To understand this, you need to think of the intuition behind the $\epsilon$-$\delta$ definition. We want $\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=L$ if we can make $f(x)$ as close to $L$ as we like by making $x$ sufficiently close to $a$. Worded differently, we might say that:
$\lim_{x\to a}f(x)=L$ if given any neighborhood $U$ of $L$, there is a neighborhood $V$ of $a$ such that elements of $V$ are mapped by $f$ to elements of $U$ (except possibly $a$ itself).
In this context, a "neighborhood" of a point $p$ should be understood to mean "points sufficiently close to $p$". Let's make that precise by defining what we mean by "close". For $\epsilon>0$ (assumed, but not required, to be very small) define
$$B(x,\epsilon):=\{y\,:\,|x-y|<\epsilon\},$$
the ball of radius $\epsilon$ about $x$. For our purposes, we say $U$ is a neighborhood of $x$ if $U=B(x,\epsilon)$ for some $\epsilon>0$. (The usual definition only requires that $U$ contains such a ball.) Assuming $\epsilon>0$ is very small, this agrees with our intuition of what closeness should mean. Now if we go back to our neighborhood "definition" of a limit, you should be able to think about it for a bit and convince yourself that it is equivalent to the usual definition.
How does this relate to the problem with infinity? Given that infinity is not a real number (and things like distance from infinity do not make sense), we must revise what it means to be "close" to infinity. So for $M>0$ (assumed this time to be very large) define
$$B(+\infty,M):=\{y\,:\,y>M\},\quad B(-\infty,M):=\{y\,:\,y<-M\},$$
the neighborhoods of $\pm\infty$. Hopefully you can see why these make sense as definitions; a number should be close to infinity if it is very large (with the correct sign), so a neighborhood of infinity should contain all sufficiently large numbers.
Now we extend our neighborhood definition of limits to include the case where $a$ or $L$ can be $\pm\infty$. It is a similar exercise to before to verify now that the definition is still equivalent to the old one, only now we have in some sense unified somewhat.
Let's analyse this logically, because what else do we do in mathematics?
There exists $\delta$ for all $\epsilon$
This entails that for some $\delta$ we have that it is independed of our $\epsilon$. That means if $\epsilon=1$ or $\epsilon=10^8$ we have the same $\delta$, which is bad because it can be suddenly at any difference. For example
$$f(x)=\sin x$$
we can have $\epsilon=2$ and clearly there exists a $\delta$ satesfying the criteria but equally clearly is it that it does encompasses all all points, so if we let $x\to 0$ we have it converges to all values in $[-1,1]$.
The key here is that $(\exists\delta)(\forall\epsilon)$ implies that if $\delta$ is thought of as a function of $\epsilon$ then $\delta(\epsilon)=C$, that is with respect to $\epsilon$ it's constant for that given value.
Best Answer
We first prove the forward ($\Rightarrow$) direction.Suppose $f$ meets your definition. Fix an $\epsilon>0$. Then for any interval of length $\epsilon$ centered at $a$ i.e. $(a-\epsilon, a+\epsilon)$ you know that $|f(x) - L|<\delta$ where $\delta$ is some fixed positive number now that we have chosen an epsilon.
Now note that for $x\in(a-\epsilon, a+\epsilon)$ $$|f(x)| = |f(x)+L-L|\leq |f(x)-L|+|L|\leq \delta +L$$
Conversely, let $\epsilon$ be given. Now $(a-\epsilon, a+\epsilon)$ is a bounded interval centered at $a$. So by hypothesis, $f$ is bounded on this interval. This means that $\exists \delta>0$ such that $|f(x)|<\delta$. Since $L$ is any real number, we can let $L = 0$ so this is just the same thing as $|f(x)-L| <\delta$.
$\color{blue}{\text{Does this help?}}$