Yes, Paul used a form of âΌΔλλÏâ in 2 Timothy 4:1. And yyes, that word often means âabout toâ or to be on the point of doing something. But the word ALSO means âto INTEND toâ do something.
Peter who also wrote of God judging the living and the dead (1 Peter 4:5), did not use âΌΔλλÏ.â He used âΔÏÎżÎčÎŒÏÏ,â a word that means âready.â
Consider the following passage:
Was Jesus addressing the all the people who were alive at that time as a faithless and perverse generation? Or was He addressing His own peopleâthe Jewish people?
âPeter who also wrote of God judging the living and the dead (1 Peter 4:5), did not use âΌΔλλÏ.â He used âΔÏÎżÎčÎŒÏÏ,â a word that means âready.ââ YES and⊠
THIS just confirms there are two words or witnesses showing the IMMEDIACY of their expectation⊠as per what Jesus said was on THEIR horizon. THIS further establishes the point already made and made elsewhereâŠ
More evidence!!
My agreement doesnât alter at all the facts Iâve established⊠you have to consider the benefit of placation to where a minor nuance isnât a threat to the main point having already been made. 
No, it doesnât, davey. As Paidon already pointed out & you willfully ignored:
âPaul used a form of âΌΔλλÏâ in 2 Timothy 4:1. And yes, that word often means âabout toâ or to be on the point of doing something. But the word ALSO means âto INTEND toâ do something.â
Did you get that. Here it is again, in case you missed it the first two times: âBut the word ALSO means âto INTEND toâ do something.â "
Moreover, even in the Pantelistic/FP heresiesâ interpretations MELLO must refer to a period of - at least - 40 years in the Scriptures (e.g. Mt.16:27). Well, if a time 40 years later means âabout toâ occur, then why not extend it to 200 or 2000 years.
Your argument from the word MELLO is thus shown to be refuted in multiple ways.
But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. (2 Pet.3:8)
How long do you suppose MELLO was in these passages:
By faith Abraham, being called, did obey, to go forth to the place that he was about to receive for an inheritance, and he went forth, not knowing whither he doth go; (Heb.11:8, YLT)
âHaving obtained, therefore, help from God, till this day, I have stood witnessing both to small and to great, saying nothing besides the things that both the prophets and Moses spake of as about to come, that the Christ is to suffer, whether first by a rising from the dead, he is about to proclaim light to the people and to the nations.â (Acts 26:22-23, YLT)
Perhaps we need a song?..To clarify the Preterist use of Mello? 
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFulrXLSZjE[/youtube]
It confirms nothing.
A ten year old may be âreadyâ to die. That doesnât mean itâs going to happen imminently. It may not occur for another 10 decades.
God has been âreadyâ to judge humanity since before Adam even existed.
Perhaps you should consider that youâre reading your theology into the Bible, rather than letting Scripture form your theology.
Is that right 
In-kind with your own theology⊠you should maybe dog-paddle back to the shallow end. 
My comment you replyied to above was regarding 1 Peter 4:5 which uses the word âreadyâ (HETOIMOS, Strongs # 2093).
Your answer with the verse Luke 7:2 uses the word âreadyâ (EMELLON, Strongâs # 3195).
So other than being off topic, & confused, what was your point again? Perhaps you can use plain English next time instead of Pantelism code + Kangaroo furphy talk ;
I wonder if the more seasoned following along want me to point out the immature idiocy of both your comments and your atrocious and inept grasp of the Greek⊠I think Iâll just let you go. 
Thereâs the real davo i know. The true fruits of Pantelism.
Guilty as charged⊠I do have to try harder at suffering fools.
Surely you have noticed that even in English, two different words are often used for the same concept.
To aid in settling your own cacophony of confusion letâs apply Paidionâs principle, with which I agreeâŠ
Thank you, Davo. I think I found it. I went through all the posts. I noted that you agreed with Chad that âall are saved.â Then in reply to the question,"What are we saved from? you replied, âFrom a Godless eternity.â
So if Jesus hadnât died to save everyone, would God have sent everyone to a Godless eternity? However, since Christ did die for all, NO ONE goes to a Godless eternity? This seems to imply that a Godless eternity doesnât even exist. Or WOULD it exist if Jesus HADNâT died for everyone?
Or does God hate mankind so much that He normally would send them to a Godless eternity, but now He wonât since He satisfied His wrath by taking His anger out on His Sonâhaving His Son crucified, so that we all get off scot free, and get to spend eternity with God no matter how we live here on earth, whether we are loving and provide for needy people or whether we murder or torture little girls. For God doesnât hold any wicked actions against anyone as far as eternity is concerned. Concerning eternity with God, it doesnât matter whether people sacrificially serve others at their own expense, or whether they serve only themselves at everyone elseâs expense. Is that what you believe? If not, please spell out your beliefs about salvation more precisely.
Evidence of whatâŠreading oneâs theology into the Bible instead of taking oneâs theology from it?
Your other two Pantelistic proof texting âwitnessesâ were shot down in flames. This is strike three:
âHere âthe coming of the Lordâ (like simply âthe Lordâ in Philippians) is said to be âat handâ. What does this mean? We have seen that the term âcomingâ is used in different senses in Scripture. The Old Testament prophets often speak of the Lord âcomingâ in judgement upon a particular nation (e.g., Isa. 19:1; 31:4; 35:4; 66:15; Mic. 1:3-5). These comings in judgement occurred centuries before Christ, and did not involve a literal coming of God from heaven to earth. It is possible, therefore, that âthe coming of the Lordâ spoken of in James (and implied in Philippians) is a coming of Christâs judgement upon his enemies.â
âWe have also observed that the prophet Daniel uses the term âcomingâ in a specific context to which the New Testament often alludes. Daniel speaks of the âcomingâ of âOne like the Son of Manâ, but this coming is a coming of the Son of Man up to the Ancient of Days to receive his kingdom (Dan.7:13-14). Jesus alludes to this passage a number of times in the Gospels. If Philippians and James are also alluding to Daniel 7, then they are referring to something connected with Christâs ascension and reception of his kingdom. In this case, they would probably be referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, an event that would vindicate Jesusâ messianic claims and prove that he had received his kingdom.â
âA third kind of âcomingâ is the return of Jesus to earth that is described in Acts 1:11. In this passage, two men in white tell the apostle that Jesus will come in the same manner that they saw him go into heaven. The emphasis in this passage is on a visible, bodily, and personal return of Jesus from heaven to earth to be with his people. This coming has not occurred yet, so it is unlikely that either Philippians or James is referring to the return of Jesus. However, it must also be remembered that the Old Testament prophets regularly used terms implying ânearnessâ to describe events that did not occur for centuries.â 63
ââŠThere are a number of possible interpretations for some of these texts, but regardless of which exegetical option one considers to be most likely, there is nothing in any of these texts that demands hyper-preterismâ.
â63. See chapter 3 of this volume for more on the idea of prophetic delay.â
âWhen Shall These Things Be? A Reformed Response To Hyper-Preterismâ, ed. Keith A Mathison, c 2004, 376 pags, p.201-202)
ââŠthis book is a good starting point for people who are finding themselves tempted by the quasi-Gnostic, neo-Hymenaean, anti-authoritarian, hyper-spiritualizing, history-ignoring gangrene which is hyperpreterism and all of its attendant bleak outlooks on the (lack of) this worldâs redemptive future.â amazon.com/When-Shall-These ⊠0875525520
I concur.
Rev 1:7 indicates that when Jesus returns EVERY eye will see Him. In A.D. 70, NO eye saw Him.
Straight from the horseâs mouth seems to explain your true position on this betterâŠ