Please don't mistake my case as an appeal to the majority, I mainly wanted to posit that an alternate reading can be a valid, and that it is the most accepted opinion among commentators and translations. If you were to acknowledge this then we could discuss further... and maybe you have so I'll try not to appeal to that any further.
By saying the original is ambiguous I was saying that both your and my interpretations are valid. Regarding whether
xronos can mean "delay" I still have my doubts, but obviously much greater scholars than I believe it can. I'd have to do a full bore study to find out, and my reference books are in Japan. To get your interpretation without the word "delay" you can translate "There will be no more time."
I really don't think that all of chapter 10 and the 'mystery' is about the ending of the 'space-time continuum'. Anyway, moving on... You use the phrase "...and space/time as we know it will cease to exist." I would have no problem with accepting this claim. The use of "as we know it" seems to be an equivocation since it is a far cry from arguing that space/time of any fashion will cease to exist as it seems that you have been arguing. Is this a shift or did I misunderstand your previous view? These discussions can easily be misunderstood so I'm just seeking to clarify my understanding.
Peace.
I haven't meant to say that there will be no space-time continuum in eternity, so I haven't communicated very well. (I originally quoted Rev. 10:6 about God existing outside of time.)
What do we know about the physical state of eternity?
(1) There will be a new Heaven and earth, including the New Jerusalem. They will be perfect, so the 2nd law of thermodynamics (and maybe many other "natural laws") will be repealed. What does that mean about time? I don't know, but it certainly won't be time as we know it.
(2) What God has prepared has never been thought of by us humans (1 Cor. 2:9). I know some say this can't mean the afterlife due to the Corinthian context, but looking at the OT source I think it can (Is. 64:4).
This is a minor part of the discussion to me, but I've enjoyed discussing it with you and I think you've made some good points. My view is by no means set in concrete. I might change it tomorrow. :smilewinkgrin: