The Evangelical Universalist Forum

This Is Bothering Me


1 Chronicles 28:9(English)-"As for you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind; for the LORD searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts. If you seek Him, He will let you find Him; but if you forsake Him, He will reject you forever.

This looks like a verse that can destroy universalism due to the phrase “He will reject you forever” meaning that if you reject God He will reject you for good(according to the English translation.

Here is another verse that seems to destroy universalism:

Psalms 148:6- He has also established them forever and ever; He has made a decree which will not pass away

The word forever in these translations in Hebrew is עַד and in every lexicon I’ve looked at it’s translated as either eternal or forever. If this is the case wouldn’t these two verses eliminated EU for good?


Another verse:

Isaiah 57:15- For thus says the high and exalted One Who lives forever, whose name is Holy, "I dwell on a high and holy place, And also with the contrite and lowly of spirit In order to revive the spirit of the lowly And to revive the heart of the contrite.

Same Hebrew word translated forever is עַד. This one seems on the surface level makes sense seeing that God does live forever so how can this word mean anything but forever? If it doesn’t mean forever then doesn’t say God lives in a limited time diminishing His eternal existence?

Oh and the word dwell and lives comes the Hebrew word שָׁכַן which means to abide,dwell,inhabit,establish.


This might help:


Yes, in 1 Chronicles, 28:9, the Hebrew word from the Masoretic text (completed in the ninth century A.D) means “forever.” However, the Greek Septuagint translators of the Hebrew text (probably the more ancient form of Hebrew which was discovered in Cave 4 at Qumran) translated the word as “εις τελος.” This is the text that the writers of the New Testament used when quoting the Old Testament.

The phrase “εις τελος” means “until the end” or possibly “into the end.” But the end of what? Whatever the end is, it is an end! And not forever!


[tag]Paidion[/tag] so do you think that the Masoretes corrupted the OT texts in their translation or do you think it’s just a mistranslation like the Vulgate?


Well…maybe not much. Even the Hebrew text found in most of the Qumran caves weren’t all that different from the Masoretic text.
HOWEVER, the Hebrew text found in Cave 4 differed substantially. I haven’t studied Hebrew and so cannot read it. I am only going by what I have read about it. It seems that the Septuagint translators translated from a form of Hebrew very similar to that found in Cave 4.

So that’s why I think think the Septuagint from which the NT writers quoted, is closer to the original text than the Masoretic Hebrew text. If we had the the entire Old Testament in the form of the Hebrew text of Cave 4, that would probably be even closer.


Paidon already addressed the Greek LXX translation of 1 Chronicles 28:9, so i’ll focus on the Hebrew rendering.

The word in question is Strongs # 5703, AD. Like the Hebrew word OLAM (5769) it can refer to durations that are finite.

It is used in Hab.3:6. If the translators thought the word AD[5703] always meant “eternal” why would they have translated it as “ancient”, “perpetual” and “age-old” as they did here:

“ancient(AD) mountains crumbled” (NIV)
“the perpetual(AD) mountains were shattered” (NASB)
“The age-old mountains were shattered” (ISV)

Likewise, if the translators thought the word AD[5703] always meant “eternal” why would they have translated it as “perpetually” & “continually” as they did here:

“…and his anger did tear perpetually, and he kept his wrath for ever.” (Amos 1:11, JPS)
“…In their rage, they slashed them continually and were unrelenting in their anger.” (Amos 1:11, NIV)
“…His anger also tore continually…” (Amos 1:11, NASB)

Thus says Yahweh, Due to three transgressions of Edom, and due to four, I will not turn it back, due to his pursuing his brother with the sword,
since he ruins his own compassions. His anger is preying into the future[AD, 5703], and his rage, he keeps it permanently. [CLV, Amos 1:11]

One scholarly lexicon states:

“…As a rule the LXX translates AD as AION. Exceptions include EIS TELOS (1 Chr.28:9) EN KAIRO (Isa.64:8[9]) and APO TOU ETI (Job 20:4).”

(Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, TDOT, Vol.10, p.462, by Botterweck, G. Johannes, Ringgren, Helmer, Fabry, Heinz-Josef). … -testament

Bible scholar Spiros Zodhiates states in his lexicon:

“'AD (5703, which see) has about the same spectrum of meaning as OWLAM. The Septuagint generally translates OWLAM by AION (165), cf. NT lexical section, referring to a long age or period of time…” (Spiros Zodhaites, The Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, in the section Lexical Aids To The Old Testament, p. 1621)

“AD…meaning terminus, duration, advance, perpetuity, eternity…Hebrew had no special terms for the past, the present, the future, or eternity. There simply was no general word for time in that language…Only twice was AD used with regard to the past (Job 20:4; Hab.3:6). Otherwise it always denotes the unforseeable future” (p.1620).

Likewise from another well known lexicon:

“AD (q.v.) has substantially the same range of meaning as OLAM (usually long continuance into the future, but c.f. Job 20:4)” (Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, TWOT, Harris, Archer & Waltke, p.673): … -testament … 0802486495

Helena Keizer remarks in her PHD dissertation:

“…the Hebrew noun 'AD is consistently rendered in the LXX by aion. This indicates that 'AD is semantically related to OLAM.” (p.119).

“…JENNI (1976a)…lists as synonyms 'AD, DOR WADOR, OLAM and NETSACH.” (p.119, note 34)

"…Short as it is, the word 'AD turns out to be used as a more pointed and less descriptive counterpart of OLAM. Etymologically the noun is related to the homonymous preposition 'AD “unto”, “until”, “as long as” as well as to the root 'DH “to go on”, “to pass”. (p.120) … SmshbeyUsC

The aforementioned Hebrew language scholar Ernst Jenni remarks concerning AD being synonymous with OLAM, DOR WADOR & NESAH & DE OBED on page 855 of the lexicon “The Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament”, TLOT, by Jenni & Westermann: … -testament … 1565631331

The NAS Exhaustive Concordance definition is “perpetuity”. The NASB translates AD as perpetual, continually, old, etc…

“From adah; properly, a (peremptory) terminus, i.e. (by implication) duration, in the sense of advance or perpetuity (substantially as a noun, either with or without a preposition)” (Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance) at

The Brown Driver Briggs lexicon of the OT lists for AD “advancing time”, “of past time”, “of future time”, “during lifetime, of king”, etc. See:

A thought on the context of 1 Chr.28:9 is that it isn’t speaking about the after life or any “hell”, but of Solomon inheriting “the good land” (v.8), both him & his sons after him “unto the eon” (v.8):

And now, before the eyes of all Israel, the assembly of Jehovah, and in the ears of our God, keep and seek all the commands of Jehovah your God, so that ye possess this good land, and have caused your sons to inherit after you unto the age. (1 Chr.28:8, YLT)

Most translations say “forever” (1 Chr.28:8). How will the “good land” be inherited forever when it is going to pass away with the old earth (Rv.20-21)?

if thou seek him, he will be found of thee; but if thou forsake him, he will cast thee off for ever. (1 Chr.28:9b, KJV)

This passage (1 Chr.28:9) is about Solomon. Did he or anyone else in the Scriptures ever forsake the Lord & then come back to Him later? (If so, would that prove that the word AD in 1 Chr.28:9 does not mean “forever”?). For example, David, who committed premeditated adultery & murder? Or Peter who denied the Lord three times? Or those spoken of in 1 Cor.5:4,5 & 1 Tim.1:20? Was not OT Israel continually forsaking the Lord & then later returning to Him again?

I’d suggest 1 Chr.28:9 is more favorable to the UR viewpoint than the POV of those who delight in the “good news” of endless tortures.

Also that the pro ECT Bible versions are once again misleading & decieving the public, injecting their own theological biases into the Scriptures, just as they do with the words aion/ios & olam.

According to the Scriptures, God is Love Omnipotent, not a mythical deception infinitely worse than Hitler, Bin Laden & Satan combined.

Jer 15:14 in the ESV

Thank you guys you were a good help to me especially Origen. I was having a near panic attack and lost my appetite for a bit that day.


Yep, AHD like OLM doesn’t always mean never-ending continuance. It’s just a different metaphor for to-the-limit – a vertical metaphor, as far as I can tell, instead of a horizontal metaphor like OLM.

In this case we know it doesn’t mean forever, because Solomon did abandon the Lord, pretty hard, but he wasn’t cast off forever. No doubt this is why the Greek LXX compilers decided not to even translate the word with “into the eon” or more commonly “eonian”, but rather with “into completion”.


Another eternity word, {netsach}, can be found in Jeremiah 15, which has a similar warning: God says that even if Moses and Samuel pleaded for their lives, He wouldn’t spare impenient rebel Israel from four kinds of doom (deaths by blades, dogs, birds and beasts of the earth), making them an object of horror. Even a survivor in captivity (who describes himself as righteous but whom God still calls to repentance) regards his wound as incurable, refusing to be healed, and regards his pain as netsach.

Netsach has a sort of secondary metaphorical meaning for height as a poetic emphasis description: it’s referring to that which glitters far away, basically the stars. So the incurable wound refusing to be healed is a pain as deep as the starry skies, basically.

Despite this, YHWH promises “I will surely set you free for good (purposes)”, and their pagan oppressors, who are also sinners, will eventually be led to repent and to appeal to Israel for salvation after the pagans have been punished by God in turn. In the LXX, 15:19 features one of the uses of {apokatastasis} in the Bible, “If you return, I will restore you”. This restoration depends on a purgative/refining action of extracting the precious from the worthless.


Or maybe the modern translators mistranslated themselves?