This next post I’m breaking up into four parts. The first one is this post, offering a little bit of the methodology that I bring to the text. The next two will be the liveblog, and the fourth will be the analysis post going into theology a little bit.
I should be up front with something to begin with: I read The creation account as a narrative, and I don’t get very hung up on whether it is literal or not. This is for two major reasons. First, as we can see in the previous post on Genesis, God is intimately connected with His creation. It was created to reveal His glory, something we will touch on more as we go on. If the above is true, then it follows that creation itself is a revelation of God. Creation literally witnesses to the glory of God. Science is simply the study of creation and, although it may be misguided at times and come to wrong conclusions, science does have the ability to show us the majesty and complexity of the creation of God.
There are several branches of science which give evidence to an old Earth. Two of the most convincing for me are: the observation of stars and galaxies millions of lightyears away, and the fossil record. I’m not going to get into details here, and you may have come to your own conclusions, but to me, these two have been very convincing.
The second major reason that I do not have a problem with reading Genesis as a narrative rather than as a historical account is because I see good evidence that it was meant to be read this way. I will get more into this in a couple days, but I think it is important for you, dear reader, to understand some of the baggage I bring to the text.
Tomorrow brings part one of the liveblog. See you there, friends!