to Neriglissar, and nine months to Labashi.

The remaining period they assign to Nabonidus ... "till Babylon fell in 539 B.C" - not 17 years (i.e., your mathematical computations are taken out of context - now you may not agree with the biblical chronology, but you should at least present your "quotes" correctly - it is Josephus, who is identified on page 230 in a footnote who makes a statement that Belshazzar was in his 17 year of rule when Babylon was taken, there is no mention as you have fabricated, that Nabonidus "ruled for 17 years" according to the cited WT publication)

You might also take note, that Nabonidus did not rule from Babylon the entire time, as he set up his ruling capital later in Tema, leaving control of the capital city of Babylon to his son, Belshazzar.

Yom - Creative Days

The creative work was accomplished in six time periods called days, each beginning with an evening, when the creative work for that period is undefined, and ending in the brightness of a morning, as the glory of the creative work becomes clearly manifest.

The fact is that the Hebrew word yowm translated “day” can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. For example, when summarizing God’s creative work, Moses refers to all six creative days as one day. (Genesis 2:4)

In addition, on the first creative day, “God began calling the light Day, but the darkness he called Night.” (Genesis 1:5) Here, only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term “day.” Certainly, there is no basis in Scripture for arbitrarily stating that each creative day was 24 hours long.

Moses wrote his account in Hebrew, and he wrote it from the perspective of a person standing on the surface of the earth. These two facts, combined with the knowledge that the universe existed before the beginning of the creative periods, or “days,” help to defuse much of the controversy surrounding the creation account. How so?

A careful consideration of the Genesis account reveals that events starting during one “day” continued into one or more of the following days. For example, before the first creative “day” started, light from the already existing sun was somehow prevented from reaching the earth’s surface, possibly by thick clouds. (Job 38:9) During the first “day,” this barrier began to clear, allowing diffused light to penetrate the atmosphere.

On the second “day,” the atmosphere evidently continued to clear, creating a space between the thick clouds above and the ocean below. On the fourth “day,” the atmosphere had gradually cleared to such an extent that the sun and the moon were made to appear “in the expanse of the heavens.” (Genesis 1:14-16) In other words, from the perspective of a person on earth, the sun and moon began to be discernible. These events happened gradually.

The Genesis account also relates that as the atmosphere continued to clear, flying creatures—including insects and membrane-winged creatures—started to appear on the fifth “day.” However, the Bible indicates that during the sixth “day,” God was still in the process of “forming from the ground every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.”—Genesis 2:19.

Clearly, the Bible’s language makes room for the possibility of some major events during each “day,” or creative period, to have occurred gradually rather than instantly, perhaps some of them even lasting into the following creative “days.”

When light from the Andromeda nebula takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth, this is indicative of the fact that the universe must be at least millions of years old. Also the end products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.

Genesis 1:3-31 is not discussing the original creation of matter or of the heavenly bodies. It describes the preparation of the already existing earth for human habitation. This included creation of the basic kinds of vegetation, marine life, flying creatures, land animals, and the first human pair. All of this is said to have been done within a period of six “days.” However, the word yowm has meanings, which include ‘a long time; the time covering an extraordinary event.’ (Old Testament Word Studies, Grand Rapids, Mich.; 1978, W. Wilson, p. 109) The term used allows for the thought that each “day” could have been thousands of years in length.

The "Lexical Aids for the Old Testament" edited by Spiros Zodhiates for yowm expands on Strong's comments and repeatedly emphasizes that yowm can be a period of time.

As early as Genesis 2:4 we see yowm in the singular with an attached infinitive used to indicate an extended period of time. Strong's does not show this since the King James Versions retain the translation of day, but other translations recognize that in this case yowm refers to the time of the entire creation of the heavens and earth as recognized by the The Bible: An American Translation and others, "At the time when God made the earth and the heavens."

Studies are out there which show that the period called days does not mean a literal 24 hour period, but epoch’s of time. Couple that with geological studies, we can be sure that a creative day is thousands of years in length and the creation of the universe covers a time period of millions or more years.

The Congregator's Words Christians Hate the Most

Dabar qoheleth - The words of the congregator, the assembler – the Tanakh rightly footnotes its transliterated "koheleth" with "probably the assembler; i.e., the hearer of sayings".

It is a title, not a name.

Qohelet is a Qal participle from the verb qahal, which in the Niphal means, "to come together" and in the Hiphil, "to bring together", and in its noun form, relates to an "assembly" – as the word is preceded by the definite article "ha" in Eccl 12:8, give credence to the claim that word is intended as a title and a description, but not a personal name.

The words of the congregator.

Tradition holds that the congregator mentioned, the ha'qoheleth, was Solomon. This is based in part no doubt that there was only one "son of David", namely Solomon, who was the "king over Israel in Jerusalem", for kings after Solomon did not rule over all Israel – Eccl 1:12

It is also likely the most sobering written words to nearly all subscribers of the Hebrew and Christian Greek scriptures who hold fast to a belief that man (or woman) is inherently immortality (e.g., that something of man transcends death, and continues on following the death of the body).

If the congregator is clear on one thing, he is clear on death.

It is the final point in each one's ma'aseh (deed, work, action that which comprises one's life) and is the one immutable event that each and every human, animal and other organism must succumb to, and it cuts cleanly across all categories of morality and class. And it is keenly in agreement with other portions of the Bible that treat the same subjects.

For example, it agrees with Genesis on man being made up of a body composed of dust of the ground and being animated by the very life-force of Yhwh and the breath that sustains it (Eccl 3:20-21, Eccl 12:7; Genesis 2:7; Genesis 7:22; Isaiah 42:5).

It affirms the biblical teaching that man was created upright, but willfully chose a path away from his creator, to disobey the life instructions given to him by his creator (Eccl 7:29; Genesis 1:31; Genesis 3:17; De 32:4-5), and it acknowledges Yhwh as the creator (Eccl 12:1; Genesis 1:1).

And it concurs with the rest of the Bible as to the state of the dead.

"For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, and they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten." Eccl 9:5 [NKJV]

"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom." - Eccl 9:10 [NIV]

"His [God's] spirit goes out, he [man] goes back to his ground; In that day his thoughts do perish." - Psalms 146:4

"In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return" - Genesis 3:19 [KJV]

"The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence" – Psalms 115:17 [KJV]

"He said these things, and after this he said to them: "Laz´a•rus our friend has gone to rest, but I am journeying there to awaken him from sleep." Therefore the disciples said to him: "Lord, if he has gone to rest, he will get well." Jesus had spoken, however, about his death. But they imagined he was speaking about taking rest in sleep. At that time, therefore, Jesus said to them outspokenly: "Laz´a•rus has died" - John 11:11-14

In the Bereshit (Genesis), where was Adam before Jehovah created him from the dust? He was nowhere - he simply did not exist – God formed him from the dust of the ground. So when Jehovah said that Adam would "return to the ground," he meant exactly that - that Adam would die and return to the elements in the ground. There was never any mention Adam would mystically cross over to the spirit realm. At death Adam would once again be nonexistent. His punishment after all was death—absence of life—not a transfer to another realm to continue living .— Romans 6:23.

If you have been following Plotz' bible blog of the Hebrew Scriptures, and you are a Christian, you might do well to note that you are now 85 percent of the way through – and there is no mention of an immortal soul, or immortal spirit, for mankind – as the Qoheleth so correctly notes –

"For there is an eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the, and they have the same eventuality. As one dies, so the other dies; and they all have but one spirit, so there is no superiority of the man over the beast … all are going to one place - they have all come to be from the dust, and they all are returning to the dust." – Eccl 3:19-20.

And of course, without an immortal spirit, the falsehood of a place for eternal torment for people who have died as "unbelievers" or anyone else - becomes impotent and exposed. You would think it would give cause to a small spark of thought to the average believer in the biblical texts that those two such important doctrines in Christianity (and to a lesser degree modern Rabbincal Judaism) as the immortal soul of man and eternal punishment in hell – are never spoken of in the Hebrew words of Yhwh.

Mystery Religions and Death by Immortality

The great mystery religions believe that all religious text is allegory, and all reality illusion, and mere shadow of unseen truth - all "layers", if you will, which are a representation of what is unseen in this world of illusion that we live. And these stories, or allegories, can not be understood or "peeled back" except by the those initiated through ritual into the mystery - such religious initiation is not available to the common public person.

This premise is often adopted by modern Pagan-Christianity, as indeed that is its roots, that unless one is taken over by the holy "ghost", and aparition, or mysterious spirit, no truth will be revealed and comprehension never reached. The Bible teaches quite the opposite.

Here is a post from June of last year (I think) - it is rather long - but that's because I could not sleep that night anyway. I see an obvious irony in what the Bibile teaches as compared to modren day religions, and to that effect, I refer to it as "Death by Immortality".

Dominion is not Superiority

"if both animals and humans ARE souls, how does one have dominion over the other ?

"From below, Eccl 3:18, "For there is one eventuality as respects the sons of mankind and an eventuality as respects the beast, and they have the same eventuality. As the one dies, so the other dies, and they all have but one spirit, so there is no superiority of the man over the beast, for everything is vanity. All are going to one place, they have all come to be from dust, and they are all returning to dust."

Superiority is quite different from dominion - superiority, in the quote above, the Hebrew word mowthar, which basically means a profit type advantage - contextually it is quite clear, mankind has no advantage in anyway over an animal - both share the exact same fate in the end - they die.

The text for setting dominion (Bereshit 1:26, and again in 28), the word used is rada, and it is used in conjunction with kabash in verse 26 (subjection). A fox is more cunning than a snail, a bird more free than a barnacle, a dog more compassionate than a frog, and so on.

Rabbi Hirsch states, "But man has been given the position [of rada], not [mowthar], to exercise his mastery over living creatures, and on the earth itself, to bring some of them out of their free independence under his hand for the fulfillment of his human assignment. If man approaches the world as rada and demands its service only in the serive of God, then the earth gladly renders it, gladly recognizes man as its ruler, jis mastery is no enslavement or degradation, but rather a raising and elevation of all earthly material elements into the sphere of free-willed God-serving purposes. But if man misuses his position, if he does not approach the world as rada, as the assigned representative of God, but under his own power and mastery, or mowthar, then the earth, and animals too, will reject and oppose him, for he has attempted enslavement versus stewardship."

According to the Hebrew Scriptures, man was assigned, indeed, created for, the very purpose of stewardship and headship over the creation, in an image similar to how Yhwh has dominion over man.There is an established hierarchy in all of nature, which when implemented correctly, establishes pure balance, yet when deviated from, creates chaos and imbalance of the worst sort.


"does dominion over the earth give us the right to pollute it wantonly ?"

Does being given the keys to your neighbors house, to watch over it, and care for it, while they are gone, include the right to trash it, partially or completely destroy it, even knock down walls and paint or remodel it?


"is the hope of an after-life just that i.e. a hope, a vanity ? (was it "borrowed" ?)"

In the sense of being in vain, no matter what you do in this life, no matter how much you accumulate, no matter if you are good or bad, your end fate is no different than the slug, or the fox, or the dog - you will eventually die, and return to dust.To the Hebrew, an "after-life" was not a transcending of death to some place on a cloud to play harps and eat grapes - the "after-life" was purely a hope of perhaps being remembered by Yhwh himself, and raised back (resurrected), not to some esoteric plane of existence, but back to "life", right here, on earth.


"I mean well you know the Romans had their own agenda interesting the schism between Greek and Latin. And it's just that they seem so nice and pious and all but how much of the truth is lost in all that pomp and circumstance ?"

Well, that's just it - depends on your subjective personal conclusions regarding the god of the Bible. The development of modern Christianity is quite easy to back-trace - it was quite weel documented - biases and all. Layers can in fact be pealed back, and have been, and likely more layers still remain to be pealed back, but the major ones occurred years ago - that being "hell", and an "immortal soul" for mankind, and a triunal godhead of divine unity. Eliminate these three foundationally Pagan traditions from not only the translations (where they primarily exist), but your western head as well, and you will find a quite different Bible written by Hebrews and Jews exists than that which you thought you knew existed.

God Deprecates "Hell", and a Few Finer Points

As Plotz scuttles to present a political message from his favored sponsor (i.e., whether a person who warns his nation should be considered a traitor or a patriot) – he casually skims over a few details.

Since I do not speak on the politics of this or any country, I thought I could at least explore some of the minor details skimmed over by Plotz in pursuit of his political agenda. For example, in Jeremiah 19:2-6 [bible.oremus.org] we see Jehovah deprecating "hell" (that is, denouncing it as a thing which never came up upon his mind or heart).

That's right.

"Hell" was never an idea of concept of Jehovah. Specifically, Jehovah commands Jeremiah to organize a field trip of sorts by purchasing a potters jug (or flask) and escorting a few of the elders of the people and some of the senior priests to valley just outside of Jerusalem – destination – "valley of the son of Hinnom" - that's geh'hinnom in Hebrew by the way. Here, Jeremiah is to present them with a few additional charges aside from those already covered in earlier Chapters of Jeremiah, such as; failure to abstain from idol worship; solicitation and participation in religious prostitution; general adultery; institutional corruption and unjust gain; reluctance to keep the Sabbath; encouraging general and institutionalized apostasy; bloodguilt; grafting themselves to foreign political parties; basking in the blanket of amnesia towards God; and producing and honoring false prophets (all originally forbidden in Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and Numbers).

As though these were not enough to make even the most reluctant district attorney giddy, there are a few other charges – building altars and images in honor of Ba'al and Molech at Topheth in the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom - that's geh'hinnom in Hebrew by the way - and sacrificing their children (sons and daughters) by burning them alive in fire as encouraged by Ahaz and Mannasseh.To prevent its use again for such religious purposes, King Josiah had the valley polluted, particularly the part called Topheth (2 Kings 23:10).

The Jewish commentator David Kimhi (1160 C.E) writes about this valley, "It is a place in the land adjoining Jerusalem, and it is a loathsome place, and they throw there unclean things and carcasses. Also, there was a continual fire there to burn the unclean things and the bones of carcasses. Hence the judgment of the wicked ones is parabolically called Gehinnom. "The Valley became the dumping place and incinerator for the filth of Jerusalem.

Not unlike the use of the mote surrounding the Tower of London, bodies of dead animals were thrown in to be consumed in the fires to which sulpher or brimstone was added to assist in the fires – and bodies of executed criminals, and others, who were considered undeserving of a decent burial in a memorial tomb mnêmeion [www.perseus.tufts.edu]. We can even go along, of sorts, on this filed trip, as the Hebrew Bible provides some rough coordinates of the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom - that's geh'hinnom in Hebrew by the way - in Johsua 15:8 [bible.oremus.org], and Joshua 18:16 [bible.oremus.org] - and if you are more visually oriented, you can view photos of geh'hinnom here [en.wikipedia.org], and again here [en.wikipedia.org], and even a neat topographic rendition here [www.blueletterbible.org] (look to lower bottom for the Valley of Hinnom as it lays to the west and south of ancient Jerusalem).

In addition to the images and alters and child sacrifice, at Topheth was practiced sorcery, magic, soothsaying and augury, often employing mediums, and wizards – and these thing too Jehovah found disgusting and in specific violation with the commands previously given.But it is not the sorcery, magic, soothsaying and augury which is so emotionally confronted to the field-tripping elders and priests – no, it is the burning of people, alive, in fire that seems to most disturb Jehovah about the atrocities performed in the Valley.

In Jeremiah 32:35 [bible.oremus.org] it states, "They built the high places of Baal in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter my mind that they should do this abomination".And in Jeremiah 7:30-32 [bible.oremus.org] it states nearly the same, "For the people of Judah have done evil in my sight, says the LORD; they have set their abominations in the house that is called by my name, defiling it. 31 And they go on building the high place* of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire—which I did not command, nor did it come into my mind".

In both Jeremiah 32:35, and 7:30-32, the word rendered by the NRVS above for "mind", is the Hebrew word lev, which literally means heart [fray.slate.com]. The burning of people, alive, in torturous fire – is not a thing which came up unto Jehovah's heart.

So here, Christians who have adopted the Zoroastrism belief in an endless, conscious, torturous punishment in a fiery "hell" in the 4th century C.E. for all non-believers and other assorted sinners following death, to be in direct conflict with the very heart of God. Seems God's heart is not inclined to burning of people alive in fire.

I'll be darned.

In the Greek form of the Hebrew word "geh'hinnom, is simply "gehenna". In Joshua 18:16, where Valley of Hinnon occurs, the Septuagint [en.wikipedia.org] reads "Gehenna". The same word occurs 12 times in Christian Greek Scriptures, first appearing in Matthew 5:22, then in Matthew 5:22, 29, 30, 10:28, 18:9, 23:15, 23:33, and in Mark 9:43, 9:45, 9:47; and in Luke 12:5; and James 3:6.Jesus often used this place (geh Hinnom) in his warnings of where one would not wish to be sent upon one's death, as culturally, it was a loathsome place, a place for executed criminals, and basic ones rejected – those not fit to be buried in a memorial tomb (John 5:28-29, ironically renders mnêmeion [www.perseus.tufts.edu] – a memorial, or memorial tomb).

Those not deemed worthy Jews were tossed into Gehenna following death – and their dead bodies were consumed, and they had no memorial tomb – hence they would not be "remembered" by their God when the time for resurrection came about. Jehovah did not much care for the Valley of the Sons of Hinnon, and it even became a cursed place, in Jeremiah 7:32, it is stated, "Therefore, the days are surely coming, says the LORD, when it will no more be called Topheth, or the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of Slaughter: for they will bury in Topheth until there is no more room".

If you were a Jew, this would not be where you would want to end up. Jesus was a Jew, and so his figurative use of Gehenna did not indicate the "hell" so well known by the Pagan and especially the Zoroasters – for after all, Jesus also knew the scriptures, and knew death meant non-existence, the opposite of life, knowing nothing, nothing at all (Ecclesiastes 9:5).