@RevelationLad It's not clear to me this is correct. The only translation wrt the KJV of 'worlds' is in Hebrews. That's not good evidence for a translation choice. The KJV translates the singular (aion) as 'world' quite often, but look at all the usages. ...

First one listed. "neither in this world, G165 neither in the world to come." 'world to come' sounds a whole more like 'age' than material creation. At best, this is a debatable point, it seems to me. Run through the various verses.

That is why Deuble should look at the lexicon. It lists several works where that is the meaning.

@RevelationLad Can you be more specific? I'm pretty sure Deuble has looked at the lexicon.

@RevelationLad The question isn't whether KJV translates aion as 'world' at certain points - it's whether the Greek actually means 'the material universe' or whatever.

Hebrews 11:3 uses the plural and speaks of worlds being framed. Spiritual as Deuble claims? A stretch IMO.

Thayers cites many of the extra Biblical references in support of the meaning of material. If you are interested you can use the link and see them.

@RevelationLad Well, should it be 'ages' or 'universe' there? It's not clear to me. It requires a contextual argument at Heb 11:3.

Not that which is purely spiritual

@RevelationLad Deuble's use of 'spiritual' is ambiguous, but it's a secondary point and I don't think too much should be put on it. His basic point is it doesn't refer to the material universe.

@RevelationLad Rather, it refers to periods of time.

Is there a Biblical way to measure time that does not involve the material world?

@RevelationLad Presumably the ages involve the material world in some way. ?

@RevelationLad Stepping back, I think the bigger question is whether you think John 1 and various texts in Paul are talking about Genesis creation through the Son. If so Hebrews just fits into that pattern. If not, then there isn't a contextual argument for translating it 'universe'. Most translators assume John 1 and so on is about the Son creating the universe.

Yes. So in what what way can the “ages” be made absent a material aspect?

Deuble is intentionally misrepresenting what the text states

@RevelationLad The ages are formed or made of course involve matter. I don't see how this contradicts what Deuble is saying. ?

Really?

@RevelationLad It depends on how 'epoiesen' is working in the sentence. Does it mean 'made' as in Genesis creation? Or 'formed' as in changing the playing out of history?

Here is the quote you place in your answer: “In verse 2, we read that through Jesus, God (literally) "made the ages" (aionas). Many versions translate this phrase as "created the universe," even though this rendering is without literary precedent. In the Bible, the Greek word aion never refers to the material creation. On the contrary, it is a spiritual concept.”

@RevelationLad Yes?

Notice Deuble claims the singular aion never refers to the material world. Patently false in both the Bible and extra-Biblical works.

@RevelationLad Where does 'aion' refer to material creation in the Bible?

Acts 3:21

Where you try to salvage Deuble's lie by looking at the singular

Also Hebrews 11:3 which is impossible to represent as a spiritual concept

@RevelationLad Which translation interprets aionos in Acts 3:21 as material creation? It just means 'long ago'.

In addition to the Unitarian REV you can check out others here: biblegateway.com/verse/en/Acts%203:21

@RevelationLad This is just wrong. ?

@RevelationLad Please be specific.

Can't be any more specific. The lexicons list many places where Deuble's claim of being "without literary precedent" is either a blatant lie or a statement made in utter ignorance of early Christina literature. Making a claim this is a spiritual concept only displays an astonishing ignorance of God's work as described throughout Scripture which is always done in the material world.

@RevelationLad I'm sorry, this is just wrong. Acts 3:21 isn't a good example. Every translation I've looked at translates it 'long ago' or something similar.

@RevelationLad Not sure why you're carrying on like this.

@OnlyTrueGod Carrying on? You posted a question which you then answered. Your answer starts with the quote from Jeff Deuble's book, a quote which is clearly wrong. He denigrates translations by saying aion never refers to the material creation, which you bolded. He also says aion is a "spiritual concept." Which is also not supported by the lexicons.

So it appears you put forth a question for the purpose of promoting information which is obviously wrong and misleading. Is that how Biblical Unitarianism works? Just make up claims to deny what the Scripture says?

@RevelationLad Again, I asked you for specific verses to support your claim. You gave Acts 3:21, which just means 'long ago', and doesn't mean the universe.

@RevelationLad I'm not sure why you're so upset about this. Deuble might be wrong, but I'm almost certain he's not lying. You can't say aionas means universe, and cite lexicons that cite ... Heb. 1:2! That's circular.

@RevelationLad FWIW, Deuble suffered a large personal cost to going Trinitarian -> Unitarian. He's not lying or making stuff up to intentionally mislead people - he genuinely believes what he's saying.

@RevelationLad No, I put forth a question to see what people say. Anyone can answer it. I then went and looked to see in various books if there was something better than in the REV, and found Deuble's take on it.