Bible scholars are very clear on this issue, take a look...
"1st. It shows that Sheol of the Old Testament, and Hades of the New, both translated by our English word hell, did not originally signify a place of misery for the wicked, but simply the state of the dead , without regard to the goodness or badness of the persons, their happiness or misery. It follows, of course, that wherever these two words are used in Scripture, though translated by the word hell, we ought not to understand a place of misery to be meant by the inspired writers.
2d. It establishes, also, that our English word hell, in its primitive signification, perfectly corresponded to Hades and Sheol, and did not, as it now does, signify a place of misery. It denoted only what was secret or concealed. What we wish to be noticed here, is, that people, generally, have connected the idea of misery with the word hell; but it is evident that it is a very false association. It is beyond all controversy that the word is changed from its original signification to express this idea.
3d. It is also obvious from the above quotation, and from other authors which might be quoted, that Gehenna is the word which is supposed to express the idea of a place of endless misery. The correctness of this opinion we shall consider afterwards. At present it need only be observed, that if the opinion be correct, it is somewhat surprising that the English word hell must assume a new sense to accommodate it with a name. Nor was this the original sense of the term Gehenna, as I shall show afterwards.
4th. I add, in regard to the statements made in the above quotation, that they are not opinions broached by a Universalist in support of his system. No; they are the statements of Dr. Campbell, who was not a Universalist. Nor are they his opinions alone, but admitted as correct by learned orthodox critics and commentators. In Mr. E. J. Chapman’s critical and explanatory notes, we find very similar statements made, on Acts 2: 27, which, to save room, I forbear transcribing.
5th. It is now generally conceded that the doctrine of endless punishment is not taught in the Old Testament. Mr. Stuart does not pretend that it is taught there; but thinks that probably future punishment may be taught in five texts. Was it then brought to light by the Gospel? The doctrine of endless punishment was current among the heathen nations long before the appearance of Christ. But who revealed it to heathen nations, yet left the Jewish nation in ignorance concerning it? If it is said it originated in early revelations which are now lost, I ask, how happened it that the heathen knew so much and the Jews so little about it?"...http://creationismonline.com/Studies/1325.PDF
"1st. It shows that Sheol of the Old Testament, and Hades of the New, both translated by our English word hell, did not originally signify a place of misery for the wicked, but simply the state of the dead , without regard to the goodness or badness of the persons, their happiness or misery. It follows, of course, that wherever these two words are used in Scripture, though translated by the word hell, we ought not to understand a place of misery to be meant by the inspired writers.
2d. It establishes, also, that our English word hell, in its primitive signification, perfectly corresponded to Hades and Sheol, and did not, as it now does, signify a place of misery. It denoted only what was secret or concealed. What we wish to be noticed here, is, that people, generally, have connected the idea of misery with the word hell; but it is evident that it is a very false association. It is beyond all controversy that the word is changed from its original signification to express this idea.
3d. It is also obvious from the above quotation, and from other authors which might be quoted, that Gehenna is the word which is supposed to express the idea of a place of endless misery. The correctness of this opinion we shall consider afterwards. At present it need only be observed, that if the opinion be correct, it is somewhat surprising that the English word hell must assume a new sense to accommodate it with a name. Nor was this the original sense of the term Gehenna, as I shall show afterwards.
4th. I add, in regard to the statements made in the above quotation, that they are not opinions broached by a Universalist in support of his system. No; they are the statements of Dr. Campbell, who was not a Universalist. Nor are they his opinions alone, but admitted as correct by learned orthodox critics and commentators. In Mr. E. J. Chapman’s critical and explanatory notes, we find very similar statements made, on Acts 2: 27, which, to save room, I forbear transcribing.
5th. It is now generally conceded that the doctrine of endless punishment is not taught in the Old Testament. Mr. Stuart does not pretend that it is taught there; but thinks that probably future punishment may be taught in five texts. Was it then brought to light by the Gospel? The doctrine of endless punishment was current among the heathen nations long before the appearance of Christ. But who revealed it to heathen nations, yet left the Jewish nation in ignorance concerning it? If it is said it originated in early revelations which are now lost, I ask, how happened it that the heathen knew so much and the Jews so little about it?"...http://creationismonline.com/Studies/1325.PDF
