It easily could have been distributed in that time frame. There is no evidence that he would have had trouble getting it off the island. And if there were some trouble, God could have overcome it.
Originally Posted by Twospirits
But your comment brings up a very interesting irony. Suppose some futurist finally figures out what Revelation is really all about. What good would that do? With a 2000 year history of confused, contradictory, and false interpretations, the "true one" that is finally figured out won't be believed by hardly anyone but the person who discovered it and so would not serve as a "warning" at all. So what good is it? No one would get "warned" of anything because the "true interpretation" would be lost in an ocean of error. And given the speculative nature of futurist interpretations, how could anyone have any confidence that any one of them is correct?
Ha! I love your last line.
Originally Posted by Twospirits
I see your appeal to Paul, and raise it with an appeal to Peter who almost certainly read the book of Revelation. Or if not, then he received a very similar revelation that used exactly the same words (letter for letter) found nowhere else in Scripture. I gave the evidence for this in the thread Did the Apostle Peter read the Book of Revelation? where I list many close parallels which just happen to be centered on the idea of the "tribulation" predicted to happen to the first century believers in the Olivet Discourse.
Your interpretation of "perilous times shall come" is tailored to fit your Futurist paradigm. The times were already "perilous" at the time Paul wrote. There is no reason to think that Paul was talking about the distant future. On the contrary, he was explaining that they could know the end was upon them BECAUSE they knew that perilous times would come in the end time. We see exactly the same thing in John's letter:
1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.You will never be able to make your case by nit-picking over tenses when the text plainly states that the "last hour" had already arrived at the time that John wrote his letter, especially since the Bible plainly states that the last days had already arrived:
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Likewise, Hebrews explains that Christ was crucified in the "end of the age" -
Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the age hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.And Paul concurs that the end of the age happened in the first century:
1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages have come.We could go on and on with this theme. The entire NT declares that the end times happened in the first century. That's why Revelation said the events would happen "soon" because "the time is at hand." If we reject this unified testimony of the entire New Testament, what's left?