Talk:Sheol

Uberpenguin's edits

I originally contributed the following text:

Indeed, Sheol in many cases does not seem to be an afterlife destination or a location at all, but merely "the grave". In Ecclesiastes, for example, it is stated that "...the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even the memory of them is forgotten." and "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave [Sheol], where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom." (Ecc. 9:5-10, NIV) This concept of death was of a final oblivion, interestingly contrasting with the idea of a soul and a consciousness that survives the body, as later writers believed.

Afterwards, I found someone tacked on a sentence at the end, an unrelated conclusion about Jehovah's Witnesses, which does not flow from the statements of the paragraph. In the spirit of NPOV, I tried to preserve this edit while moving it into its own paragraph, separate from the Hebrew interpretation above. Yet UberPenguin, probably not knowing I was the same person who wrote the original lines and probably not realising the last sentence was tacked on, cites me for NPOV reasons and re-mistakes my work (a temporary state is not the same as oblivion). It would have been better for the advocate of JW to create a new, JW-interpretation paragraph rather than altering a Hebrew one. I have separated them again with minimal editing. People with JW experience, please fill out the new paragraph, as I cannot add to that perspective.

--ToucheGnome 22:06, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry for lumping your edits in with the others and for blaming you for that badly written sentence. Many apologies! What I would like to see discussed is some clarification of the phrase "final oblivion." JWs interpret Sheol to be the common grave of mankind (and by extension the unconscious condidition of the dead, as your edits mention), from which there is the possibility (not necessarily the guarantee) of revival. The concept of "final oblivion" for JWs would more appropriately be described by the connotation of the term "Gehenna." Perhaps something to this effect should be added for additional clarification. -- uberpenguin 02:41, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

In re-reading the article as a whole, the JW view of She'ol is actually very much in line with how the article already describes it aside from the fine point I mentioned about "final oblivion." I'm not even sure that the article needs to hint at any distinction with the beliefs of the Witnesses. -- uberpenguin 02:44, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Ah, that's where one with more experience with JW would be better to fill out that part. My understanding of JW philosophy is virtually nonexistent (I specialise in Ecclesiastes, in this area), so my edit was only attempting to preserve the apparent meaning of the person who added that sentence. Perhaps you or someone else could create a more accurate and/or detailed picture, perhaps contrasting it with Gehenna, as you mention.

--TouchGnome 04:19, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Ecclesiastes

I think the reference "Ecclesiastes" should be comented further. By following this link I learned that the Ecclesiastes doesn't seem to be considered body of Hebrew poetry but a later greek text, therefore no wonder the similarities to Hades of greek mythology.

First Paragraph

Who wrote this first paragraph, William Faulkner or Cormac McCarthy? BrianGCrawfordMA 20:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheh-ole Merge

The article Sheh-ole discusses the alternative spelling of Sheol as used by Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries. It's not exactly clear to me from this that Sheh-ole is actually the alternate spelling vs. a pronunciation guide. However, if that can be sourced, then it should be dealt with in this article vs. a separate article. Alternate spellings do not require separate articles and any variances in meaning should be dealt with in a central place. Any other thoughts on this? -- JLaTondre 22:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Checking my (printed copy of Strong, Sheh-ole is clearly a pronunciation guide, not an alternative spelling. The standard transliteration is Sheol. If we're going to include a pronunciation guide then we need a proper rendering in modern phonetics, not Strong's attempt at it (which is, after all, well over 100 years old). I haven't time to do the merge myself, but it definitely needs to be done. JGF Wilks 12:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]