Re: your idea that Revelation uses symbolic language... yes, of course it does. But you seem to take that as a signal that interpreting it is now a “free-for-all”, where any theological (amateur or otherwise) may inject any meaning he wishes onto it... and that simply won’t do.
I have a friend who is a pre-tribulationist. He’s studied the bible far more than me and teaches large classes. He is convinced that the beginning of Revelation 4 is proof of pre-trib rapture. I, on the other hand, believe the much more literal explanation in Revelation 7 after the sealing of the 144,000 is proof of “mid-tribulation” rapture.
I think I’m right, but I understand I may be missing something and could actually be wrong. But again I fall onto my understanding of God’s personality to support my position. And the personality of God allows His people to go through no small amount of tribulation, as happens throughout the bible not to mention the fates of the apostles. But it strengthens us.
But this is why, although I value Revelation a great deal, I understand that different people come up with different interpretations of the actual meanings of the phrases and stories it contains.
But at the end of the day I think any of us that use its words to believe they solidly support a position on something like the tribulation or hell is being too smart by half.
I think I see your point (though I’d still say that it’s incorrect in many parts), but: the idea of eternal hell isn’t exactly a tiny and obscure Scriptural “blip”; it’s rather central to the Gospel message... and anyone who tries to suggest that Hell is NOT eternal has to resort to the most extraordinary mental calisthenics (or else deny the Bible and its contents altogether)! It’s akin to those who try to deny the divinity of Christ; a significant number of people try it (Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other modern subscribers to the Arian heresy), but they have to do violence to the Biblical context (and the Biblical text, sometimes going so far as to “re-translate” the Bible in keeping with their beliefs, as the JW’s do in their “New World” version [I can’t call it a “translation”, as such, since it’s so distorted]).
Simple logic demands that there have to be limits on how far one is allowed to “interpret” the Scriptures; we are not free to go into la-la land and say “Black can really be interpreted to mean white, if only we have the eyes to see it!” Words mean things... and those who try their utmost to “explain away” even the clearest Biblical passages seem to be doing their best to inject their own preferences onto a text which simply doesn’t agree with them.