“I understand it is hard to grasp for many, but for 1000 years there was no Bible available at all for the common people who had to rely on a corrupt clergy, however even the worst translations contain the universalist verses and show that “for ever” is not always endless. It’s only for a few years now where all people have access to all translations and even the source texts in their original languages.”
Blindly relying on a bunch of biased versions cloned by the pro ECT advocates boys club is worth as much as a piece of toilet paper. If atheists shelled out to have printed 100 versions saying “God is dead” would you accept that because the 100 outnumber what other versions say?
Since the translators all believed in endless punishment, what else would you expect, except that they all would mis-translate certain “hell” passages the same way? Obviously.
Dozens of English translations don’t agree with those cloned by the endless tortures boys club.
Likewise the early church father Greek scholar universalists would have rejected your cloned excuses for translations. Better to call them paraphrases, interpretations or theologically driven opinions of what the originally inspired ancient language texts say.
Even your cloned theologically driven interpretative “versions” support universalism, which makes them self-contradictory, e.g.:
Lamentations 3:22 and 3:31-33, The steadfast love of the Lord NEVER ceases, his mercies NEVER come to an end. . . .
Lam.3:31 For the Lord will NOT cast off FOR EVER:
32 For if He causes grief, Then He will have compassion According to His abundant lovingkindness. 33 For He does not afflict willingly Or grieve the SONS OF MEN.…
Considering, then, that the Greek word aionios has a range of meanings, biased men should not have rendered the word in Mt.25:46 by their theological opinions as “everlasting”. Thus they did not translate the word, but interpreted it. OTOH the versions with age-lasting, eonian & the like gave faithful translations & left the interpreting up to the readers as to what specific meaning within the “range of meanings” the word holds in any specific context.
What biased scholars who agreed with the Douay & KJV traditions of the dark ages “church” (of Inquisitions, Crusades, burning opposers to death with fire & their writings) have done is change the words of Scriptures to their own opinions, which is shameful.
“Add not to His words, lest He reason with thee, And thou hast been found false.”(Prov.30:6)
“After all, not only Walvoord, Buis, and Inge, but all intelligent students acknowledge that olam and aiõn sometimes refer to limited duration. Here is my point: The supposed special reference or usage of a word is not the province of the translator but of the interpreter. Since these authors themselves plainly indicate that the usage of a word is a matter of interpretation, it follows (1) that it is not a matter of translation, and (2) that it is wrong for any translation effectually to decide that which must necessarily remain a matter of interpretation concerning these words in question. Therefore, olam and aiõn should never be translated by the thought of “endlessness,” but only by that of indefinite duration (as in the anglicized transliteration “eon” which appears in the Concordant Version).”