Everything in Revelation is symbolic and only you have the correct interpretation?
It's all symbolic, yes, but I'm not the only one who has the correct interpretation. The writers are always using symbolism that is previously defined by the writers before them. John can write his book full of symbols, and not define all of them right there, because if his reader has listened to the teachers that came before him, they will already know what the symbols mean.
Yet, even in the book itself, symbols are defined. For the ones not defined in the book, they are defined in previous books. There will never actually be four men riding on colored horses, or souls under an altar, or dragons, or beasts with women riding upon them; this is all symbolism. Just like the lake of fire which has the ability to burn up abstract concepts like death.
There is an old maxim about interpreting scripture, "If the plain sense makes good sense, then it is nonsense to look for any other sense."
I don't know about using maxims not found in the bible to interpret the bible. I just go by what the bible is teaching me. It is teaching me that the words of God are not to be taken literally, but spiritually. They can be understood literally, but this is not how God speaks and intends them to be understood. We can take the parables of Jesus literally, but this is not how we're supposed to be understanding them. The Lord is speaking in this way to cause a division between the carnal-minded, and the spiritually-minded; those that comprehend the thoughts and words of God with the earthly mind, and those that comprehend with the heavenly mind.
I referred to the rider as "the angel of death" because in 2 Samuel 24:17, 2 Kings 19:35[1 Chronicles 21} and Isaiah 37:6 God sent an angel to slay the wicked. The two beings referred to in Rev 6:8 were sentient, they were referred to with personal pronouns him and them.
But this is not grounds for interpreting a symbol literally and then juxtaposing an 'angel of death' (which I don't believe is a title found in the scripture) into the literal interpretation. This seal says nothing like 'angel of death' it says Death. Personal pronouns are used of abstract concepts all the time in scripture. This doesn't indicate God wishes us to understand the symbol as literal.
As I have shown God utilized angels to carry out His will in the OT.
Sure, but this isn't grounds for your interpretation here at Revelation. What angels are the other three riders? Is there a "demon of the great sword" and a "demon of the famine"? These are just symbols of the concepts of war, famine, death: these things are shown as the 'four sore judgments' which accompanied the conquering of the world by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon: Jeremiah 15:2 See here that these same are listed- death, sword, famine, captivity; these are the 'four horsemen' conquering, sword, famine, death. These four judgments are all over the major prophets, and they accompany the military campaign of Nebuchadnezzar who is called "The Destroyer" Jeremiah 4:7 who overcomes the 'holy people', and takes Judah away into captivity in Babylon. John is simply hearkening back to the major prophets and the 'end of the world' at the hand of the king of Babylon.
At any rate, this has nothing to do with the 'God has a torture chamber where he can eternally torture helpless women who didn't requite his love' teachings. One of the more disturbing things about this teaching is that no Christian teaching it seems to acknowledge the part a divided Christianity is playing in causing people outside the covenant with God to be confused and not be able to understand correctly. The God of justice would not condemn people who were driven away from seeking him because the teachers professing to know him were all teaching a mass of contradicting doctrines which darkened the path to understanding. This just isn't justice, and it isn't love. It just isn't God. It's a terrible misconception of God which is formed by taking His words literally and fleshly, when we are repeatedly taught that God is spirit, and His words are spirit.
Nothing is impossible to God. If God chooses to He can provide enough space to accomplish anything He wants to do.
Sure, but it being 'possible' doesn't suddenly cause the teaching to make sense, or be correct. I'm confident that there is not going to be a literal stack of bodies reaching the atmosphere and beyond over in the literal land of Israel. It's absurd. And to mention again James 3:6 The tongue is clearly not a literal fire, and the use of Gehenna fire in that verse is also clearly not literal in turn. These are to be understood spiritually, figuratively. Hebrews 12:29 God is not a literal, carnal fire: God is spirit John 4:24, God is love 1 John 4:8, God is WORD John 1:1, the everlasting spiritual fire is the WORD OF GOD. That book in our hands that burns a sinner who reads it, and pricks his heart, and causing weeping over his fallen state; those words that renew, and transform the spirit; those words that divide spirit and soul asunder, and purge the mind of evil men. That is the everlasting fire prepared for the false accuser.
Jeremiah 23:29
Jeremiah 5:14 This is figurative: the Word of God isn't literal fire, Jeremiah didn't spew a jet of flame upon people who were literally made from wood; the same is used in the Revelation of the two witnesses, who are two candlesticks preaching the everlasting gospel - they're not literal candlesticks, literally jetting flame at people.
All of the fire in the bible is talking about the gospel being preached to sinners and false teachers, and what it does to them in their hearts and minds. Causing weeping and gnashing of teeth, moving them to repent, and destroy the old man, and be born anew into the spiritual man. Truth burns. It destroys. It transforms. It purifies. And I realize I'm going on long here but this is a deep subject; but I will add that, this fire, this Gehenna fire: I know that most Christians like to think it's all for those 'sinners' outside of the new covenant. But what if I told you that's not the case? That as far as God is concerned, all of those unbelievers outside of the covenant are not to be judged by fire- but that this fire is specially prepared for those within the new covenant. What if wheat and chaff aren't meaning, Christians and non-Christians: but, approved Christian teachers, and rejected Christian teachers? Because remember, Jesus wasn't sent to the Gentiles outside of the old covenant; Jesus was sent specifically to speak those INSIDE the old covenant. So His words weren't for both Israelite believers in Jehovah's covenant, and Gentile unbelievers who weren't in covenant with Jehovah: but only to all the Israelite believers in Jehovah's covenant.
Jesus criticized and corrected the Jewish leaders on many occasions so when He taught about eternal punishment, hell where the fire is not quenched, a fate worse than death etc., based on His previous actions, I conclude that He would not teach something that supported and affirmed the then existing Jewish belief in Hell.
I only trust the bible. I have no idea what the beliefs of the Jews were two-thousand years ago, but I know they can't be relevant to me now. The bible says all I need is the scripture, so that is all I'm willing and want to use to be 'perfectly equipped'. Through the bible, I can understand what Jesus and His apostles are teaching, and that they are teaching 'the people' in parables not to be taken literally, but to be spiritually discerned. 1 Corinthians 2:14
I am not detaching my morality
Well we know that the fact is that if what you were teaching concerning God and His 'eternal torture chamber in the basement' were true of any other being in existence, you'd rightfully acknowledge the monstrosity. But when it comes to God, we both agree God is just and good and holy; but then since you've taken the fiery punishment passages literally, and created a picture of God as a loving, just, holy being who has a torture chamber to endlessly torture helpless women who didn't requite his love, you've forced yourself into a corner where you have to admantly claim that the torturer of helpless women is just and good and holy, anyway; and has the right to torture helpless women. But at some point I would think you would look at that teaching and say to yourself 'something seems off in this teaching- could I be misunderstanding something?' Because really, which is more likely, God tortures helpless women in his basement, or, someowhere you're misunderstanding the words?
You presume that God will not punish people based on your finite, fallible understanding of love, mercy, grace etc.
I have not said there is no punishment.
How does your concept of morality explain God destroying all the inhabitants of Sodom, Gomorrah and the cities of the plain, men, women, children, infants, men, women, young and old and when God commanded Israel to go into Canaan and destroy all the people men, women etc?
Physical death is nothing, the spirit returns to God. It's not even remotely close to the idea of an inescapable eternal nightmare.
