You should read what it says. It says that the prayers of the saints are rising to heaven and when they arrive, they are presented to God to act on. It doesn't say that any of the prayers are meant for the saints or angels. It doesn't say they are directed to either. It says they come up and go before God. You also don't see the saints interceding here. They don't speak to God about the prayers. They don't discuss the content. It doesn't even say they have any idea what they are carrying other than to say they are prayers. There is more NOT said here than there is said, and it is symbolic. This doesn't give you license to make it up and proclaim your fictions as fact. I similarly don't have any such right to add to what is there or to color what is there especially when what is said is a stretch to begin with and when one can go to the bulk of scripture otherwise and get plain language that states the opposite with prejudice.
Let's consider another argument that is similarly bad - the idea that the 6 days of creation were not six literal days. What day were plants made on and what day did the sun come out? Plants have to have light to live. The animals had to have food to eat and they were vegetarians. If the plants all died before there could be light to feed them so that the animals could have something to eat, they'd all be dead before God got anywhere. Six days or do we call God's word a lie and turn it to thousands of years, millions, etc because someone expresses doubt about an idea. Doubt combined with calling God's word a lie and telling man he can be like God has been the devil's approach all through time. Thinking yourself wise because you make God's word a lie to prop up your ideas because you know better than God's word is not the kind of ground I'd be lookin to stand on.
#2 Even if Revelation is "symbolic prophecy", why would John be given erroneous imagery contrary to Scripture? That in and of itself would render Revelation a false prophecy. You are saying Scripture is fallible.
Who said "erroneous imagery". You are attempting to interpret prophecy by saying that the prophecy is interpreted literally as it appears. Let me say that again, You are saying the interpretation of the prophecy is the exact wording of the prophecy. Propehetic images mean things. The woman riding the beast means something. It doesn't mean that a woman in the end times will come along and ride a big beast. It isn't discussing a rodeo act. It has symbolic meaning and as it happens, it is largely interpretd for us by another prophet who tells us what much of it means. The woman is a religious orgainization that pretends at Christianity. It is a whore because it claims Christianity and yet has corrupted itself with all manner of pagan doctrins and practices. It has soiled itself in aliances with the Kings of the earth. The beast it rides is Government. The combination of church and state. They give rise to the Antichrist who leads them. Anti Christ in the scriptural sense means "in place of" Christ. Not against Christ. In place of Christ - which has more significance when considering that he pretends to be a Christian as does the religion and government he leads; but, he has subtly twisted the truth just enough to make it a perversion, but so slightly that it could almost fool the elect. It's all in there. Every last bit and more even than I've just stated. A damning portrait that is unmistakeable. But hidden behind symoblic imagery that if it were not for the writer and for a prior prophet, we'd be largely clueless about. Prophecy is false if it's interpretation doesn't pan out against other scripture. It's imagery is quite another story.
They are offering the prayers of others to God. That's intercession.
Who said "erroneous imagery".
You did. If heavenly beings offering prayers to God on behalf of earthly beings is wrong, it would not be used as imagery, literal or metaphorical.