In Mark iii. 29, the passage, according to the Greek, is: "He that shall
blaspheme against the Holy Spirit hath not forgiveness all through the
aion (age), but is in danger of aionial judgment (i.e., the judgment
of an age)."

The translators have rendered this: "He that shall blaspheme against the
Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness (i.e., not forgiveness forever), but
is in danger of eternal damnation."

In this case, it will be seen that they have imported the idea of
unendingness into the word [Greek: aion] and the idea of "eternal" into
its adjective, [Greek: aionios].

In Matthew xiii. 39, the passage, according to the Greek is: "The
harvest is the end of the aion (age);" and in 2 Tim. iv. 10: "Demas hath
forsaken me, having loved the present aion (age)."

The translators have rendered these passages: "The harvest is the end of
the world." "Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world."
In these cases, it will be seen that they have rightly excluded the idea
of unendingness from the word [Greek: aion]. But why? we ask. If it was
right to include it in Mark iii. 29, it was wrong to exclude it in the
two last-named passages. Then why exclude it? The answer is, that it
would have been too utterly foolish to translate Matthew xiii. 39, as
"The harvest is the end of the forever," and 2 Tim. iv. 10, as "Demas
hath forsaken me, having loved the present eternity"--and so the
translators in these instances gave the word its true signification.

But can it, we ask, be right to treat language in this way--to make a
word mean one thing to serve the purposes of a doctrinal idea, and to