I think thats close to a definition of insanity. Either move to the Aramaic, or Greek, or stop discussing the "literalism" of the words in question.
But fine. Since you brought it up, and since you bring up a fair point tell us your interpretation of the original Aramaic or Greek.
Because your reply presupposes the modern understanding is inherently sound because of an appeal to authority of the wisdom of times past. I would say instead by the time of the council of Nicea, things were already very political and the church was seeking to confirm words to suit the institution, not for their actual historical meaning. That was only 2-300 years after the record mind you.
There is quite the extensive record of first/second century apocalyptic literature, (some of it even became the NT). These preserve remarkably detailed pictures of what apocalyptic thinking looked like long before Nicea.
The main thing to say is the concept of apocalypse was much broader than today's. To your question, it did mean a revelation of relationship with god, and then it also meant an end-of-times sense, and it also was political commentary, and it was also a conspiracy theory, etc. People did not distinguish between which modern, narrower concept they meant, because they actually meant the broad concept.