Yes! That one doesn’t really’ bounce back’ very well does it? In addition, seeing as it’s JeffA’s question, not mine, once again it shows Revival’s double standard.
which version of the KJ Revival ? there have been hundreds of revisions ! 
as for your question I would say not just the mistranslated texts but the misinterpreted ones , but lets be honest there really are only a handful that could be used to
support that vile doctrine compared to the many that say the opposite 
1.) The parable of the wheat and the weeds; and the parable of the sower on multiple grounds.
We’ve had other threads like this on the forum where URs participated without any problem. So if they didn’t have any problem then, the problem is something other than the topic now.
2.) You yourself started off not following the (ostensible) spirit of the instructions of the OP, as you aren’t a UR. This would be like, oh, say, for example, Jeff starting a thread challenging ECTs to participate and answer honestly what scripture really challenges ECT the most if they had to choose one, and then starting off by supplying several scriptures he himself as a UR thinks challenge ECT the most. It just sounds like you’re only interested in promoting your view with the thread, not in having a real discussion with your opponents about what they think are their own weaknesses. Which in turn sounds like you’re only fishing for weaknesses you intend to merely exploit. That isn’t the sort of attitude conducive to people participating in your thread.
3.) A thread title which tells exactly nothing about the topic of the thread, but calls all URs to participate anyway and moreover to “answer honestly” (as if that might be a problem), is not the sort of thing that will gain serious attention for discussion, especially from someone with your track record around here. It only looks like a desperate plea for people to pay attention to you mainly for the purpose of paying attention to you.
Admins and (maybe) mods might be taken seriously on this board making a call for all URs to blindly participate and answer honestly without any indication of what the topic even is (and then to insist that people follow our instructions in replying to the thread!) But even we would have enough sense (if not common courtesy) to give some indication in the thread title why we think it’s important for all members to come to the thread and participate even if we anticipate the topic of the thread will be so challenging that members might be tempted not to answer honestly. Maybe someone already well-known and liked on the forum could make a call to blind participation like that, but members would expect that the person starting the thread was crying for help on a serious problem so sensitive and/or complex that talking about it in the actual title of the thread didn’t seem appropriate.
You aren’t in authority here to call people over for an annoying but highly important topic and to trust you that it’s important despite not saying what the topic is, and to subsequently insist that people follow your instructions as your instructions if they don’t follow what you thereby clearly reveal you consider to be instructions from you when participating in this thread; and you certainly aren’t crying for help and sympathy on a serious problem so sensitive and/or complex that talking about it in the actual thread title didn’t seem appropriate.
If you had wanted people to take you seriously, you should have explained in the thread title what the thread was going to be about; and not taken this thread as an opportunity to throw out your own set of what you think are challenging verses against UR (much less gone into this thread with the attitude, tacit or explicit, that you’re giving instructions to members as if they’re supposed to accept your authority to give instructions). If you were going to give any scriptures at all, you should have shown your intention for real discussion by providing scriptures you think are the most challenging to ECT, ideally over in another thread also started by you. Or else this thread should have been about calling ECTs to give a scripture they think most challenges UR.
Instead, Jeff is the one who sarcastically started such a thread (for ECTs to give a scripture they think most challenges ECT), to expose what he expects will be your double-standard: that you’re going to consider and probably outright call URs blindly ideological or dishonest or ignorant if they have not even one scripture they think “really challenges” against UR, while thinking entirely opposite of yourself if you have no scriptures you think “really challenge” against ECT and/or don’t bother to participate in Jeff’s thread.
So now people will be watching to see how you handle Jeff’s counter-thread, as a gauge for your intentions in setting up this one, and will likely wait to see what you do there and how you do it before participating in this one.
While I don’t see any slamming doors for UR in scripture, there are a handful of passages that seem difficult to argue that viewpoint from. The toughest I’d say is the end of Revelation. But the lake of fire is, in the midst of all of that (paradoxically), probably the most beautiful metaphor for redemption being worked out in all of scripture. 
And btw, this wouldn’t happen to be BornAgain Aaron would it? Given this guy’s general demeanor, responses and the fact that he shares the same first name…? 
In response to the OP, as I’ve studied what I was taught since childhood scriptures to be affirming the certainty of damnation of others, I’ve found what I thought to be rock-solid affirmations of the certainty of damnation of others to be nothing but sand which fell between my fingers as I examined them closely.
In other words, I’ve worked through all of the passages that I once Assumed affirmed the certainty of damnation of others, of some one, and found that they did not affirm such. In most cases it was passages that affirmed the need for certain things for salvation. For example, one must be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven. This is an affirmation of what is necessary for one to enter the kingdom, but it does not affirm that anyone shall not ultimately enter.
Before I came to accept in faith that Jesus really is the Savior of all, especially (not only) we who now believe (1 Tim 4.10), I worked through all the passages that I once assumed affirmed the damnation of others and found that they do not affirm such.
So to answer your question, I honestly do not see any passages of scripture that are a significant “challenge” to UR. It was studying what scripture actually says concerning judgment and the punishment of sin that freed me to accept in faith the many passages that affirm the salvation of all.
Yes it is – the one and only!
Sonia
And btw Revival, asking people to “answer honestly” implies that you think they are likely to answer dishonestly. Such an assumption is sad and inflammatory. Love hopes the best of people, and if it “assumes” something, it will assume what is good and positive. Making negative assumptions of others says more about the person doing the assuming than about those whom the negative assumption is about.
I’ve been thinking about this – trying to think how I’d argue against UR – and I don’t think I could pick a single verse that challenges my conviction of the truth of UR. The thing we’re discussing involves a whole paradigm difference – a change of perspective that can’t be challenged by a single verse or passage.
We’re talking about the character of God, the meaning of love, the meaning of justice, the meaning of mercy, the nature and purpose of punishment, and more. My first step toward conceiving the possibility of UR was realizing that “aionian” did not unexceptionably mean “without end” – that is, it was possible for it to mean something else – and that is a fact and you’re wasting your time trying to arguing against it. For me that opened the floodgates for a lot of other questions.
But, anyway, if I was to argue against UR, I couldn’t do it from any single verse, I would have to approach it by arguing from God’s character, that God’s justice and glory necessitate that some people be punished forever. Or I could take a Lewisian stance and argue that God respects our freedom too much to save people, and people prefer to be in hell to stay away from God. Only I don’t consider that a biblical position at all.
Now if you could find me a passage that says, “People who don’t convert to Christianity during their mortal lifetime will spend the rest of their existence in fiery torment.” That I would find challenging.
Sonia
Yes, it absolutely is BornAgain, aka Aaron37.
And no, before anyone asks, he didn’t sneak back on; his temp-ban time was up and he asked permission from the admins to return. Most members had foe’d him last time, though, so in order not to be automatically ignored by their system settings he created a new pseudonym to participate honestly under.
More seriously, while he didn’t go out of his way to indicate who he really was in his introduction thread, he did publicly acknowledge it when people in a position to know mentioned it, and he hasn’t given any grief about being addressed as AaronC in threads I’ve seen so far.
Relatedly, a systematic scriptural theology shouldn’t be based on one scripture, which is why I don’t base my whole theology on the parable of the prodigal son (which has exactly nothing to do with Christ per se, much less with God going out after ones who are lost), or even on whole books (like a couple of the minor prophets which don’t speak about God saving sinners from their sins at all.)
Self-critically there’s no reason why there can’t be problem verses (unless one honestly finds no problem verses of course), as long as problem verses aren’t given undue weight. Or perhaps as long as there is a clear principle explanation why a problem verse (or verse set) should be doctrinally contraining so that everything else that might indicate otherwise should be interpreted by the verse (or set).
These are principles and applications that can be (and routinely are) accepted by any student of the scriptures, regardless of their particular conclusions.
AaronC’s attitude in setting up this thread, however, and based on his recent behaviors on site (not even counting back when he was BA/aron37, plus a couple of other times since that he tried to sneak back on behind the ad/mods backs), do not lend reassurance to the idea that he plans to use any problem verses mentioned here except as prooftext bludgeons. For example, ’ 
why don’t you stop believing UR then if you have at least one verse you think is problematic with it? All you’re doing is conveniently reading scripture the way you want to to fit your presuppositions, you have no arguments for it!’
He is entirely welcome to surprise me on this, however.
Jason, you’ve summarized my concerns, at least, and I expect the concerns of others, marvelously.
Wouldn’t it be marvellous if Revival would agree to a debate thread with someone from this board whereby each has to argue vigorously for the opposing premise (won’t happen though) .
Wouldn’t it be marvelous if Revival indicated he had no intention of either honestly offering a scripture he thinks really challenges ECT (the way some of us have answered his request from URs, myself included); or else of unbiasedly answering that he cannot think of any scriptures that really challenge ECT (the way others of us have answered his request from URs)?
Oh, wait: he has. 
(Although he’s welcome at any time to show us he’s willing to consider us unbiased and honest if we cannot think of any scriptures that really challenge UR, or alternately to volunteer any scriptures he himself thinks really challenges ECT.)
Okay, I’ll “answer unbiasedly”. I agree with Jason that there are one.
But if it helps you, Revival, when I believed in ECT, the scripture I thought absolutely proved that hell is a permanent state , was Revelation 20:10 in the King James Version:
…and the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
Of course as that time, I didn’t realize that the Greek phrase that was translated “for ever and ever” actually means “for ages and ages”. Also, I didn’t know at the time that the Greek word translated “tormented” actually means “tested”. Originally, the nounal form of the word referred to a stone which was used to test metals.
Youngs Literal Translation
10 and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where [are] the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night -- to the ages of the ages.
How long does this torment last to the ages of ages? How long is the ages of ages? 
How can you have day and night when the sun and moon are gone which are used to measure time by?
day and night-figurative for without intermission. How long is the ages of ages?
ages imply a time, eternity does not, as you have stated.
the ages of the ages has an end, and therefore could be qualified as a time period.
Eternity is outside of time.