I don't think it's overstating.

First, even the fraction 1/3 might be symbolic. It indicates that the amount is not total. We can't say, "Oh, it was exactly 1/3." In the NT, the the ideas of few or many may be combined with the number 3 according to the context. What the text means to say is that it was a considerable number, but that's as far as we can go, especially in the context of Revelation's symbolism. While the Revelation text may be speaking of fallen angels, to me it doesn't fit the context.

Second, We don't even know who the woman is and who the child is.

The woman has been said (by scholars) to possibly represent Israel, the professing church, Mary, or the old covenant. The child is said to possibly represent Christ, the true church, or the the 144,000. If the stars of v. 4 represent the martyrs, the chapter is summarizing what we've already read in ch. 6 and other places about the great persecution of the Church that will take place.

But if it's ANY of these (and it seems likely it's one of them), why pop a sentence right in the middle of it about angels? The woman is about to give birth (Rev. 12.2); the dragon with symbols of power shows up (v. 3); he steals angels (????); then we go back to the woman about to give birth (v. 4), and the dragon wants to devour the child. Stealing angels doesn't fit the flow, imho.

Even if so, don't you think this remark is over-stating your position:

It's just a legend that became a tradition. There is no Bible verse that says any such thing.

The passage from Revelation 12 is plausibly interpreted as referring to angels symbolically as stars, even if this is not a necessary interpretation.

Revelation 12 seems to be a grand summary review of all of salvation history, including its eschatological conclusion.

> The people of God doesn't make sense because no one can snatched us from His hand, therefore the dragon isn't dragging our casting 1/3 of us to earth with his tail.

There are SO many interpretations of this chapter. The woman has been said (by scholars) to possibly represent Israel, the professing church, Mary, or the old covenant. The child is said to possibly represent Christ, the true church, or the the 144,000. If the stars of v. 4 represent the martyrs, the chapter is summarizing what we've already read in ch. 6 and other places about the great persecution of the Church that will take place.

The text doesn't say these believers were snatched from the hand of God (if that's what this even represents). What it says is that the power of the dragon was so great that he was able to persecute even God's elect.

> Literal stars doesn't make much sense because if you're going literal, you've gotta go literal and in no way could we ever have 1/3 of the stars in the heavens on earth.

We know that in the eschaton there will be great cosmic disturbances (Mk. 13.25; Mt. 24.29; Rev. 6.13; 8.10; 9.1). It's not literal in the sense that these stars will hit the planet Earth, but it might be possible to see them falling from their place as we see meteor showers. As we all know, Revelation is a difficult book to take firm stances on.

> Based on context within the passage as well as the rest of the Bible, angels is the only answer that makes sense.

Yes, I hear that this is your opinion. It is an opinion that is shared by some and not by others.

> Isaiah 14 speaks of Satan being cast out. Ezekiel 28 does as well.

I don't believe that either of these texts speak of Satan. That is an old, traditional interpretation that is no longer believed by many scholars. I believe, with them, that it was a misinterpretation of those texts, which speak instead, in very poetic and symbolic language, of the kings of Tyre and Babylon.

> Jesus even says that he saw Satan cast out

This is an expression to say that his kingdom was under significant attack. It’s not like Satan has an office in heaven. This fall is the response to the 72’s successful ministry, of which they had just observed, “Even the demons submit to us in your name” (v. 17). It is therefore a possibility, if not a probability, that Christ is referring not to the primeval past, but to the recent triumphs of the 72 (cf. Jn. 12.31), though he may be doing it through allusion to the distant past.

> so we know that it's possible that 1/3 of them could've chosen to follow Lucifer in his rebellion.

Of course it's possible, but it's not a position we can take scripturally because the Bible doesn't say this is what happened in these numbers or this percentage. It's a legend that became a tradition, but it's not scriptural.

> And as I said above, your other two theories just don't hold water.

I hear that this is your opinion. Some scholars disagree with you. Some agree with you.

> I still feel it's important to interpret things accurately.

Me, too. Correct interpretation is paramount. That's why I have to disagree with you about some of this.

The people of God doesn't make sense because no one can snatched us from His hand, therefore the dragon isn't dragging our casting 1/3 of us to earth with his tail.

Literal stars doesn't make much sense because if you're going literal, you've gotta go literal and in no way could we ever have 1/3 of the stars in the heavens on earth.

Based on context within the passage as well as the rest of the Bible, angels is the only answer that makes sense. Isaiah 14 speaks of Satan being cast out. Ezekiel 28 does as well. Revelation 20 specifically calls the dragon that old serpent, who is Satan and the devil and refers to him being sized and cast out. Jesus even says that he saw Satan cast out. So, Satan's removal from heaven is well established. We already know the angels are capable of reveling as Jude points this out as does Peter in 2 Peter 2:4, so we know that it's possible that 1/3 of them could've chosen to follow Lucifer in his rebellion. And as I said above, your other two theories just don't hold water.

Now, this isn't a salvation issue, ie it won't keep you out of Heaven, so I'm not gonna argue or fight over it, I still feel it's important to interpret things accurately.

I quite strongly disagree. Verse 9 is speaking of a different matter than v. 4. Starting at v. 7, what happens is subsequent to what was going on in vv. 1-6. In other words, after those things, verse 7 starts a different setting and action.

The woman is pregnant. The dragon appears. He swept 1/3 of the stars from heaven. She gave birth to a child who was caught up. Then she fled.

Then a war arose in heaven. The dragon was defeated, and he and his angels were thrown down. It's very possible that the angels of the dragon have nothing to do with the stars that were swept and cast to Earth.

The parallels are quite easy to deny because they're not parallel at all. They describe different scenes and different events with different players. In the first set is the woman, the child, and the dragon. In the second set is Michael, the dragon, and the angels of the dragon. There is no warrant to necessarily associate the stars of v. 4 with the angels of v. 9.

Looking at the verses he put in bold, you can't deny the parallels between verses 4 and 9. His point is stronger than you are giving credit for.

It's just a legend that became a tradition. There is no Bible verse that says any such thing. Jude 1.6 says that some angels abandoned positions and their home, but we have no idea how many that included and what proportion of the angel population that was.

How do we know that 1/3 of angels became wicked

What scripture