Recovery, a good idea would be to take advice from Emanuel Tov, a very clever, but at the same time humble and pragmatic scholar, emphasizing the difference between objectivity and subjectivity.
A definition of objectivity: “involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena”, e.g., objective awareness or data (Webster). Unfortunately the scope of an interpreter is limited, having to rely on the Biblical account, historical sources, as well as commentaries, to the detriment of true objectivity.
A definition of subjectivity is: “characteristic of belonging to reality as perceived rather than independent of mind” or “modified or affected by a personal view, experience or background”, e.g., subjective judgment (Webster).
Objective elements pertain to the description of the text as well as comparative historical data. However, the disciplines of translation as well as exegesis fall squarely in the subjective camp. In addition, a combination of subjective criteria and intuition is necessary to establish the importance of differences in ancient and modern translations, compared to the MT [Masoretic Text]. On the whole, something considered a solid fact by one scholar is contested by another. Because of the nature of interpretation, it attests to a great deal of subjectivity, which should be taken in account when appraising Biblical material.
The best explanation I have heard to explain your point of view is not found in Revelation at all, but in the book of Isaiah (66:1a). But keep in mind, it is based on interpretation according to the book of Isaiah. As Leolaia demonstrated, interpretation according to the book of Revelation would point in different direction altogether. At all times keep an open mind and do not try and enforce your interpretation on others. It might come back to haunt you (cf. E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, p. 22).