[spirited irish]

When I said, "Revelation where fallen angels and demons emerging from the abyss are described literally as something they are not" I was thinking of Revelation 9:3-6:

And out of the smoke, locusts descended on the earth, and they were given power like that of the scorpions of the earth. They were told not to harm the grass of the earth or any plant or tree, but only those who did not have the seal of God on their foreheads. The locusts were not given power to kill them, but only to torment them for five months, and their torment was like the stinging of a scorpion. In those days men will seek death and will not find it; they will long to die, but death will escape them.

The text calls them locusts that appear "like horses, arrayed for battle". They have human faces, with golden crowns, the teeth of lions, and stings like scorpions.

They come from outside the space/time dimension and emerge from the smoke which comes from the bottomless pit. They are under the command of Abaddon or Apollyon, the destroyer or power of destruction.

Whatever they look like, they are not locusts but fallen angels and demons who come to torture humans, not crops. Their effect upon men is that they will seek death but not find it because the purpose of these locusts that are not locusts is despair. For these locusts are weaponized carriers of torment and despair.

Here we have an example of a text speaking of demons and fallen angels that if interpreted literally, makes evil spirits into something they are not: bizarre locusts with human faces.

[Scrambler Bob]

Here we have an example of a text speaking of demons and fallen angels that if interpreted literally, makes evil spirits into something they are not: bizarre locusts with human faces.
= = =

Adam Schiff, Nancy Polosi, Soros, ...

Bizarre locusts, all of them.

[Oberon]

Here we have an example of a text speaking of demons and fallen angels that if interpreted literally, makes evil spirits into something they are not: bizarre locusts with human faces.

Yes. Very good. So, having considered the literal interpretation and rejected it, saying "No, that isn't what this means," one is left with the question "If that's the case, then what does it mean?"

And the moment you start to look for non-literal ways to read that text, you're interpreting. It's not a matter of whether the language is figurative... you've already decided it is. It's just a matter of which figurative reading is the right one.