What is unambiguous is that you are not actually referencing what ancient languages mean. You are using ENGLISH. “Until” or “til” in ancient languages did not have the nuance you give it.
This has been proved here at FR countless times. Here is an example from 2003:
Before I proceed, again, let me explain why this is important. Eric Svendsen claims that the use of “heos hou” in Matthew 1:25 (which is translated by the English word “until” in the sentence “...he knew her not until she bore a son”), is a special Greek phrase that terminates the action of the main clause “knew her not.” In other words, Svendsen claims that Joseph’s state of “not knowing Mary” terminated at the point when Mary bore Jesus, which means that Mary, according to Svendsen, had sexual relations with Joseph after Jesus was born. Svendsen makes this claim because, as he has continually boasted over the last few years, EVERY reference to “heos hou” in the time period under discussion (100 B. C. to 100 A.D.) shows that “heos hou” terminates that action of the main clause, never continues it. If “heos hou” continued the action of the main clause, then it would mean Joseph’s “not knowing Mary” would continue beyond the birth of Jesus, which would mean that Joseph and Mary never had sexual relations.
As a side note, Svendsen admits that the Greek word “heos” (“until”), used by itself, can either terminate or continue the action of the main clause. But it is his contention that when “heos” is coupled with “hou” in the phrase “heos hou” in the period under discussion, it NEVER continues the action of the main clause. He admits that prior to and after the period of 100 B.C to 100 A.D. “heos hou” was sometimes used to continue the action of the main clause, but that for some reason (which he never really explains) the meaning of “heos hou” which allowed a continuation of the main clause suddenly dropped out of existence. It just so happens that Matthew’s gospel was written in this particular time period.
Now, let me continue with the November 18th debate. As I stated above, Mr. Matatics provided a reference, between the years of 100 B.C. and 100 A.D, in which “heos hou” continued the action of the main verb. Here is the reference he gave:
And Aseneth was left alone with the seven virgins, and she continued to be weighed down and weep UNTIL the sun set. And she ate no bread and drank no water. And the night fell, and all (people) in the house slept, and she alone was awake and continued to brood and to weep; and she often struck her breast with (her) hand and kept being filled with great fear and trembled (with) heavy trembling.
First, the reference for this comes from the work of C. Burchard, in the story titled “Joseph and Aseneth,” which is found in the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. Vol. 2, Expansions of the Old Testament and Legends, Wisdom and Philosophical Literature, Prayers, Psalms, and Odes, Fragments of Lost Judeo-Hellenistic Works, ed. James H.Charlesworth, p. 215. New York: Doubleday, 1985.
Second, the word “UNTIL” in the clause “weep UNTIL the sun set” is the Greek phrase “heos hou.” You will notice if you read the sentence in context that Aseneth cried until the sun went down, but she continued to cry way into the night when everyone else was asleep. Here we have a classic case of “heos hou” continuing the action of the main clause, for the context itself tells us there is no other possibility. There are only two available choices: either “heos hou” terminates the action of the main clause, or continues it. It certainly does not terminate it in this incident, otherwise, Aseneth would have stopped crying and not continued when the sun set.
Thus, Mr. Matatics, in one fell swoop, has discredited the whole thesis of Eric Svendsen (which is the essence of the whole debate on November 18, if you were listening carefully). Svendsen had boasted that there were no such references to “heos hou” continuing the action of the main verb. He knew that if his opponents found just ONE reference that contradicted his boast, Svendsen’s entire argument would fall like a house of cards. Opponents didn’t need a dozen references. They only needed one, and that one reference would be the magic bullet. It is the magic bullet that totally discredits Svendsen’s entire doctoral dissertation, for the whole dissertation essentially boils down to the meaning of “heos hou” in the time period under discussion. If you were listening closely to the debate, it was at this point that Svendsen grew conspicuously quiet in the debate, and didn’t raise his voice again until near the end by trying to capitalize on a point that James White was challenging of Matatics.
Sensing that Matatics shot that magic bullet into the heart of Svendsen at 7:55 pm, James White went into his famous misdirection tactic. As soon as White realized that Matatics provided the needed reference to discredit the whole “heos hou” thesis of Svendsen, and noticed that Svendsen did not have an answer for Matatics, White then asked Gerry: “Does the New Testament have any such examples?”
Now, let me tell you what White’s question really means. It means that White either doesn’t know the essence of Svendsen’s thesis, or, he indeed does know it, but tried to cover for Svendsen. Svendsen’s thesis, as I stated above, is that in NON New Testament writings, between the dates of 100 B.C and 100 A.D, there is no usage of “heos hou” which continues the main clause of a Greek sentence. Since White couldn’t argue against the evidence Matatics provided of a Non New Testament source using “heos hou” to continue the action, White quickly jumped to the New Testament and asserted to Matatics that if he couldn’t find such a usage in the New Testament then Matatics’s argument was invalid.
Eric Svendsen should be ashamed, and James White should apologize to Svendsen, for Svendsen’s whole thesis is that the Non New Testament literature contains no such references of “heos hou” continuing the action of the main clause. The very challenge that Svendsen has been boasting about for years, Matatics indeed answered, and White knew it, and thus White tried to misdirect the audience to think that Matatics failed unless he also showed that “heos hou” in the New Testament continued the action of the main clause. But he didn’t fail. He actually succeeded in discrediting Svendsen’s whole thesis. Any evidence Gerry would have given from the New Testament would simply have been icing on the cake.
This tactic of White’s is extremely dishonest and hypocritical, especially since he, about five minutes later, began ranting and raving at Matatics on another topic of contention, saying “Gerry, that is absolutely grossly inaccurate!” Yet White, five minutes prior, had given the audience one of the grossest ploys and coverups I have ever seen anyone attempt in an open debate.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1025045/posts
“My daddÿ fought in the army where he lost his right eye, he flew a flag in our yard til the day that he died”
Toby Keith Courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue
‘til doesn’t mean he went out and took the flag down after he died.