Back on the original topic, I think the apparent number of apparent non-UR passages comes from the following factors:
1.) The terminology around eon is applied less broadly (except when conveniently not on these topics!) than its usage overall would otherwise allow. This at least neutralizes a number of key passages which then opens up other possibilities: even if the neutralization still technically allows non-UR interpretations, they can’t just be prooftexted as a lock anymore.
2.) A lot of the statements are talking about death before the general resurrection, and so simply aren’t on the expected topic at all. (This is particularly a problem for Anni proponents but I’ve seen ECT proponents prooftext things of this sort, too.)
3.) Related to (2), It’s easy to ignore or discount as a factor, especially when prooftexting, that God (and/or inspired commentary) can be emphasizing a situation and its penalty without necessarily excluding further situations. The most absurd version of this factor I’ve seen was when a Calvinist cited all of some minor prophet to me daring me to find any universal salvation in it, with the idea that if there wasn’t then UR couldn’t be true. I reported that not only couldn’t I find any UR in it, neither could I find any indication of the coming Messiah, nor that God would save any sinners at all only people who were already righteous; and moreover that the next minor prophet showed no evidence of God saving even any righteous or innocent people at all but rather destroying everyone. By his logic then he should be a nihilistic non-Christian Jew who expects God to hopelessly destroy all people, since there’s nothing Christian per se in either of those two minor prophets. There are smaller examples, too, and just as importantly there are easy counter-examples of the same supposed principle which would be ludicrous “evidence” against non-UR beliefs, which no non-UR proponent would ever reasonably accept against ECT or Anni (nor should they).
4.) Ancient Near-Middle Eastern cultural idiom should be taken into account, which is often hyperbolic for emphasis purposes, like whole populations being apparently genocided off… aannnnd then they show up perfectly fine later. This is standard rhetorical coloring for the culture (and for neighboring cultures, too). A similar example would be the king in the Matt 18 parable of the unforgiving steward who declares the embezzler will be sold into slavery with all his family, but then doesn’t do this; and when the embezzler is punished after all, there’s no indication his family takes the hit either. Why? – because by the standards of the day, the king is staking out a position for bargaining, not making a fiat and final pronouncement (even though he could do that, so the threat isn’t only a bluff). What audiences would have found surprising was that the embezzler doesn’t try to haggle but throws himself immediately on the king’s mercy – and then they’d be more shocked that the king accepts this plea immediately! (Which then sets up cultural context for the king’s eventual judgement on the unmerciful servant.)
5.) The Matt 18 unforgiving servant parable is a highly obvious example of something I’ve found to be a lot more subtly but also a lot more frequently prevalent in the Gospels (and less occasionally in the OT) when looking at non-UR prooftexts: a high proportion of apparently hopeless punishment declarations from Jesus, turn out to be character tests for His followers, along the line of Nathaniel’s “Thou art the man” to King David. (Jesus throws these at the Pharisees more obviously, too, but it isn’t often appreciated that He regarded them as erring chief servants, so the pattern still fits.) If his audience is nodding along at those people being, apparently, hopelessly zorched for something, it then turns out that they’re being punished for insisting that someone else should be hopelessly punished and/or never saved (especially from their sins) – which again the parable of the unforgiving servant is highly obvious about. Insisting that the punishments are hopeless puts us in the position of the unforgiving servant or the Pharisees who agreed that the king shall certainly be killing those murderers or the Pharisees who insisted that God would not save someone whose last state was worse than their former or the baby goats, the least of Christ’s flock, who thought they were serving Christ the whole time but who refused to save the least of Christ’s flock from various situations (typical of punishment by God) into which they themselves will be put – so should we interpret their punishment the way baby goats would, or the way the mature flock who follow the Shepherd would? (Paul does much the same gotcha switch in judgment from Rom 1 into Rom 2 when he expects his audience to be expecting him to be talking about those filthy pagan sinners over there being zorched – but they themselves are under the same judgment, and actually even moreso for expecting God to be unmerciful toward those other people.)
This factor is a huge reductor in the apparently greater number of non-UR texts. Its bolstered and complimented by frequent testimony in the OT to the effect that if you’re called by God to punish someone else, you better damn well be merciful about it or you’re setting yourself up to be zorched the same way for being unmerciful about it!
6.) Another huge reductor, sometimes parallel with (5), is just immediate, local, and extended context, putting together and harmonizing more of the story. Jude looks like things are hopeless for Sodom and for anyone (including rebel angels) punished along the same line; but extended context shows Sodom gets reconciled with slain rebel Israel and both reconciled to God eventually. Local and even immediate contexts of prooftexts often show God reconciling the people He has punished, even to death, after they learn their lesson and repent; God even goes back on the most final sounding statements this way. Those people will never be forgiven and will never even be resurrected – annnnd then they will be after all a chapter later, and everyone will live happily ever after. (I’m thinking offhand of some statements in Hosea, but there are some other examples of this extreme flipflop scattered around the OT.) This factor seems to apply most to the OT, and when applied will often result in uncovering a TON more testimony in the OT for bodily resurrection than is typically thought by scholars nowadays (Christian and otherwise). But it shows up occasionally in the NT, too: Jesus by report in GosJohn 8 prophecies that His opponents (who have all the advantages and who should definitely know better and whom Jesus could have reasonably been expecting to support Him but willfully aren’t out of spiritual pride) shall definitely be dying in their sins for refusing to believe He is “I AM”. …annnd then they will also definitely be knowing Him (in the positive and intimate sense of knowing) as “I AM” later. Non-UR prooftexting evidence will focus on the first part and completely ignore or discount the second part. But the second part at least strongly implies that the first part isn’t hopelessly final after all. Or in a more immediate-context example, non-UR prooftexts from GosJohn 6 about resurrecting to judgment instead of to eonian life, will typically ignore or discount the immediate statement for the goal and purpose of this resurrection to judgment: so that those who do not honor the Son and the Father shall come to honor the Son and the Father, where honoring is obviously connected to coming out of death and into eonian life. Which of course is why the context is ignored or discounted, because if the judged people did come to honor God (which the context indicates is certain) then they’d be saved from their sins after all which from the scope of the statements would logically entail universal salvation.
I may be missing some factors, but I’m still sleepy and I have ‘work’ work to do. Just wanted to opine in.
(And some other claimed factors I don’t agree with, but I’m not going to opine on those. )