That is a different issue, and I agree that there were past “ages” (plural) and a future “age to come” (singular). The “ages” are past and we are presently in the “age to come”.
However, you were the one denying that Heb. 9:26 was referring to the "end of the ages" (plural) wrt Christ's coming to put away sin for His redeemed.
I take it now that you have backed away from that position.
The first half would be called "the beginning of the ages [aeons]" and
Where is this language used in Scripture? You seem to be wanting to twist things just enough to some end. Perhaps it futurist presuppositions getting the best of you.
But Paul writes in Ephesians 2:7: "...that in the ages to come ..." --- that's plural, He was writing in the "age to come" about still more "ages" yet to come.
However, you were the one denying that Heb. 9:26 was referring to the "end of the ages" (plural) wrt Christ's coming to put away sin for His redeemed.
No I wasn't. Reread my responses to you. I questioned your implication that the "ages" ended there in the 1st century --- which you now admit they didn't.
Furthermore you have now taken a bold leap toward the dispensational position by finally realizing that there were "ages" [aeons] charted out by the Scriptures, and what the Scripture calls "ages [aeons]", others often refer to as "dispensations". Sshhhhh ---- I won't tell anybody if you don't.