How (not) to interpret the Book of Revelation
I’ve suggested before that some of Hugh Ross’ attempts to harmonise science and Scripture are unconvincing.
In my view, he threatens to brings the Bible into disrepute by imposing interpretative schemes that are untenable. He writes:
…‘My interpretative approach is to identify a passage in Revelation…as symbolic only if its implied symbol is used and defined elsewhere in the Bible or if certain words within the context clearly indicate that the author intended something other than a literal meaning.’





In chapter 3 of Why we’re not emergent (by two guys who should be), Kevin DeYoung explains why he loves ‘the person and propositions of Jesus’. What follows is based on part of that chapter.