You must consider four principles to avoid problems in interpreting the Holy Scriptures:
A. Normal interpretation is basic.
This letter is to be read exactly as it is written, unless you are told to take it in some other way. The normal interpretation is plain literal, or obvious, interpretation. You are trying to read something into it other than what is written ("on another level") which is not that which is meant, and thus getting into argumentation.
B. Literal interpretation is normal.
Literal interpretation contains both plain literal language asd also figurative-literal language. Many people (and your approach here) fail to distinguish btween the terms, literal language and literal interpretation.
Figurative and/or allegorical interpretation is not normal.
This approach requires both literal and figurative language and lays an opinionated meaning (metaphorical, symbolical, or figurative) upon what is said or written in Scripture, and thus thrusts the interpreter on shaky ground which cannot be resolved by debate.
C. There Is Only One Primary Interpretation.
Scripture has but one meaning. There is only one primary interpretation to which all context lends itself. It applies directly to (a) those addressed, at (b) some specific timeindicated, and (c) must have a specific meaning for them. In light of this, it can be applied to us under similar conditions which exist relative to those conditions prevailing in the context. There possibly may be several secondary applications, but there is only one primary interpretation. There is one specific, intended meaning.
D. There Is One Single Sense
Every statement of Scripture has only one sense (an example is the sense of Isaiah 53:5 as used in 1 Peter 2:24)
One rule is that when the plain sense of Scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense. (To do otherwise distorts.) Again, the grammatical sense is the simple, direct, plain, ordinary, and literal sense of the words, phrases, clauses, and sentence (in both surrounding as well as general context).
Quoting William Tyndale, a gifed translator of our English Bible: "Thou shalt understand, therefore, thast the Scripture hath but one sense, which is the literal sense. And that literal sense is the root and ground of all, and the anchor that never faileth, whereunto if thou cleave thou canst never err nor go out of the way. And if thou leave the literal sense, thou canst not but go out of the way."
======
(The above is my slight adaptation of the discussion found in "HERE'S HOW! The Bible Can Make Sense To You Today!" by Dr. Fred Wittman, Morris Publishing (2000) pp. 26-28)
========
What I am saying about the article of this discussion is that I would strongly advise that no one take your recommendation to regard The Apokalupsis to be taken as a difficultly understood allegory. Actually, it is a revealing of The God's Will, not a concealment of it! And the reader should take it that way! If you don't understand something as plainly literal, don't make an allegory of it! Don't seek a "higher" level! Higher? False, probably.
I completely agree. If you will retread my posts, you will notice that I NEVER advocated for a higher reading to supplant the literal one.
All that I was doing was asking if there was another lesson in there for us.
I also wonder a bit about such little items as the 4 beasts with 6 wings in chapter 4; the 4 horsemen of chapter 6, why only 144,000 of all the tribes of Israel were sealed; and the locusts of chapter 9 are very oddly formed.
Then, what about the red dragon of chapter 11, the one with 7 heads and 10 horns? Surely this is symbolic of something?
And of course, we know that the Lamb is another Christ. Surely He will not appear as a lamb as we know the beast.
As I said, I'm a pre-millilenialist. This is a group that takes this scripture pretty seriously. Yet even they think that these are symbols for other specific individuals or institutions
I think Revelation is giving us serious warnings that are disregarded only at peril. So I think it behooves us to determine exactly what it is telling us. In short, I think there is little harm in looking a higher, more metaphorical interpretations, as long as we only use them to supplement, not replace the more literal ones.
I started this line of questioning, not to defend a point, but to further my own understanding of the question, and I truly appreciate you response.