I think you may be combining imagery and symbolism in the same category but they are not: Imagery refers to the use of figurative and descriptive language to create images in the readers’ mind. Symbolism refers to the use of symbols to represent ideas and qualities, which by definition means they DO NOT stand for “actual truths”! To me that is the problem w/ symbolism, one tries to offer abstract explanations for an identifiable image.
"Symbol: A mark or character used as a conventional representation of an object, function, or process; or - A thing that represents or stands for something else"
So, how is symbolism...the using of symbols to represent something, not appropriate?
Imagery is also relevent, as it's described as "Visually descriptive or figurative language". However, imagery is more in line with images...visual pictures of things, while it seems the use of symbols is more in line with representation. For example, Christ is represented as both Lion and Lamb. The image seen is Lion and Lamb...the symbolism is that the Lion is the conquering Lion of Judah and the Lamb that was slain for the sins of the world.
You’re combining the two again, but that is a good example of what’s wrong with depending on symbolism to try and understand Rev. Now, where you got the idea that the abomination of desolation is the last seven years of human history, God only knows, but the “abomination of desolation” is one thing and one thing alone and it is explained in the last part of Rev. 13:14 and in vs. 15.
As I've previously said, the two really go hand in hand because the use of symbol in Revelation is through vision, which involves sight....images. To understand that the beasts stand for something, first the prophet...Daniel, or John, must see the image and understand that there is some symbolism going on...it is not just a simple 'image' of a natural beast, but there is a greater meaning beyond the image...it is a symbolic image.
The majority of Dispensationalists place the AOD in the last 7 years. If you do not, sorry, it was not my intent to misrepresent you, but one cannot possible collate and store all offshoots ofthese doctrines, only what the main collective tends to stand behind.
Sorry, but I’m a stickler for accuracy. The Eph. 6 battle between good and evil is in the spiritual “realm” where we can’t actually see it but John is seeing heaven and heaven is as real as earth so they are physical realities not spiritual realities.
As a 'stickler', you must surely acknowledge that God is Spirit. That angelic and demonic beings are described as spirits. How is it, then, that when we are given glimpses of these beings, and of God Himself and His dwelling place, His very Throne, you do not admit you are being described, spiritual things, which are admittedly very real?
If you’re going to quote me please do so accurately, the phrase is: “if it makes sense, seek no other sense, if it doesn’t make “sense” only then should you seek another sense” and that doesn’t automatically mean symbolism. It could mean an allegory, a sign, imagery, etc. all different things.
I'm sorry if you feel my generalisation was out of bounds and not accurate. But, I also feel that you have been attempting to generalise my views to further your argument. By no means do I take everything symbolically.
My point above, that I was trying to make, if clumisly, sorry, was that your quote doesn't necessarily disprove my own hermeneutical take. If the ''plain sense" of the passage is that a symbol is being presented, then the most sensible thing to do, is see it for what it is. When we have a whole book that is full of such symbols that have already been used before, in one way or the other, then why on earth would we think it makes more 'sense' to look to the newspapers to find out what that symbol might mean, rather than God's own word?
The problem is; it does NOT say “demonic creatures from the pit of hell”. This is where imagery comes about. In my mind, I see helicopters but I never declared it to be so, it’s just a logical possibility to me. I could be wrong and they could be some kind of freaky new bug or it could just be John’s way of saying they are being led by the forces of evil. Either way, I’m not going to worry about them because they are specifically instructed not to harm those who have the seal of God in their foreheads so whether I’m here or raptured, I’m safe.
Ok...so you like imagry. Revelation gives us plenty to go on here. These things come "from the bottomless pit" where smoke "rises like a great furnace"....thinking of anything yet?
They have human faces, womens hair, lions teeth, breastplates and wings. They have tails and stings like scorpions and they have over them "as king the angel of the bottomless pit, his name in Hebrew is Abaddon." Or, Apollyon.
So...what is an exegete to make of these images? Should we think the most likely candidate would be helicopters or an emergence of strange new bugs?
Or, can we find somewhere else that speaks of strange amalgamations of creatures?
As I looked, behold, a stormy wind came out of the north, and a great cloud, with brightness around it, and fire flashing forth continually, and in the midst of the fire, as it were gleaming metal. And from the midst of it came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance: they had a human likeness, but each had four faces, and each of them had four wings. Their legs were straight, and the soles of their feet were like the sole of a calf's foot. And they sparkled like burnished bronze. Under their wings on their four sides they had human hands. And the four had their faces and their wings thus: their wings touched one another. Each one of them went straight forward, without turning as they went. As for the likeness of their faces, each had a human face. The four had the face of a lion on the right side, the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and the four had the face of an eagle. -Ezekiel 1:4–10
This vision of the Throne of God shows angelic beings. The similarity is profound. We know demons are fallen angels and we are told in Revelation 9 that these 'scorpion' creatures come from the bottomless pit and have a demon of some stature as king over them. I don't think it is such a stretch to suggest, therefore, that they are demonic creatures. Do you? And wouldn't that BE the most literal interpretation of the text, all things considered?
It’s also possible they had none of those problems and everything was just physically fine but some of them had spiritual issues they needed to deal with.
The possibility of one does not discount the other, and historical facts are not easy to bury, try as this generation might on some things.
So God likes to use certain numbers like 12 and 7 to represent real things. Symbolism says those numbers aren’t real, they mean something else in addition to 12 and 7, like what? 15 and 9? Good and evil? There really aren’t seven days in a week, there really wasn’t 12 tribes of Israel??? Can you show me one time where a number didn’t mean precisely what it was referring to?
And there we go with the strawman misrepresentation again! Have I ever said that there are not 7 days in the week? Have I ever said that when God demanded the Israelites to walk around the city of Jericho 7 times, they didn't actually do it 7 times? Have I ever said there were not 12 tribes of Israel or 12 Disciples?
No. God really uses these numbers, but he really uses them for a reason. That is why we see them again and again and why we must also look for a deeper purpose if we can. So, when we read that there are 24 thrones before the Throne of God, we don't just go "24, whatever." We say "wow, that must represent 12 and 12, the OT people of God and the NT people of God...all of God's people coming together in his plan for us!"
Now...I ask you...what is wrong with seeing that? Was it wrong of me to go "24...that's cool! God is wise and is showing his intricate working all the way from the OT to the NT"?
Is it wrong for me to point to Christ using 7 (forgive 70x7) to make a symbolic point....keep forgiving, and keep forgiving, and keep forgiving....there is no way he used that number literally. Is it wrong for me to understand that?