Prophecy vs. Apocalyptic

[CoreIssue]

Says the person who's inconsistencies go before him. You berate those who use numbers symbolically in Revelation claiming they never are, but then admit that 12 clearly is. You also say that "the DAY of the Lord" is not a strict 24 hour period, but a long period of time used for God's purposes at the end...(a rather 'non-literal' approach to that reading), and go on to severly mock anyone who suggests that on the flip side a 1000 years may be a period of time used for God's purposes at the end, but not, perhaps a strict 1000 years.
So...I'd say hypocritical and inconsistent.

Why won't you just admit you're an amillennialist.

 

[Naomi25]

Why won't you just admit you're an amillennialist.

What on earth are you talking about?? I have admitted it numeous times. I have even started a thread called Amillennialism, explaining how I see it and why I arrived at it, plotting out all the biblical passages that led me there.
If you think that Ive been attempting to hide it like some little dirty secret...sorry. Loud and proud. And biblically sure too.

 

[CoreIssue]

What on earth are you talking about?? I have admitted it numeous times. I have even started a thread called Amillennialism, explaining how I see it and why I arrived at it, plotting out all the biblical passages that led me there.
If you think that Ive been attempting to hide it like some little dirty secret...sorry. Loud and proud. And biblically sure too.

Where is it? Never seen it.

 

[Naomi25]

Where is it? Never seen it.

So that means it doesn't exist?
The thread I started was some time ago...its in the Eschatology thread, page 6.
If you've missed the times I've referred to myself as Amil, that's hardly my fault. You can try askin' around I suppose.

 

[CoreIssue]

So that means it doesn't exist?
The thread I started was some time ago...its in the Eschatology thread, page 6.
If you've missed the times I've referred to myself as Amil, that's hardly my fault. You can try askin' around I suppose.

I had completely forgot about it. But I did respond at least on page 3.

 

[Enoch111]

So...I'd say hypocritical and inconsistent.

No. I'd say consistent with sound Bible interpretation, taking most of Scripture literally, and properly understanding and interpreting metaphors and figures of speech.

 

[Naomi25]

No. I'd say consistent with sound Bible interpretation, taking most of Scripture literally, and properly understanding and interpreting metaphors and figures of speech.

Seriously? So...it's "consistent and sound" for a "literalist" to switch between symbol, metaphor and figure of speech at will....but when an Idealist does it, we're horrible people who play around with scripture and make it say whatever we want?
You do realise, don't you, how you've just described your "literalism" is exactly what and how Idealists approach Revelation.
Which...brings me right back to 'inconsisent and hypocritical'.

 

[CoreIssue]

Seriously? So...it's "consistent and sound" for a "literalist" to switch between symbol, metaphor and figure of speech at will....but when an Idealist does it, we're horrible people who play around with scripture and make it say whatever we want?
You do realise, don't you, how you've just described your "literalism" is exactly what and how Idealists approach Revelation.
Which...brings me right back to 'inconsisent and hypocritical'.

I guess you not realize when the Bible defines the meaning something figurative that makes it literal.

 

[Trekson]

So...I'm sorry, but in any way but semantics...that's dreams and visions...and that's apocolyptic.

Hi Naomi, Your words are in black, mine in red.
The reason why 'the obvious understanding isn't the natural understanding' is because when one reads Revelation chronologically and in a strictly literal manner, it simply doesn't make sense. We have Christ returning more than once and world ending events happening more then once. How many times can we expect the sky to 'roll up like a scroll'...and yet be there in the next chapter to blow nasty breezes upon the unrighteous?

It doesn’t make sense to you but to many of us it does make sense. You perceive it as Christ returning more than once, where we see it as different aspects of the same event. Since we don’t really understand what “to roll up like a scroll” looks like, it is wrong to see it as a “world-ending event” (btw, this particular terminology is only used once in Rev. 6:14)

At some point you either have to start accepting the cyclical nature of the visions...the recapitulatory nature of the book.

The problem is that Revelation doesn’t read in a cyclical manner. For that to be true, all of the events would have to match in the EXACT order has given. The second seal, second trump and second bowl must be the EXACT same thing, but they are not. Do some of them have similarities to each other? Yes, they do, but the difference is in the scope of the judgement. There is a big difference between 1/3 and ALL. In this case, they are either all identical or they are not. If not, than any type of interpretation that relies upon an apocalyptical, symbolic nature must be rejected!


If you want to say that apocalyptical prophecies are solely prophecies that deal strictly with the end of the age, world or end time events, then I agree that Rev. is apocalyptic in nature.

The problem I believe many people have with interpreting Revelation comes with the fact that they believe they should be able to just pick it up and read it like they read history. The book is not history, it's apocolyptic in genre. Apocolytpic is a style of literature that the people the book was originally written to would have been very familiar with.

Here are some requirements for something to be determined as apocalyptical or not.


1. All apocalyptic literature claims to be revelation of new/hidden knowledge.


Rev. does not apply because most of it is not new, but expands and builds upon many other OT and NT prophecies.


2. The literature uses mysterious and symbolic language.


While Rev. does use some symbolism at times the vast majority of the book can best be understood as literal.


3. Most apocalyptical literature is pseudonymous.


Rev, stands alone as NOT being pseudonymous.


4. Both Daniel and the Revelation contain revelations using some symbolism; but they differ from your typical non-God inspired apocalyptic literature in that they are genuine experiences rather than imitative literary works, and do not rewrite history under the guise of prophecy.

And it worked...they persevered through all that, and today the Church still lives. Now...of course Revelation is for every generation of Church, but we cannot ignore the fact that it was intially written for them and in a particular style.

I think giving Rev. the credit for the survival of the church is just wrong. Only to God can be the glory. The church would have survived w/o Rev.

And trying to read Revelation as if it's not apocolytic will get you...Dispensationalism.

And I take it that you think that dispensationalism is a bad thing?! Here’s the definition: A doctrine prevalent in some forms of Protestant Christianity that divides history into distinct periods, each marked by a different dispensation or relationship between God and humanity. Well, I have to say I agree w/ that def. and the bible clearly does as well. OT = the law, NT = grace, Millennium = rod of iron w/ Christ literally reigning upon the earth. Three distinctly different ways God has and will deal w/ humanity.

But, let's say it does mean what you suggest. If the natural reading tells us that Chapter 6 forward is "future", then another problem presents itself. Whose future? If it's John's future, it could have begun as soon as his vision ended. In which case those seal judgements could span most of the interadvental age. It's hard to argue against that, really, as those seals seem to echo Christ's warnings of 'birth pangs' in the Olivet Discourse. To me...this suggests that the book itself is not quite as 'cut and dried' in terms of a "last 7 years" time period as some would have it.

If events had occurred there would be a record of it somewhere. Birth pangs do not last thousands of years. When the events begin, they will all apparently happen within at most a seven year period, increasing in strength and intensifying in nature, as birth pangs do.

 

[Trekson]

So....you find it more believable that some of the more "far out there" things of John's book are just 'techonology', then his attempt to describe spiritual realities?

So...let me get this straight. Revelation cannot be apocalyptic like Daniel, because it doesn't have the words 'dream' or 'vision' in it, and every time John says "I saw" he was being shown "in the flesh"? So....it doesn't count if he was shown all those things while actually there, rather than just have images put in his head? So...I'm sorry, but in any way but semantics...that's dreams and visions...and that's apocalyptic.

I believe that you believe that; if the prophecies in question utilizes dreams, visions and symbolism then it MUST be considered apocalyptic, however the use of them does NOT automatically lend itself to an apocalyptic interpretation. One pitfall that students of prophecy must avoid is identifying as symbolic things that were not intended as symbols. The fact that a prophecy contains symbols does not mean that everything in the prophecy is symbolic. Generally, one should only identify something as symbolic when any other interpretation is nonsensical or conflicts with facts clearly established elsewhere. Just because a prophecy about the future contains symbols does not mean that the prophecy should be “spiritualized” (i.e., interpreted non-literally). A symbol serves as an analogy to a literal idea (the sword in Christ’s mouth in Revelation 19:15 is certainly symbolic, but it pictures a literal truth: when Christ returns, he will speak, and his enemies will be slain). The rule to follow is this: “If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense”.

The problem with assuming that Daniel and Rev are the "same message using two distinct styles" is that they aren't, in fact, using different styles. Revelation still uses the beast analogy. If Revelation was just prophetic and was speaking about nations (as the beast image was in Daniel), it would have just described them as nations. The minute Revelation picks up the beast images it tells us we are dealing with apocalyptic, not just plain prophetic.

I really have to disagree with your last statement. I think that Jesus intentionally used the imagery of Daniel’s prophecy (the beast analogy) as he did in Matt. 24 to inform the seven churches that No, 70ad was NOT the fulfillment of Daniel’s 70th week, it is still to come. The context does identify them as nations a little later in Rev. 17. I also believe that is one of the reasons that Jesus had John write his epistles last and after the events of 70ad.
So....you find it more believable that some of the more "far out there" things of John's book are just 'techonology', then his attempt to describe spiritual realities? Even though he's being given a look into said spiritual realm?

Where does it say that John is given a look into a ‘spiritual realm”? It doesn’t, almost everything past cp. 5 is all about the earth. I can only think of three, possibly cp. 10, some of the beginning of Rev. 12 and the first view verses of Rev. 14.

I will never understand this generation’s obsession to be the focal point of all scripture.
God doesn't give a toss about our stupid toys. They come and go in a blink of his eye. The spiritual realities that move beyond where we can perceive...they are forever, and even though the Lamb has won and is triumphant, dark enemies thrash against God and man and will do so until the end. Revelation is not about helicopters or satellites or our silly microchips...it’s about the Church remaining strong in our triumphant Lord as that battle rages.

One comes up with that line of thought only if they are denying the literalness of scripture and trying to ‘spiritualize” future reality. It’s not about the ‘technology”, it’s about how Satan uses everything, including technology, that humanity comes up with to try and further deceive us from knowing and understanding the truth of salvation and as temptations to sin. Don’t you think that Satan is the one that inspired everything from the theory of evolution to internet pornography, etc.? It’s simple common sense that some of the prophecies in Rev. could not be understood before the arrival of certain technology. Such as: 13:15 = holographic imaging, 11:9-10 = satellite news, CNN, FOX, etc., 12:14 = airplane, Rev. 18 = nuclear bombs as well as Zech. 14:12. The truth of these things does not mean that many of us believe we are the focal point of these prophecies. Our understanding of these realities just affirms to us that the time of the end is nearer now then those before these technologies could comprehend.

I...wasn't aware of suggesting that realm was any less real than ours. If anything, I'd say it is more-so. All I was saying is that I believe God...and therefore John, felt it was more important to describe to his Church what was playing out on 'the other side' so we may have courage and strength as we face persecution. I believe that is much more likely than a book being about John looking ahead and seeing Satan commandeering our toys to try and strike back at God.

As a Christian, my courage and strength does NOT increase when I read Revelation and that is not the purpose of the book thus another reason I don’t consider apocalyptical literature. Most of our spiritual growth comes from Paul’s writings and not prophecy. Really, the only thing about prophecy that gives me comfort is the fact that God wins in the end. The vast majority of Rev. is not about giving comfort to believers but warnings to sinners about their eternal destiny if they continue to rebel against God!

And 144000...while I know you will heartily disagree with me...that is a highly symbolic number...12x12x1000. 12 of course being a symbol of the apostles and the 12 tribes of Israel...symbolizing the people of God. And 1000, symbolizing completion, perfection. In other words...144,000 is all of God's people...all tribes, tongues, nations and peoples...a vast multitude that no one can number.

Biblical numerology is just another form of spiritualization. Even in the case in which a number may have some special significance elsewhere, the use of the same number in prophecy does not mean that it should be interpreted as symbolic.

 

[Naomi25]

I guess you not realize when the Bible defines the meaning something figurative that makes it literal.

I guess you don't realise that when we take something figurative, as it's supposed to be taken figurative, we consider ourselves as following scripture literally.

 

[CoreIssue]

I guess you don't realise that when we take something figurative, as it's supposed to be taken figurative, we consider ourselves as following scripture literally.

The Dragon is currently defined as Satan in the Bible. That makes it literal.

The woman is fairly defined as Israel. The sun and the moon Jacob and Rachel.

12 stars the tribes of Israel. And on and on.

We use a lot of figurative one today, but we know it's literal meaning.

 

[Mike Dwight]

But What does Tammy Benson the Timeless Teller THINK about all this?! Does she APPROVE?

Tammy would have a Degree first in Apocalyptic literature and Prophetic mumbo jumbo. That's just my advisory role. Women never would ever marry without Revelation. A few chapters in Revelation are the only thing that continued the human race, possibly...Especially, nobody would live together that is one man and woman, which was physically scientifically undiscovered, that's where Revelation helped us out scientifically. Rich Japanese and Mexicans hitting on women is all that prevents the return of Jesus.

 

[Naomi25]

It doesn’t make sense to you but to many of us it does make sense. You perceive it as Christ returning more than once, where we see it as different aspects of the same event. Since we don’t really understand what “to roll up like a scroll” looks like, it is wrong to see it as a “world-ending event” (btw, this particular terminology is only used once in Rev. 6:14)

Wait....hang on. You see the seeming fact that Christ returns multiple times, as "different aspects of the same event"?
In other words.....the same event being repeated....described slightly differently?
HOW is that any different to recapitulation?

The problem is that Revelation doesn’t read in a cyclical manner. For that to be true, all of the events would have to match in the EXACT order has given. The second seal, second trump and second bowl must be the EXACT same thing, but they are not. Do some of them have similarities to each other? Yes, they do, but the difference is in the scope of the judgement. There is a big difference between 1/3 and ALL. In this case, they are either all identical or they are not. If not, than any type of interpretation that relies upon an apocalyptical, symbolic nature must be rejected!

Problem number one...you yourself have just said above that you see a single event being described again and again. Which is cyclical.
Problem number two...no, events do not have to match exactly. That would assume that the persepective from which they are being described are exactly the same. If I gave you my perspective of a birthday party, they would be one way, and then if you gave me yours, they would be another. They would both be of the same event and share many same characteristics: the birthday person, the place, the cake, the people present. But they would differ in perspective, how we got there...things like that.
Revelations repeated visions are not just on repeat of a stagnant view from one angle, but from many angles.

Here are some requirements for something to be determined as apocalyptical or not.

1. All apocalyptic literature claims to be revelation of new/hidden knowledge.

Rev. does not apply because most of it is not new, but expands and builds upon many other OT and NT prophecies.

I'd have to beg to differ on that. The IMAGES it uses to portray it's message are not new. It uses images, symbols and figurative language that we see all throughout the OT...it is rich with them. But...if we actually study them, while the symbology is similar enough to help us understand the meaning behind the use of them, the actual message is new. The message of Revelation was not an old message, stuck back in the time it drew it's symbols from. It was for the Churches of John's time and for all the Churches since. It gives the body of Christ special knowledge of how God is in exquisite control of everything...even through hard times of persecution and suffering, we are to know that even if the days are dark and evil, God is drawing things to a glorious end where he, and consequently we, shall triumph.

2. The literature uses mysterious and symbolic language.

While Rev. does use some symbolism at times the vast majority of the book can best be understood as literal.

I'm sorry...are you honestly trying to dismiss "uses myterious and symbolic language" when speaking of Revelation?
The book is plump with symbolism and 'mysterious' language. Goodness, we even have "mystery Babylon"....a 'titled' mystery!
People have spent generations attempting to guess what 666 means. Who the beasts might be, who the false prophet and AC could be, where Babylon might be rebuilt, or if it will be rebuilt at all. Debate rages over the 'mark', the wittnesses, the women, the 'wings of an eagle', the woman's crown of stars.
You might think 'reading it literally' sees everything 'come out plain', and that's nice for you, but history and plain sense would disagree.

3. Most apocalyptical literature is pseudonymous.

Rev, stands alone as NOT being pseudonymous.

"Most". "Stands alone". Well, which is it? If Daniel is also apocolyptic, then it too cannot be pseudonymous, can it. Which means that Rev cannot "stand alone". Which means that by saying "most" you're just hoping on a larger percentage rather than fact...and...that just seems to be stretching if you ask me.

4. Both Daniel and the Revelation contain revelations using some symbolism; but they differ from your typical non-God inspired apocalyptic literature in that they are genuine experiences rather than imitative literary works, and do not rewrite history under the guise of prophecy.

I'm not sure what your point is? There can be no doubt that Daniel's eschatological prophetic sections are clearly in the apocolyptic style, heavy with symbols. And there also can be no doubt that there is a strong connection between it and Revelation.

I think giving Rev. the credit for the survival of the church is just wrong. Only to God can be the glory. The church would have survived w/o Rev.

I never meant to imply that Revelation saved the Church. Revelation was given by God to encourage the Church. If you were suffering horribly, no doubt God would see you through as a Christian...you are saved, grace is assured. But how would you feel in the midst of your pain to receive a letter from God saying "I see you, I love you, look at what I am doing"...and then painting for you a vivid picture of good triumphing over evil. It's like Paul said in Rom 8:18...our suffering of this present time is not worthy to be compared to the glory that will be revealed....

And I take it that you think that dispensationalism is a bad thing?! Here’s the definition: A doctrine prevalent in some forms of Protestant Christianity that divides history into distinct periods, each marked by a different dispensation or relationship between God and humanity. Well, I have to say I agree w/ that def. and the bible clearly does as well. OT = the law, NT = grace, Millennium = rod of iron w/ Christ literally reigning upon the earth. Three distinctly different ways God has and will deal w/ humanity.

I think Dispensationalism is mistaken on many fronts. My growing concern with it is that I am seeing not just a mistaken understanding about what will happen in those last 7 years, but where the understanding branches out and touches other ideas in scripture. For example, the idea that some have that Israel is still, even now, surplanting the Church on some things. Do not mistake me; I believe God loves Israel and has plans for her. But Dispensationalism teaches a dangerous view on what Paul spends so much time and effort pushing; that the Church is one people; Jew and Gentile in Christ; and the 'children of promise'. This is not 'replacement theology' as some like to panic and point fingers at...this is just pure Paul and scripture. And yet Dispensationalism would have these massive promises of God that Paul says are ours, only for a people who at present, reject their messiah. That leaves a division that is just not seen in scripture.
So...yeah...I suppose I do have a problem with it.

If events had occurred there would be a record of it somewhere. Birth pangs do not last thousands of years. When the events begin, they will all apparently happen within at most a seven year period, increasing in strength and intensifying in nature, as birth pangs do.

Events like earthquakes, wars, diseases, famines, meteors, persecution? Solar eclipse, blood moons, comets passing us by?
Things like that? Things like Jesus said in the Olivet Discourse? Things like the 4 horsemen?
And who are we to say how long the birth pangs will go on? Remember, for the Lord, a day is like 1000 years, and 1000 years is as a day. I'm thinking we're just along for the ride.
But we definitely can't say that things like he said have not happened or been happening. In fact, they've been happening non-stop.

 

[Mike Dwight]

Maybe naomi25... All I can say is Maybe.

 

[Enoch111]

I think Dispensationalism is mistaken on many fronts.

Still trying to UNSUCCESSFULLY put down Dispensationsalism.

That obsession means that Dispensationalism has convicted you of your false notions about Bible prophecy.

The smart thing now would be to go back to square one and see why Dispensationalism handles Scripture as it does. But how many choose the smart thing rather than the same old same old ruts?

 

[CoreIssue]

Still trying to UNSUCCESSFULLY put down Dispensationsalism.

That obsession means that Dispensationalism has convicted you of your false notions about Bible prophecy.

The smart thing now would be to go back to square one and see why Dispensationalism handles Scripture as it does. But how many choose the smart thing rather than the same old same old ruts?

She is in amillennialist. They totally reject this dispensationalism, the rapture and a literal Bible.

 

[Enoch111]

She is in amillennialist. They totally reject this dispensationalism, the rapture and a literal Bible.

You are correct, But it is hard to under why Christians willingly choose fantasy over reality. We see this over and over again.

 

[Keraz]

You are correct, But it is hard to under why Christians willingly choose fantasy over reality. We see this over and over again.

It is those who believe that God will take them to heaven to avoid any trials and tribulations, who are the 'fantasy' believers.
The Bible plainly states that God's holy people are present during the final 3 1/2 years of this age. Daniel 7:25, Revelation 13:7
We Christians will be gathered from wherever we are on earth, to Jesus at His Return. Matthew 24:30-31

Revelation describes a sequence of events, with some asides to fill in details.
Commencing with the Sixth Seal of the Great and terrible Day of the Lord's wrath, as the first five Seals were opened by Jesus at His Ascension. Rev 5:6-7
This sudden and shocking Day will change the world and set the scene for all the, as yet; unfulfilled prophesies to take place. We Christians should not be in the dark and confused about what God has planned.

 

[Naomi25]

I believe that you believe that; if the prophecies in question utilizes dreams, visions and symbolism then it MUST be considered apocalyptic, however the use of them does NOT automatically lend itself to an apocalyptic interpretation. One pitfall that students of prophecy must avoid is identifying as symbolic things that were not intended as symbols. The fact that a prophecy contains symbols does not mean that everything in the prophecy is symbolic. Generally, one should only identify something as symbolic when any other interpretation is nonsensical or conflicts with facts clearly established elsewhere. Just because a prophecy about the future contains symbols does not mean that the prophecy should be “spiritualized” (i.e., interpreted non-literally). A symbol serves as an analogy to a literal idea (the sword in Christ’s mouth in Revelation 19:15 is certainly symbolic, but it pictures a literal truth: when Christ returns, he will speak, and his enemies will be slain). The rule to follow is this: “If the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense”.

I'm sorry, but...what? "Just because it contains symbols, doesn't mean its symbolic".
Here's some very "plain sense". If you come across a symbol...it's a symbol.
And of course symbols stand for an actual truth. This is part of the whole "spiritualizer" strawman argument that goes on. I've never claimed that a symbol in Revelation means we take it as something wafty that's just a nice idea that makes us feel nice and fuzzy about things. What brings Christians real comfort in the symbols, is that they describe real things, help us picture actual truths. The Lamb that was slain is REALLY Jesus that died for us. The Dragon that gets tossed in the lake of fire REALLY will get punished for his crimes for all eternity, away from us where he can cause pain and heartache ever again.

I really have to disagree with your last statement. I think that Jesus intentionally used the imagery of Daniel’s prophecy (the beast analogy) as he did in Matt. 24 to inform the seven churches that No, 70ad was NOT the fulfillment of Daniel’s 70th week, it is still to come. The context does identify them as nations a little later in Rev. 17. I also believe that is one of the reasons that Jesus had John write his epistles last and after the events of 70ad.

I fail to see how this affects genre. Let's say you are correct and Jesus, in Matt 24, meant that Daniel 'abomination of desolation' was speaking of the last 7 years of human history. How does this at all change the fact that both Daniel and Revelation both use the same apocolyptic imagry to portray these 'beasts'? The use of symbols is still clearly and heavily present.

Where does it say that John is given a look into a ‘spiritual realm”? It doesn’t, almost everything past cp. 5 is all about the earth. I can only think of three, possibly cp. 10, some of the beginning of Rev. 12 and the first view verses of Rev. 14.

You know...when it says "come up here"...and he gets to see into heaven. Is that not where all the angels and God...on his throne, hang out? Wouldn't you class that as a 'spiritual realm'? I sure as heck would. And, beyond that, every time he is given a vision...or shown, if you want to insist upon it, angleic or demonic forces, that too would be a look at spiritual realities. There are a lot of those in the book.

One comes up with that line of thought only if they are denying the literalness of scripture and trying to ‘spiritualize” future reality. It’s not about the ‘technology”, it’s about how Satan uses everything, including technology, that humanity comes up with to try and further deceive us from knowing and understanding the truth of salvation and as temptations to sin. Don’t you think that Satan is the one that inspired everything from the theory of evolution to internet pornography, etc.? It’s simple common sense that some of the prophecies in Rev. could not be understood before the arrival of certain technology. Such as: 13:15 = holographic imaging, 11:9-10 = satellite news, CNN, FOX, etc., 12:14 = airplane, Rev. 18 = nuclear bombs as well as Zech. 14:12. The truth of these things does not mean that many of us believe we are the focal point of these prophecies. Our understanding of these realities just affirms to us that the time of the end is nearer now then those before these technologies could comprehend.

Ah, the old 'spiritualize' accusation. Again with either a massive misunderstanding of what it is I believe, or just an attempted strawman argument.
So let me get this straight: One only comes up with the line of thought that the book is for God's church remaining strong in the face of persecution, and to help them understand the battle raging around them is both physical and spiritual....if one 'spiritualizes' all the symbols in the book. Which, according to Dispensationalists, seems to be some sort of system of taking everything as symbols...
As opposed to 'literalits' who, conversely, have a very sensible and easy to understand and follow system, like...'only take things symbolically if you're told it's a symbol'...but then those who say that also take other things as symbols rather haphazardly, which leads to others saying 'take everything literally unless forced to take it symbolically'...except now there doesn't seem to be any hard and fast rules about what forces one to take something as symbol or not...which seems to leave it at personal whim and preference....not a great hermeneutical principle.

Besides....I find it endlessly fascinating that I...the 'spiritulizer' am the one who suggests that when the book says 'demonic creatures from the pit of hell'...it actually means that...and you...the 'literalist' is arguing for helicopters.
Yep....inconsistent hermenutic at work for sure.

As a Christian, my courage and strength does NOT increase when I read Revelation and that is not the purpose of the book thus another reason I don’t consider apocalyptical literature. Most of our spiritual growth comes from Paul’s writings and not prophecy. Really, the only thing about prophecy that gives me comfort is the fact that God wins in the end. The vast majority of Rev. is not about giving comfort to believers but warnings to sinners about their eternal destiny if they continue to rebel against God!

No...I wouldn't imagine yours does. You live in the USA. Even at our worst, in these "First world" countries, we know nothing about what John's audience were struggling with, or what other Christians in other parts of the world struggle with today. Persecution, famine, starvation, poverty, disease, death, rape, torture...and all of that for their children as well. For us, we feel like we've had a bad month if we get mocked on Facebook or reprimanded at work. We can struggle with bills, or an unbeliever co-worker, and things are becoming harder for freedom of speech....but it will be a long way till we have a clue to what others go through. And I imagine if we suffered what they are, having the ONLY thing that they can hold on to is their hope in Christ and his promise to triumph over evil....then yes, you bet that would increase their hope and courage.

Biblical numerology is just another form of spiritualization. Even in the case in which a number may have some special significance elsewhere, the use of the same number in prophecy does not mean that it should be interpreted as symbolic.

Doesn't mean it shouldn't be though. Use of numbers is clearly used in scripture, that cannot be discounted. At least, it shouldn't by anyone who wants to take a serious tilt at exegesis. If God consistently re-used the numbers 12 and 7 to represent things, then only people who are hell-bent on seeing things in one particular way will refuse to even consider there might be a significant reason behind the use of them in Revelation. Especially considering how heavily laden with symbols the book already is.