I guess I understand that but that is true for only a small part of Rev. Much of Rev. can not be pulled from scripture such as Rev. 8:8-9 and the rest or Rev. 16:1-2 and the rest without either errant guesswork or improper exegesis. When you try to change these judgments from literal to “things are gonna get worse”, that is ‘spiritualizing”.
See, I'd actually disagree with you there. MOST of Revelation references back to the OT in some way. And "spiritualizing" is not just dismissing stuff as "things are gonna get worse"...although we all know they are going to, and that's simply because Christ told us they would.
Let me use the example you gave to show you what I mean: Rev 8:8-9
The second angel blew his trumpet, and something like a great mountain, burning with fire, was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood. A third of the living creatures in the sea died, and a third of the ships were destroyed.
Ok. Where else in scripture do we see this image of a great mountain, burning with fire?
“I will repay Babylon and all the inhabitants of Chaldea before your very eyes for all the evil that they have done in Zion, declares the LORD.
“Behold, I am against you, O destroying mountain,
declares the LORD,
which destroys the whole earth;
I will stretch out my hand against you,
and roll you down from the crags,
and make you a burnt mountain. -Jeremiah 51:24–25
As in Daniel, Jerimiah describes Babylon as a 'great mountain' that destroyes and crushes nations...but will now be destroyed by God...again seen in Daniel.
We know that throughout scripture, Babylon, even after she ceased to be an actual city, was used to describe godless society...a world system that opposed God and his people. Rome is also called "Babylon", because of her characteristics, not because she was actually Babylon.
If Revelation speaks of Babylon in such terms as well, should we not be surprised? Do we not see a plethora of countries, governments and political parties who oppose Christian world views? Should we not suspect in the last days that a nation, or a governing power or body, should 'come down' on the world like a flaming mountain....in power to destroy all before it should they not bow? It happened to Israel with Babylon, and then Rome. God's people will always be hated...and the bible has long used images such as these to paint her enemies.
But...is that the end of the imagry used in these verse? Not really! It speaks of the sea turning to blood...which is an image we know well! The Trumpet Judgements parallel the Exodus judgements against Egypt (which were a judgement against that people's worship of creation, rather than Creator!). In this 'plague' we see the seas being turned to blood. In the other Trumpet judgements we see hail, darkness and locusts.
So...what do we surmize from this 'picking from the OT'? You call it 'spiritualizing', which many say is a dangerous dismissal of literal and real things.
However, what have I suggested by my looking back to the OT for my understanding of these images? That we will see an ungodly, Babylon-like force 'push' all resistance away from them, just as Babylon or Rome conquered. How is that so different from what others say? Are we not expecting and even seeing growing liberal movements all across the globe that seek to push out conservative and godly views in order to prepare for an "all-tolerant" (yeah, right) movement? Could this come as a global government...which seems unlikely, but plenty of powerful, weathly people are pushing for it. Or a movement...'free-speech' is becoming a thing of the past, or conquest? China right now looks more like George Orwell married the Antichrist than anyone could have believed...even for us Amillennialists! And as an Aussie, I often raise an eyebrow at their beligerance on my Northern border.
The other 'Spiritualizing' thing I'm suggesting from this passage is that God will go "wide" with his Egyptian plagues in judgement of man choosing creation rather than Creator. That's not very 'wishy-washy', huh?
John apparently has no problem recognizing angels when he sees them, so describing these in detail and labeling them as “beasts”, imo, takes them out of “angelic” consideration.
But this is not about John, or what he labelled anything. This is about you, about what your basic hermeneutic is. You can't assume one thing over here based on one set of 'understandings', then turn that understanding on it's head to assume something else over there. That is the very basis for bad hermeneutics, that will allow us to make scripture tell us anything we want it to say!
IF you posit that you cannot assume upon scripture, of what something MIGHT be, because scripture doesn't say it, you cannot, therefore, turn around and do that very thing for something else.
IF you claim you cannot gather together other scriptures and reason and logic to suggest that the 'living creatures' around the throne might be angels when it doesn't say they are...especially BECAUSE it doesn't say they are, then you most certainly shouldn't, under every logical rule or reason there is, gather together other scriptures, reason and logic to suggest that the 24 elders are, in fact, angels, BECAUSE it doesn't say they are.
I respectfully disagree. If they were represented differently or appeared differently or said things differently, I would amend my reasoning, accordingly, but when they are simply called ‘elders” and you add all these things together within the context and the language used considering them as other than representing the OT and NT is not out of the range of possibility. If the nos. three score and six elders were used then your interpretation might be valid.
Another consideration should be, how literal was God in the past? Did the prophesied captivity actually happen? Was there really an ark, was there really a lot of rain as prophesied or were they symbolic for “things got worse, evil reigned and God judged them in a way not specific to the details given? In my opinion, if all the prophesies given that we know w/o a doubt are fulfilled used symbols but were fulfilled literally, then no other consideration should be used for prophecies that remain unfulfilled.
I simply fail to see what any of that has to do with estabilishing hermeneutics. Sure, fine...if you believe all those things happened 'literally' in the past, fine. In fact, so do I...all those books and accounts are presented historically and not apocolyptically.
But it simply does not change the fact that you basically said "if the bible does not outright state that these beings are angels, I refuse to 'assume' they are. In fact I feel more comfortable assuming they are some sort of other created being that scripture doesn't even speak about."
And in the next paragraph, you then went on to do the exact thing you just said you would not do.
That's not hermenuetics, that's wild inconsistency. Flat out. No matter how you look at it or how you wiggle your 'interpretive view'.
In this scenario I believe you consider them the way you do simply because the 12 tribes and 12 disciples are used in regard to the NJ but that, imo, is a giant leap. Was their another example you took from scripture to make this assumption?
I dunno Trekson. I guess I'm finding it real hard to swallow the fact that you seem more eager to accept the idea that these things could be something the bible doesn't even speak of...at all, rather than consider they could be something the bible DOES talk of.
Honestly...I don't care if they're NOT the 12 Tribles and the 12 Disciples. That's not the point...the point is the number, and the number of 'thrones' clearly represent those people or groups...God's people.
But I suppose if you want to start making a category for something that you can never know about and the bible never speaks about...well, that's your choice, I suppose.