My agreement doesn’t alter at all the facts I’ve established… you have to consider the benefit of placation to where a minor nuance isn’t a threat to the main point having already been made. 
No, it doesn’t, davey. As Paidon already pointed out & you willfully ignored:
“Paul used a form of “μελλω” in 2 Timothy 4:1. And yes, that word often means “about to” or to be on the point of doing something. But the word ALSO means “to INTEND to” do something.”
Did you get that. Here it is again, in case you missed it the first two times: “But the word ALSO means “to INTEND to” do something.” "
Moreover, even in the Pantelistic/FP heresies’ 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 “about to” 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)
‘Having 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.’ (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 “ready” to die. That doesn’t mean it’s going to happen imminently. It may not occur for another 10 decades.
God has been “ready” to judge humanity since before Adam even existed.
Perhaps you should consider that you’re 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 “ready” (HETOIMOS, Strongs # 2093).
Your answer with the verse Luke 7:2 uses the word “ready” (EMELLON, Strong’s # 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 I’ll just let you go. 
There’s 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 let’s apply Paidion’s principle, with which I agree…
Thank you, Davo. I think I found it. I went through all the posts. I noted that you agreed with Chad that “all are saved.” Then in reply to the question,"What are we saved from? you replied, “From a Godless eternity.”
So if Jesus hadn’t 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 doesn’t even exist. Or WOULD it exist if Jesus HADN’T died for everyone?
Or does God hate mankind so much that He normally would send them to a Godless eternity, but now He won’t since He satisfied His wrath by taking His anger out on His Son—having 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 doesn’t hold any wicked actions against anyone as far as eternity is concerned. Concerning eternity with God, it doesn’t matter whether people sacrificially serve others at their own expense, or whether they serve only themselves at everyone else’s expense. Is that what you believe? If not, please spell out your beliefs about salvation more precisely.
Evidence of what…reading one’s theology into the Bible instead of taking one’s theology from it?
Your other two Pantelistic proof texting “witnesses” were shot down in flames. This is strike three:
“Here “the coming of the Lord” (like simply “the Lord” in Philippians) is said to be “at hand”. What does this mean? We have seen that the term “coming” is used in different senses in Scripture. The Old Testament prophets often speak of the Lord “coming” 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 “the coming of the Lord” spoken of in James (and implied in Philippians) is a coming of Christ’s judgement upon his enemies.”
“We have also observed that the prophet Daniel uses the term “coming” in a specific context to which the New Testament often alludes. Daniel speaks of the “coming” of “One like the Son of Man”, 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 Christ’s ascension and reception of his kingdom. In this case, they would probably be referring to the destruction of Jerusalem, an event that would vindicate Jesus’ messianic claims and prove that he had received his kingdom.”
“A third kind of “coming” 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 “nearness” to describe events that did not occur for centuries.” 63
“…There 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-preterism”.
“63. See chapter 3 of this volume for more on the idea of prophetic delay.”
“When Shall These Things Be? A Reformed Response To Hyper-Preterism”, ed. Keith A Mathison, c 2004, 376 pags, p.201-202)
“…this 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 world’s redemptive future.” 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 horse’s mouth seems to explain your true position on this better…
Just for the exercise I thought I might try YOUR trick of cut n’ paste…
Marvellous… as per usual you are devoid of any real knowledge yourself and typically RELIANT on others. Of the entire post above a whole 2 lines of mind-numbing thought are yours — bravo good going! HOWEVER… of the entire post the ONLY part making any logical sense is where you quote ME, again — bravo good going!
You Pantelists here aren’t giving me the impression you take Scripture or life seriously. Why should you when you accept & or lean to the position that everyone - even child molestors - goes straight to heaven at death? And labour continually to oppose the post mortem consequences for how people live this life that Scripture clearly teaches.
Ultra Universalism Refuted:
viewtopic.php?f=12&t=7508
Such puerile foolishness… perhaps it is you who actually has myopia. Let me repeat my reply to you on the very first page of your link above…