The Bible speaks of two ages, and Neville insists they are not two halves of a life. This age is not from the cradle to the grave; it is a stretch of time - six thousand years, the span of Blake’s vision of his deadly sleep - in which past, present and future co-exist and are met by us moment after moment, though seen from above they exist all at once, as the earth exists all at once for one who has risen above it. He names the two: **this age is the age of death, that age is the age of immortality, of eternal life** - or, put the other way at 1283, this age is the age of death while that age is the age of the resurrected, and you cannot enter the new age until you are a son of the resurrection. A philological point travels with it and is part of the argument: where our Bibles say that the sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, Neville says the Greek is far better rendered **procreate and are born** - so the mark of this age is not the institution of marriage but generation itself, and those accounted worthy of that age neither procreate nor are born, for they cannot die any more. The gap between the two ages is the one the rich man found and could not cross in the parable of Lazarus, and it remains until God in his mercy brings a man from this age of sin and death up to that age. Distinguish from M802 (the Sadducees' question, which is the episode this doctrine is drawn from) and from M867 (the days of Messiah, which is the interval on either side of the resurrection). The attach lead reports 'that age' in 36 lecture passages and 'two ages' in 5, with M802 holding only those that cite Luke 20 or the sons of the resurrection. PROVENANCE: coined 2026-09-20 OUT OF SEQUENCE from attach-lane evidence rather than from my own chronological read. Attacher 4 reported the gap and I chose 1229 for the canonical because it names both ages outright and supplies the six-thousand-year frame. I read the passages before coining but have not read those lectures whole. The architect ruled out-of-sequence coining acceptable on this condition (PM 6056); occurrence confidence is 0.95 rather than 0.99 for that reason.