A Case for Not Reading The Bible Literally

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I'm sure you can understand that the Greek word "sarx" in Phil 1:22 & 24 does not mean just "in the flesh" as in living in an earthly body, but also means living in accordance with the lust of the flesh.
Which puts doubt as to whether or not Paul is talking about death in 1:23.

Obviously there is no conscience, non-corporal entity that survives after the body dies. So both Phil 1:23 and II Cor 5:8 cannot be referring to such a thing.....
I don't think the appeal to σάρξ (sarx) gets you where you want to go contextually.
Certainly, Paul often uses sarx to refer to fallen human nature or living according to the flesh, but in Philippians 1 the contrast is between remaining alive and ministering to the churches versus departing and being with Christ.
In verse 22 he says, "if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour," and in verse 24, "to abide in the flesh is more needful for you." In both cases, "in the flesh" naturally refers to his continuing earthly life because his staying benefits the Philippians through ongoing ministry.

The problem is that verse 23 sits directly between those statements "having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better."
If Paul is not speaking about death or departure from this present life, what is he departing from?
The immediate context is his dilemma between continuing his earthly ministry and leaving it behind.

That said, I do agree with you on one important point: we cannot build an entire doctrine from two verses while ignoring everything else Scripture says about death and resurrection.
My hesitation is simply that your argument seems to assume that because you believe the dead are unconscious, Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8 must mean something else.
But those verses are part of the evidence that must be explained, not merely adjusted to fit a conclusion reached elsewhere.

So I don't think the debate is settled by proving sarx can sometimes mean living according to fleshly desires.
The question remains whether that is what Paul means here, and in Philippians 1 the surrounding verses seem to point toward the ordinary contrast between continuing life in this world and departing to be with Christ.
Whether that presence with Christ is immediate or viewed through the lens of the resurrection is the very issue under discussion.
 
I don't think the appeal to σάρξ (sarx) gets you where you want to go contextually.
Certainly, Paul often uses sarx to refer to fallen human nature or living according to the flesh, but in Philippians 1 the contrast is between remaining alive and ministering to the churches versus departing and being with Christ.
In verse 22 he says, "if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour," and in verse 24, "to abide in the flesh is more needful for you." In both cases, "in the flesh" naturally refers to his continuing earthly life because his staying benefits the Philippians through ongoing ministry.

The problem is that verse 23 sits directly between those statements "having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better."
If Paul is not speaking about death or departure from this present life, what is he departing from?
The immediate context is his dilemma between continuing his earthly ministry and leaving it behind.

That said, I do agree with you on one important point: we cannot build an entire doctrine from two verses while ignoring everything else Scripture says about death and resurrection.
My hesitation is simply that your argument seems to assume that because you believe the dead are unconscious, Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8 must mean something else.
But those verses are part of the evidence that must be explained, not merely adjusted to fit a conclusion reached elsewhere.

So I don't think the debate is settled by proving sarx can sometimes mean living according to fleshly desires.
The question remains whether that is what Paul means here, and in Philippians 1 the surrounding verses seem to point toward the ordinary contrast between continuing life in this world and departing to be with Christ.
Whether that presence with Christ is immediate or viewed through the lens of the resurrection is the very issue under discussion.
No, you still don't get it. I'm saying Phil 1:22-24 is talking about continuing to live a life of sin.
Paul is showing a desire to depart from that sinful life in order to minister to God's people.

The fact that the bible shows there is no sentient non-corporal being that exists after the body dies shows both Phil 1:23 and II Cor 5:8 cannot mean there is.

You are creating controversy/conflicts in scripture which are not reconcilable.
 
I agree that someone is misunderstanding the texts.
Where we disagree is which texts are controlling the interpretation of the others.

You believe the passages describing death as sleep, unconsciousness, and inactivity settle the matter so completely that 2 Corinthians 5:8 and Philippians 1:23 must be reinterpreted accordingly.

I am saying that those passages must be weighed alongside Paul's explicit statements, not over them.

The issue is not whether the dead are called asleep, because they plainly are.
The issue is whether "sleep" is intended to describe the appearance and condition of death from the perspective of this world, or whether it is intended to define the totality of a believer's existence between death and resurrection.

What I keep coming back to is that Paul does not merely say he wants the resurrection.
He says he desires "to depart, and to be with Christ, which is far better" (Phil. 1:23), and that to be "absent from the body" is to be "present with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8).
If those statements do not refer to being with Christ after death, then it seems to me that we still need an explanation for why Paul chose those words.

So I agree with you on one thing: either one interpretation is wrong, or both sides are misunderstanding something.
But I don't think the solution is to declare the discussion closed because one set of passages seems plainer to us.
The task is to find an interpretation that does justice to both the resurrection texts and the passages that appear to speak of fellowship with Christ after death. That is the very question under debate.
OMC:
I really like your ability to buttress 16th century and later Protestant theology as your framework for understanding the scriptures. However, I would make these observations:
There is no hell in the Hebrew Scriptures
The earliest written records of dying-and-rising gods and resurrection themes originate in ancient Egyptian and Canaanite religions (such as the myths of Osiris and Baal), while Zoroastrianism features the earliest apocalyptic visions of the dead rising en masse.
Mesopotamia: Babylonian and Sumerian traditions featured spring-related renewal myths, such as Ishtar and Tammuz (Du'ûzu), where figures returned from the underworld.
Cults surrounding dying-and-rising gods like Baal appeared early in historical records.
Hebrew Bible (Old Testament): Early accounts record specific miraculous revivals or resuscitations by prophets like Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 17, 2 Kings 4), though a broader theology of general bodily resurrection developed later during the Second Temple period (influenced in part by Persian contact). The Jew having suffered existential threat by the Greeks after between 332-63 BC. came up with a postmortem punishment frustrated by their inability to retaliate against the anti-Jewish Greeks late during their occcupation.

The modern concept of hell evolved between 2nd through 5th centuries CE in the Mediterranean region (particularly through early Christian centers like Carthage, Alexandria, and Rome), building upon a mix of earlier Persian, Greek, and Second Temple Jewish ideas.

Zoroastrianism introduced an early binary afterlife featuring a last judgment separating the righteous from the wicked, which influenced post-exilic Jewish thought. Greco-Roman Fusion (1st–2nd Century CE): As Judaism and early Christianity interacted with Hellenistic culture, biblical concepts merged with Greek philosophical ideas of Plato regarding the immortal soul and subterranean realms like Tartarus.

Early church leaders like Tertullian (in Carthage) and Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) firmly codified the doctrine of literal, endless conscious torment for unpardoned sinners.

There is one well known perspective of hell. Dante Alighieri’s Inferno is a pillar of the Western literary canon. A whirlwind tour of the nine circles of hell, the allegorical poem has had volumes of scholarship dedicated to unpacking its secrets. Its vivid, and often grotesque, imagery has inspired artists such as Sandro Botticelli, Auguste Rodin, and William Blake. It was even made into a video game.

Alighieri’s other two poems of The Divine Comedy, Purgatorio and Paradiso, explore the realms of purgatory and heaven, respectively. But they don’t receive the love, attention, and adoration of the hell-bound original. That’s because heaven is — let’s face it — a little one note. Hell is where the drama happens. Given its prominence in imagery and storytelling, it is surprising that hell doesn’t appear much in the Hebrew bible. In fact, most of its references to Satan’s scorching domain are the result of later translators mapping their views onto older, and quite distinct, concepts of the afterlife. This means hell, as we understand it today, is an afterlife the Hebrew biblical writers had no real conception of.

The resurrection as conceived by Paul is the the rise of the dead to greet Jesus as He comes back to earth to rule. Nobody evaporates to heaven. All return to earth to be with Jesus until the final judgement of all mankind.

We can trace the "modern" understanding" of the end times to John Nelson Darby (18 November 1800 – 29 April 1882) He was a Bible teacher, one of the influential figures among the original Plymouth Brethren and the founder of the Exclusive Brethren. He is considered to be the father of modern dispensationalism and futurism. Pre-tribulation rapture theology was popularized extensively in the 1830s by Darby and the Plymouth Brethren, and further popularized in the United States in the early 20th century by the wide circulation of the Scofield Reference Bible.

He produced translations of the Bible in German, the "Elberfelder Bibel", in French, the "Pau" Bible, the Dutch New Testament, and the famous and influential English translation (finished posthumously) based on the Hebrew and Greek texts called The Holy Scriptures: A New Translation from the Original Languages by J. N. Darby. It has furthermore been translated into other languages in whole or part. Darby resigned his curacy in protest. Soon afterwards, in October 1827, he fell from a horse and was seriously injured. He later stated that it was during this time that he began to believe that the "kingdom" described in the Book of Isaiah and elsewhere in the Old Testament was entirely different from the Christian church.

Over the next five years, he developed the principles of his mature theology – most notably his conviction that the very notion of a clergyman was a sin against the Holy Spirit, because it limited the recognition that the Holy Spirit could speak through any member of the Church. During this time (1827–28) he joined an interdenominational meeting of believers (including Anthony Norris Groves, Edward Cronin, J. G. Bellett, and Francis Hutchinson) who met to "break bread" together in Dublin as a symbol of their unity in Christ. By 1832, this group had grown and began to identify themselves as a distinct Christian assembly. As they travelled and began new assemblies in Ireland and England, they formed the movement now known as the Plymouth Brethren.

It is believed that John Nelson Darby left the Church of Ireland around 1831.[a] He participated in the 1831–1833 Powerscourt Conference, an annual meeting of Bible students organized by his friend, the wealthy widow Lady Powerscourt. At the conference, Darby publicly described his ecclesiological and eschatological views, including the pre-tribulation rapture. For about 40 years William Kelly (1821–1906) was his chief interpreter and continued to be a staunch supporter until his own death. Kelly in his work John Nelson Darby as I Knew Him stated that "a saint more true to Christ's name and word I never knew or heard of". Darby defended Calvinist doctrines when they came under attack from within the Church in which he once served. His biographer Goddard states, "Darby indicates his approval of the doctrine of the Anglican Church as expressed in Article XVII of the Thirty-nine Articles" on the subject of election and predestination. Darby is noted in the theological world as the father of "dispensationalism", whose eschatology was adopted and later made popular in the United States by Cyrus Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible.
 
No, you still don't get it. I'm saying Phil 1:22-24 is talking about continuing to live a life of sin.
Paul is showing a desire to depart from that sinful life in order to minister to God's people.

The fact that the bible shows there is no sentient non-corporal being that exists after the body dies shows both Phil 1:23 and II Cor 5:8 cannot mean there is.

You are creating controversy/conflicts in scripture which are not reconcilable.
I think that interpretation runs into serious contextual problems.
In Philippians 1:22-24, Paul is not contrasting a sinful lifestyle with a godly one.
He is contrasting continuing to live and minister versus departing.
Notice that remaining "in the flesh" is described positively: "to abide in the flesh is more needful for you" (Phil. 1:24)
If "flesh" here means a life of sin, Paul would effectively be saying that continuing in a sinful life is more necessary for the Philippians, which makes no sense in the context.
Instead, "in the flesh" is simply his ongoing earthly existence and ministry.

Likewise, the whole dilemma disappears under your reading. Paul says he is "in a strait betwixt two" (v. 23). What are the two options? The text itself presents them as:
Remaining alive and serving the churches.
Departing and being with Christ.
But if "departing" merely means turning away from a sinful lifestyle, Paul had already done that years earlier.
There is no real tension between those two options.

As for your statement that there can be no conscious existence after death because other passages rule it out, that is the very point under debate.
You keep using that conclusion to govern Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8.
I'm simply pointing out that those texts themselves have to be explained on their own terms.
Whether your explanation is correct or mine is correct, Philippians 1 does not naturally read as Paul choosing between a sinful life and a godly life.
It reads as Paul choosing between continuing his earthly ministry and departing to be with Christ.
The question is what that departure entails, not whether Paul is talking about abandoning a life of sin.
 
OMC:
I really like your ability to buttress 16th century and later Protestant theology as your framework for understanding the scriptures. However, I would make these observations:
There is no hell in the Hebrew Scriptures
The earliest written records of dying-and-rising gods and resurrection themes originate in ancient Egyptian and Canaanite religions (such as the myths of Osiris and Baal), while Zoroastrianism features the earliest apocalyptic visions of the dead rising en masse.
Mesopotamia: Babylonian and Sumerian traditions featured spring-related renewal myths, such as Ishtar and Tammuz (Du'ûzu), where figures returned from the underworld.
Cults surrounding dying-and-rising gods like Baal appeared early in historical records.
Hebrew Bible (Old Testament): Early accounts record specific miraculous revivals or resuscitations by prophets like Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 17, 2 Kings 4), though a broader theology of general bodily resurrection developed later during the Second Temple period (influenced in part by Persian contact). The Jew having suffered existential threat by the Greeks after between 332-63 BC. came up with a postmortem punishment frustrated by their inability to retaliate against the anti-Jewish Greeks late during their occcupation.

The modern concept of hell evolved between 2nd through 5th centuries CE in the Mediterranean region (particularly through early Christian centers like Carthage, Alexandria, and Rome), building upon a mix of earlier Persian, Greek, and Second Temple Jewish ideas.

Zoroastrianism introduced an early binary afterlife featuring a last judgment separating the righteous from the wicked, which influenced post-exilic Jewish thought. Greco-Roman Fusion (1st–2nd Century CE): As Judaism and early Christianity interacted with Hellenistic culture, biblical concepts merged with Greek philosophical ideas of Plato regarding the immortal soul and subterranean realms like Tartarus.

Early church leaders like Tertullian (in Carthage) and Augustine of Hippo (354–430 CE) firmly codified the doctrine of literal, endless conscious torment for unpardoned sinners.

There is one well known perspective of hell. Dante Alighieri’s Inferno is a pillar of the Western literary canon. A whirlwind tour of the nine circles of hell, the allegorical poem has had volumes of scholarship dedicated to unpacking its secrets. Its vivid, and often grotesque, imagery has inspired artists such as Sandro Botticelli, Auguste Rodin, and William Blake. It was even made into a video game.

Alighieri’s other two poems of The Divine Comedy, Purgatorio and Paradiso, explore the realms of purgatory and heaven, respectively. But they don’t receive the love, attention, and adoration of the hell-bound original. That’s because heaven is — let’s face it — a little one note. Hell is where the drama happens. Given its prominence in imagery and storytelling, it is surprising that hell doesn’t appear much in the Hebrew bible. In fact, most of its references to Satan’s scorching domain are the result of later translators mapping their views onto older, and quite distinct, concepts of the afterlife. This means hell, as we understand it today, is an afterlife the Hebrew biblical writers had no real conception of.

The resurrection as conceived by Paul is the the rise of the dead to greet Jesus as He comes back to earth to rule. Nobody evaporates to heaven. All return to earth to be with Jesus until the final judgement of all mankind.

We can trace the "modern" understanding" of the end times to John Nelson Darby (18 November 1800 – 29 April 1882) He was a Bible teacher, one of the influential figures among the original Plymouth Brethren and the founder of the Exclusive Brethren. He is considered to be the father of modern dispensationalism and futurism. Pre-tribulation rapture theology was popularized extensively in the 1830s by Darby and the Plymouth Brethren, and further popularized in the United States in the early 20th century by the wide circulation of the Scofield Reference Bible.

He produced translations of the Bible in German, the "Elberfelder Bibel", in French, the "Pau" Bible, the Dutch New Testament, and the famous and influential English translation (finished posthumously) based on the Hebrew and Greek texts called The Holy Scriptures: A New Translation from the Original Languages by J. N. Darby. It has furthermore been translated into other languages in whole or part. Darby resigned his curacy in protest. Soon afterwards, in October 1827, he fell from a horse and was seriously injured. He later stated that it was during this time that he began to believe that the "kingdom" described in the Book of Isaiah and elsewhere in the Old Testament was entirely different from the Christian church.

Over the next five years, he developed the principles of his mature theology – most notably his conviction that the very notion of a clergyman was a sin against the Holy Spirit, because it limited the recognition that the Holy Spirit could speak through any member of the Church. During this time (1827–28) he joined an interdenominational meeting of believers (including Anthony Norris Groves, Edward Cronin, J. G. Bellett, and Francis Hutchinson) who met to "break bread" together in Dublin as a symbol of their unity in Christ. By 1832, this group had grown and began to identify themselves as a distinct Christian assembly. As they travelled and began new assemblies in Ireland and England, they formed the movement now known as the Plymouth Brethren.

It is believed that John Nelson Darby left the Church of Ireland around 1831.[a] He participated in the 1831–1833 Powerscourt Conference, an annual meeting of Bible students organized by his friend, the wealthy widow Lady Powerscourt. At the conference, Darby publicly described his ecclesiological and eschatological views, including the pre-tribulation rapture. For about 40 years William Kelly (1821–1906) was his chief interpreter and continued to be a staunch supporter until his own death. Kelly in his work John Nelson Darby as I Knew Him stated that "a saint more true to Christ's name and word I never knew or heard of". Darby defended Calvinist doctrines when they came under attack from within the Church in which he once served. His biographer Goddard states, "Darby indicates his approval of the doctrine of the Anglican Church as expressed in Article XVII of the Thirty-nine Articles" on the subject of election and predestination. Darby is noted in the theological world as the father of "dispensationalism", whose eschatology was adopted and later made popular in the United States by Cyrus Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible.
I appreciate the historical survey, but I don't think it actually answers the exegetical question before us.
Even if I granted every point about Egyptian religion, Zoroastrian influence, Greek philosophy, Augustine, Dante, Darby, and Scofield, we would still have to ask: What did Paul mean when he wrote Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8?
Historical development can explain how doctrines have been understood, but it cannot by itself determine whether Paul's statements refer to conscious fellowship with Christ after death.
Likewise, I am not defending Darby, Scofield, dispensationalism, or a pre-tribulational rapture here.
Those are separate debates.
My appeal has been to Paul's words themselves.
If Paul desired "to depart and be with Christ," and if being "absent from the body" is being "present with the Lord," then those texts must be given an explanation that arises from their context.
Appealing to the history of later Christian doctrines does not tell us what Paul intended.
I agree that resurrection is central to Paul's hope.
In fact, 1 Corinthians 15 makes that undeniable.
But notice that this discussion began with whether an intermediate state exists, not with Darby's eschatology or medieval ideas of hell.
Those are different subjects.
A person can reject Darby's system entirely and still conclude that Philippians 1:23 refers to being with Christ after death.
Likewise, a person can reject eternal conscious torment and still disagree with soul sleep.
So I think the historical observations are interesting, but they don't really move the discussion forward.
The issue remains the same: what interpretation best accounts for the actual wording of Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8 while also doing justice to the resurrection passages? That's the question that still needs answering.
 
I think that interpretation runs into serious contextual problems.
In Philippians 1:22-24, Paul is not contrasting a sinful lifestyle with a godly one.
He is contrasting continuing to live and minister versus departing.
Notice that remaining "in the flesh" is described positively: "to abide in the flesh is more needful for you" (Phil. 1:24)
If "flesh" here means a life of sin, Paul would effectively be saying that continuing in a sinful life is more necessary for the Philippians, which makes no sense in the context.
Instead, "in the flesh" is simply his ongoing earthly existence and ministry.

Likewise, the whole dilemma disappears under your reading. Paul says he is "in a strait betwixt two" (v. 23). What are the two options? The text itself presents them as:
Remaining alive and serving the churches.
Departing and being with Christ.
But if "departing" merely means turning away from a sinful lifestyle, Paul had already done that years earlier.
There is no real tension between those two options.

As for your statement that there can be no conscious existence after death because other passages rule it out, that is the very point under debate.
You keep using that conclusion to govern Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8.
I'm simply pointing out that those texts themselves have to be explained on their own terms.
Whether your explanation is correct or mine is correct, Philippians 1 does not naturally read as Paul choosing between a sinful life and a godly life.
It reads as Paul choosing between continuing his earthly ministry and departing to be with Christ.
The question is what that departure entails, not whether Paul is talking about abandoning a life of sin.
I agree Phil 1:22-24 could be talking about being with Jesus after he dies.
But it is not a foregone conclusion that he will be with Jesus immediately AFTER death.
He already admitted in other texts this won't happen until the resurrection.
 
I appreciate the historical survey, but I don't think it actually answers the exegetical question before us.
Even if I granted every point about Egyptian religion, Zoroastrian influence, Greek philosophy, Augustine, Dante, Darby, and Scofield, we would still have to ask: What did Paul mean when he wrote Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8?
Historical development can explain how doctrines have been understood, but it cannot by itself determine whether Paul's statements refer to conscious fellowship with Christ after death.
Likewise, I am not defending Darby, Scofield, dispensationalism, or a pre-tribulational rapture here.
Those are separate debates.
My appeal has been to Paul's words themselves.
If Paul desired "to depart and be with Christ," and if being "absent from the body" is being "present with the Lord," then those texts must be given an explanation that arises from their context.
Appealing to the history of later Christian doctrines does not tell us what Paul intended.
I agree that resurrection is central to Paul's hope.
In fact, 1 Corinthians 15 makes that undeniable.
But notice that this discussion began with whether an intermediate state exists, not with Darby's eschatology or medieval ideas of hell.
Those are different subjects.
A person can reject Darby's system entirely and still conclude that Philippians 1:23 refers to being with Christ after death.
Likewise, a person can reject eternal conscious torment and still disagree with soul sleep.
So I think the historical observations are interesting, but they don't really move the discussion forward.
The issue remains the same: what interpretation best accounts for the actual wording of Philippians 1:23 and 2 Corinthians 5:8 while also doing justice to the resurrection passages? That's the question that still needs answering.
OMC:
Well stated. As to Paul's perspective of life after death has at least two options.
In his later epistles, Paul uses language that strongly implies a believer transitions into the presence of Jesus immediately at the moment of physical death, bypassing any sense of a long, unconscious delay: Philippians 1:23: Paul writes about his personal dilemma between continuing his earthly ministry or facing execution, stating, "I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far." Corinthians 5:8: He expresses a clear temporal transition, writing that he prefers "to be away from the body and at home with the Lord."

Paul is also the primary architect of the New Testament doctrine of a future, eternal physical resurrection. In his earlier letters, his focus is overwhelmingly on the collective destiny of believers at the end of time: 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17: Paul describes the second coming (Parousia), noting that "the dead in Christ will rise first," and those who are alive will be caught up together with them. 1 Corinthians 15:51–52: He describes the ultimate, eternal transformation: "We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet."

There is always a danger of conformational theology based on selective scriptures especially when other scriptures by the same author paint a very different picture.
 
OMC:
Well stated. As to Paul's perspective of life after death has at least two options.
In his later epistles, Paul uses language that strongly implies a believer transitions into the presence of Jesus immediately at the moment of physical death, bypassing any sense of a long, unconscious delay: Philippians 1:23: Paul writes about his personal dilemma between continuing his earthly ministry or facing execution, stating, "I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far." Corinthians 5:8: He expresses a clear temporal transition, writing that he prefers "to be away from the body and at home with the Lord."

Paul is also the primary architect of the New Testament doctrine of a future, eternal physical resurrection. In his earlier letters, his focus is overwhelmingly on the collective destiny of believers at the end of time: 1 Thessalonians 4:16–17: Paul describes the second coming (Parousia), noting that "the dead in Christ will rise first," and those who are alive will be caught up together with them. 1 Corinthians 15:51–52: He describes the ultimate, eternal transformation: "We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed—in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet."

There is always a danger of conformational theology based on selective scriptures especially when other scriptures by the same author paint a very different picture.
Are these biblical texts lying? Or do they speak the truth?

Perpetual sleep, do not awake - Jer 51:57
Have no thoughts - Psa 146:4
Have no emotions, no knowledge, no wisdom - Ecc 9:5-6 & 10
Cannot praise God - Isa 33:18
King David has yet to ascend into heaven - Acts 2:29&34
Paul knew he would have to wait in the grave until Jesus comes to receive his crown - II Tim 4:6-8
So did Job - Job 19:26

This is just a partial sampling of what the bible says on the subject. There are many more.
Should we ignore all of them in favor of a definition of other verses that go against what these say?