Thank you for the input. For me the general understanding of atonement is not at issue. I believe I have a grasp on that. Even with the referenced links and the other passages of scripture (I also hold to the principle of scripture interpreting scripture and the difficult is given light by the less difficult), the interpretative problem is not properly solved for me.
Part of the problem is the way it is handled by many exegetes. I think they fail to follow these important steps
1. What is the individual who is speaking or writing actually saying in this particular passage in this specific context at this particular moment?
2. Once this has been established, then and only then, the rest of scripture can be brought in to give clarity if clarity is needed.
3. Too many times, exegetes bypass step 1 and rather than say,"...here is what the author seems to be saying in this specific context..." they jump immediately to other passages to try and protect their position, before simply stating what the author is saying or seems to be saying first.
4. Peter really does appear to be saying that the false prophets have been redeemed or bought by Jesus even though they are denying him. I have found no simple explanation that makes clear sense (although other passages make Limited Atonement very clear) therefore, I know what it is not saying from the rest of scripture. Peter cannot be teaching Universal Atonement.
The explanation (although I do not necessarily believe it) may be as simple as this, they have indeed been bought, but this has not been revealed to them yet, they are speaking as unregenerate elect, from the perspective of unconverted false prophets, much like Saul who was not yet Paul. The destruction may be something in their here and now to bring them to their elect realization and to a place they no longer preach such heresies. To me that is a good an interpretation as any I have heard or read. I think this particular verse will always be left in an imperfect exegetical state for me. Thank you.... Michael