In addition to the powerful rationale of the arguments for the existence of the mind and of God (which represent total other articles), most of us also have a powerful intuitive response to the idea that “there is nothing else.” I experience in my soul that there is something more. Of course, I accept that could be delusion, but I am convinced by the reason, my experience, what I believe to be the testimony of God’s Spirit, and my own intuition that there is something more.
With that in mind, how does someone with a serious respect for the scientific process of studying the “natural” world interact with the biblical accounts of creation?
I am glad you asked.
First, let’s look at the very basic perspectives that are in play:
In specific regard to the creation story… Here is a quick look at some theories that main views can be broken into:
Secular Scientism, materialism, naturalism (or sometimes referred to as evolutionism) – This view holds that process oriented theories, like evolution, alone can explain (and can explain alone) and do (or at least will) explain all the issues revolving the concept of where mankind and matter came from. This view says that “God” (whose existence is denied) had and has no role in any aspect of existence, including beginnings. There are many variations within this basic view, but they all share a secular foundation.
Theism, Deism (some call this theistic evolution, but that term lacks a common definition at this point)– This view holds that some kind of creator/designer god created all that is, including natural laws, which may include laws about evolution, set this creation into motion, and has not interfered in any way since then, at least not supernaturally.
Progressive Creationism (sometimes this is what is called “Theistic Evolution” as well)– This view says that this God has been intimately involved in the creative and growth processes of creation. It 
basically holds to the traditional or similar view of creation except for the timetables. It is basically an old earth view of creation. This view is very broad and might include, for example, an historical Adam or might not, depending on the person you ask. It often also involves a role for evolution – at least at the micro level and often at the macro level.
Traditional Creationism – This view holds to the strictly literal view of creation – historical Adam, 3 sons of Adam & Eve, 6 – 24 hour days, etc. Based on lineages offered in scripture, this view tends to see the earth and the rest of the universe as much younger – often between 6-10,000 years old. How/why, then does the earth seem so much older? Here are three common views:
-
-
- Gap Theory – in the gap theory, the space between Gen 1:1 and 1:2 are seen as significant. This theory posits that the space in between indicate another age of “earth” that has already been before and been destroyed before. This earth is why the earth seems so old – because it actually is, at least below the surface. Technically, this would still be an old Earth theory. I see no problem with this theory except that it is crafted from silence. However, it would not be in any competition with other old earth theories.
- Created Old Theory – in this theory, it is posited that the earth was created already old – like the chicken being created as a chicken, not an egg, or Adam being created as a grown man, not an infant. Of course, these first two would technically be old-Earth theories since in both cases, the actual Earth would be old. This one seems problematic to me because it feels deceptive. I do not think it fits in with the character of God that we cannot trust our experience of the natural world around us. Further, it seems extremely arbitrary since each created thing is aged at very different rates. An adult fruit fly might be a few hours old, an adult human 18 years? (odd to think how old Adam would have been, huh? We have no information. Maybe he was a fetus… or maybe 50), the light from a star might be millions of years old.
- Environmental Changes – This view closely examines the pre-flood climate and the effects of the flood on creation… this one is actual young Earth theory. If you are intrigued to study this option more, I would recommend: https://answersingenesis.org
-
Biblically, I think that the first chapters of Genesis was written primarily to express why and by whom creation was managed (in other words, to show the teleology) – not how, when, or exactly what. It would be difficult to explain even simple systems that we do understand in only 2 chapters – imagine trying to explain the rules of football in 2 chapters!
Therefore, any theory that includes
1) God being the source of all things – matter, energy and life, for example and
2) indicates that He made man distinct from the animals (special) and that He was motivated by His desire to share a relationship with us (loves us) and continues to be engaged in His creation, should be on the table for Christians and still be considered potentially doctrinally sound.
With that in mind, most of the Christians who are new to reading about these topics are most surprised to find that an old Earth view of creation is not heresy or blasphemy. If that is you, then I think you will enjoy the rest of this material….
Click here for Part IV
For Jenny – look up the word “resurrection” and you will find that everyone is ultimately resurrected – some to eternal life and some to damnation. Jesus spoke of a “second birth” and of a “second death”. The “second death” is when a soul and body are cast into the lake of fire.
Jesus said, (Mat 10:28) “And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”
Clearly both soul and body go to hell. This is the essence of the resurrection that our souls are reunited with our bodies. How is God able to reconstruct our body if it has turned to dust? The body is about three pounds of chemicals plus a lot of water. Whenever we eat, the food is used to replace cells in our body. Over the course of about a year, the cells will have been completely swapped out with new ones. Chemically speaking, we are not the same physical person we were a year ago. The only thing that remains the same is the information in our DNA and our eternal soul. So all God really needs to reconstruct us from chemicals are the actual chemicals and the genetic information. We are told he keeps the genetic information in a book (Psalm 139:16).
Our body dies but our soul lives on. If we have not experienced the second birth, then we are yet-in-our-sins and we cannot enter the presence of God. We descend to Gehenna in the belly of the earth (described by Christ in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man – Luke 16). Prior to Christ’s death, no human soul had been redeemed, so no human souls were in heaven (John 3:13) – but were being kept in the belly of the earth in “Abraham’s Bosom”. Jesus died, went to this place and preached to them about himself, (1 Pet 3:19) and led them out of Abraham’s Bosom to heaven. Now when a believer dies, we are absent from the body and present with the Lord (2Cor 5:8).
Interesting factoids:
Graves were opened after the resurrection, and people came out of their graves:
Mat 27:52-53 “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.”
Lazarus is carried by angels to the location, apparently because the default for a human soul is to fall directly to hell, no angels to support us.
The rich man remembered Lazarus, his life, his brothers and his Jewish heritage. But his body had been buried. This means that memory is not in the brain, but in the soul. And explains why human memory has such phenomenal capacity.
Jesus uses this occasion to remind us all – that believing that someone can rise from the dead isn’t enough. If someone does not believe “Moses and the Prophets” – they will not believe even if someone rose from the dead. Many in the church have taken sides with the evolutionary narrative of origins, rejecting Moses (who wrote Genesis).
The takeaway – is that the Creation and Fall are the foundation of the Crucifixion, and the prophets’ words serve to identify Christ as the one true sacrifice. The foundation of the Resurrection is the Crucifixion, but the foundation of the Crucifixion is the Fall of Man – which is founded in the Creation itself.
The complete “gospel” is therefore
Creation-Fall-Crucifixion-Resurrection
After all, how can it be “good news” if there isn’t some “bad news” to balance it? What makes it “good”?
These elements are all packed into John 3:16
For God (the Creator) so loved the world (Creation) that he gave his only begotten Son (Crucifixion) that whosoever believes in him should not perish (Fall of Man) but have everlasting life (Resurrection)
It is indeed a problem in Christianity today that the first two are largely set aside and the last two are largely preached out-of-context. Yet Jesus himself said that if we reject the words of Moses (the Creation account) that the Resurrection doesn’t matter to them.
I met a guy to who told me “I believe that Jesus could walk on water, heal the sick, raise people from the dead and even raise himself from the dead”
So I asked him “what gives?”
and he said “Anyone living back then who saw these things would view Jesus as “a god”. But frankly, Jesus just “had it figured out” – and we will eventually figure it out. If anything, Jesus was the greatest scientist ever”
He believed that Jesus could rise from the dead – but he accepted the secular explanations of Origins – rejecting Moses – and fulfilling Christ’s warning – they will not believe, though one rose from the dead.
And as for the secular “something from nothing” even this is misrepresented. The “something” came from another “something” – which is defined as a singularity where all of the “something” is packed very tight but “doing nothing”.
However, this is just the dumping ground for the unanswered questions. It carried all of the earmarks of a “rescue device”. It is contrived, unknowable, unrepeatable, but conveniently carries all of the necessary ingredients to explain the problem, and if it doesn’t, those ingredients are added along the way to keep the rescue device complete.
Let it be known that a lot of secular physicists have a huge problem with the Big Bang. They call it “just another creation myth” and are quietly outraged that it was originally invented to answer “Let there be light” rather than being formulated independently of the Bible. This is why the Big Bang “looks” so much like the Bible’s creation event. The people who invented it could not find any more creative way to explain it. Such secularists want another way to explain the universe and I suspect that one will be forthcoming in our lifetimes that dismisses the Big Bang, but also dismisses the Bible with it.
Eric Lerner’s “The Big Bang Never Happened” is semi-technical but offers a great deal of information for the layperson to understand why the Big Bang doesn’t work, and uses the actual data from the cosmos to show why.
Eph 2:1 “And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;”
This is the condition of a person’s soul at conception. The soul is dead to spiritual matters just as a body is dead to earthly matters, and the soul does not care for the things of the spiritual realm. This does not mean that a human has a “spirit” that is “dead” inside the human. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” –
When a human becomes saved, the Holy Spirit physically, not spiritually – indwells the human. Does this mean that the Holy Spirit is now the surrogate for the “dead” spirit that is in the human? No, there is no “dead spirit” in a human. There is a soul that cannot respond to God’s Spirit (more on this later)
When he says “you hath he quickened” (above) – literally meaning “made alive” – does this mean that the “spirit” within us was made alive? If so why do we need the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?
What was “made alive” is our soul – which is our mind, will and emotions. This is what we will carry into the afterlife. It is why sin is not in the body, but the soul. If sin were in the body, we would be free from it when we die.
Every reference in the New Testament appeals to some part of our soul, but never talks about us having a spirit separate from the soul. He commands us to bring our thoughts under the captivity of Christ, to control the desires of the flesh, and even centers human sin on three things that are in the soul – lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh and the pride of life.
When it talks about “ruling ones spirit” this is invariably a reference to ruling ones emotions, not a separate “spirit” that is within us. And why would we have to rule something that is dead?
To wrap all that up – an unsaved human soul cannot actively respond to God’s Spirit because the soul is dead to the Spirit. If you want to call this “spiritually dead” then it has the same context as someone who has lost their hearing and sight and cannot respond to the words of other humans. Their physcal senses are dead. We could call them “hearing dead” or “sight dead” but this would be awkward language.
How does God contact a human? Through an evangelist:
“Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God”
“by grace are you saved, through faith”
When a person hears the words of God spoken on their ear, it opens their ability for the Holy Spirit to call their soul. The natural response of the soul is to call upon the name of the Lord
“who calls upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved”
But we would be utterly unable to do this unless our faith was initially quickened by the words of God.
Again, you make a claim that there is no passage in the Bible anywhere that states something, but what you mean is that you do not interpret them that way… I would think a pretty good case could be made that I Thess 5:23: “Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” and Heb 4:12: “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” both reference a spirit (Greek: pneuma) and soul (Greek: psyche)… I am aware of these and I am not even a fan of the Trichotomous view of human substance.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (Heb 4:12). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2001). (1 Th 5:23). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.
Chris, I have already noted that there are references to the human spirit, but these generally center upon the emotional processes of the human mind. Or rather, the vitality of the emotional processes. The Greek “pneuma” means a wind, or force, in the case of man, the vitality of that force.
Jesus said, “Blessed are the poor in spirit” – literally blessed are those who lack vitality in your souls, what we would normally associate with depression or emotional pain.
Yet Jesus offered this comfort to those who preceded the Resurrection. They were unredeemed. How can he say that they have “poor” spirits when you are suggesting that they have “dead” spirits?
This is the real problem that “spirit” and “dead” do not appear together in the Bible except in terms of physical death already having happened. And in some cases, “spirit” and “soul” are used interchangeably or together as though inseparable.
Indeed God’s word does separate the soul and spirit – the mind and the vitality driving the mind. It calls the mind to answer even in the fog of emotional pain or confusion. Much of life hits or affects our emotions first. God appeals to our reason (our minds) because of the mind’s stability. Emotions are fleeting (like the wind ‘pneuma’) – and not to be trusted in decisionmaking. God’s word necessarily separates this “wind” from the soul so that he can reason with us.
It’s not that the word “spirit” is not associated with humans, but the notion of “spiritual death” is not supported in Scripture. Anytime the spirit “pneuma” dies in a human, the human physically dies with it.
By this token, Adam actually did experience a physical death – the death of animals as God formally instituted substitutionary sacrifice as a foreshadowing of Christ. Cain and Abel execute ritual sacrifice in the following chapter. The theme of blood-as-price and physical-death-as-penalty for sin – permeates the Scripture from cover-to-cover.
Where did the idea for substitutionary death come from? God built it into the foundation of the Primary Architecture of the Creation – Jesus is the “lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Rev 13:8)
Hebrews 9:22 – “without the shedding of blood there is no remission”
There is a running theme in Scripture that blood is the price for sin, and death is the penalty for it. A simple study of “sin” and “death” reveals that they are intertwined.
Jesus physically died. There is no such thing as “spiritual death” – Even mankind does not experience the “second death” until all of the unbelievers are thrown into the lake of fire. Even this is not called a “spiritual death”.
The Bible says that all humans are resurrected, no exceptions – some are resurrected to life eternal and some to damnation (John 5:29)., But resurrection is reuniting with the physical body. Jesus is claimed ot be the “first fruits” of the resurrection, so that all resurrections carry common characteristics, such as establishing or re-establishing the physicality of the human.
There is no doctrine of “spirtual death” or even the concept of it. Human souls are not even spiritually separated from God – because God upholds all things by the word of his power (Heb 1:3) including Hell and the Lake of Fire, and the Psalmist says (Ps 139:8) that God is in Hell as well as Heaven.
Our sins have separated us from God’s fellowship but we are never completely separated from God. We are still his creation.
I would challenge anyone to find the “spiritual death” concept, doctrine or even the words “spirit” and “death” in the same verse. In the Old Testament, where surely this foundational doctrine should be found (being associated with Adam), every case of the use of the word “death” either means physical death, or the death experienced by the soul after physical death.
Likewise the New Testament, the word “death” is associated with physical death or the death-in-hell experienced after physical death, or the rescue from death-in-hell because of eternal life after physical death.
In the New Testament, the Holy Spirit indwells the believer, but this was never available to mankind, not even Adam, so it not a restoration of a prior condiiton.
The notion of “spiritual death” has crept into the modern doctrines of the church as a loose way to explain the fallen state of humans prior to salvation. But their condition is not “spiritual death” – it is “damnation” or “condemnation”. They are condemned to hell at birth and can only be pardoned by the blood of Christ.
But there is no Scriptural concept of “spiritual death” while the human still lives. This is a contrived doctrine.
God provided for the redemption of the creation through his Son, the “lamb slain from the foundation of the world”. The method of redemption always followed substitutionary death, even to the Cross.
When God learned that Adam had sinned, he did not exact the death penalty on Adam, but instead exacted it on a substitute. He slew animals and clothed the couple with coats of skins, and clearly showed Adam how to perform ritual sacrifice. How do we know this? The very next scene is Cain and Abel performing formal, ritual sacrifice. Abel’s sacrifice was pleasing to God because it was a substitutionary sacrifice, death and blood. Cains was unacceptable because it he offered plants – which do not die and cannot serve as a substitute. Plants don’t die, but “wither” and “fade” – they don’t possess the same “Biblcal life” as the creatures formed on Days 5 and 6.
The running theme of Scripture is that blood is the price for sin, and physical death is the penalty. Someone or something has to pay the blood price with death, and only Christ could offer his own blood as a final sacrifice to God.
If Jesus did not have to physically die, then the Cross is the most cruel and godless act of all time.
The question of death, and when it arrived on Earth, leads us directly to the Cross. This is why organizatins like AnswersInGenesis and Institute for Creation Research draw a line-in-the-sand for it. Take away the doctrine of sin-and-death, or attempt to recharacterize it, and this recharacterizes the Cross itself.
It is very disturbing that most Christians dismiss this as inconsequential, when even the atheists know where the lines are drawn:
“Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing!” Bozarth, G. Richard, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist (February 1978), p 30
If there is no such thing as “Spiritual death”, what do you think Paul is referencing in Eph 2 and Col 2?
I am having a really good time following your discussion! You remind me of a question that maybe you can answer in another blog post: would you explain John 3:16? One question I have about it is that it seems to conflict with other verses about the requirements of salvation, for example (I think) 1 Corinthians 10:9-10 that says “confess with your mouth…and believe in your heart….” The other question I have is about the phrase “eternal life”. If you can have eternal life, does that mean that eternal death is also an option? And then what you guys have been arguing about- is this referring to eternal spiritual life, or physical life? It seems like I understood this verse as a child, but maybe I just accepted it at face value. Then I was working with Abby to memorize it and realized that I didn’t really understand it. It gets thrown around so often, I would like to understand it better!
Yes, I will write an article about John 3:16. I would love to.
The progressive creation narrative attempts to disassociate the meaning of physical death from Adam’s sin, so that it can conceptually justify long ages of physical death and bloodshed prior to Adam. If evolution isn’t true, then there’s no reason for long ages (likewise if the Earth is young).. If the fossils are the result of a global flood, then the evolutionary narrative is completely false. If the dating methods for long-ages are completely flawed, then long-ages are a myth.
This is why separating “long ages of death and struggle” from Adam’s sin is also theologically flawed. It’s not about the science or the meaning of the word “day”. It’s not about whether God used long ages to accomplish his goals. It boils down ot this:
if physical death is unrelated to Adam’s sin, then the Cross has no meaning at all. This is a very serious matter indeed.
Romans 5:12-21, seems to address the death problem in scripture and evolutionary philosophy regarding the historic past. Paul says:
“Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one
man, and death through sin, and in this way death came
to all men, because all sinned — for before the law
was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken
into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death
reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses,
even over those who did not sin by breaking a
command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one
to come. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if
the many died by the trespass of the one man, how
much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by
the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to
the many! Again, the gift of God is not like the result
of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin
and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many
trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the
trespass of the one man, death reigned through that
one man, how much more will those who receive
God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of
righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
Consequently, just as the result of one trespass
was condemnation for all men, so also the result of
one act of righteousness was justification that brings
life for all men. For just as through the disobedience
of the one man the many were made sinners, so also
through the obedience of the one man the many will
be made righteous. The law was added so that the
trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace
increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in
death, so also grace might reign through righteousness
to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
I Corinthians 15:
21-22 as he writes (NIV):
“. . . For since death came through a man, the
resurrection of the dead comes also through a man.
For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made
alive.”
It seems pretty clear when reading these passages from the Bible that the authors intention was to teach that physical death first entered the world through the sin of one man, Adam.
It also seems to clearly teach that the entire human race has carried down this death sentence from Adam because we are all decedents of Adam.
Regardless of what one might think about forensic historical science about the ‘ancient past’ the Bible seems to not believe modern historical science regarding when death came upon man. I would think some exegetical gymnastics would need to be used to formulate some theology to show the Bible supporting an ancient past where monkey-like creatures slowly evolved into man through vast ages of death and suffering….which one of these ‘monkey-like’ creatures is the Adam and how was he attributed to have been the man through which death came if his monkey-like ancestors had to die for Adam to come on the seen? I realize this can be spiritualized to be scriptures talking only about spiritual death but it seems to be clearly talking also about physical death.
What about these passages indicate to you that this is about physical death rather than spiritual death?
Well I believe based on the context there is a strong case to be made that it’s about both spiritual and physical death.
For instance if we are to be ressurected from the dead and given new glorified bodies via Jesus (1 Cor 15:21-22) it would be assumed that this verse was also referring to physical and spiritual death through Adam since it’s contrasting the two men.
The plain reading seems uncomplicated and inexcapable to be about both types of death.
Prior to the late 1700’s I believe most theology books taught that Adam brought both physical and spiritual death to all men.
I believe the only reason for interpreting these verses to be about only spiritual death is to harmonize evolutions pre-Adamite man with the Bible.
I agree it is plausible that it refers to both, but not necessary. Jesus died, after all, and that was not a consequence of being part of the fallen race of man. Physical death could easily have been the norm outside of the garden. I agree that the reason for the re-interpretation is because of what we have learned about the natural world since early interpretations… however, it seems like you are saying that is a bad thing. Is it?
Chris, I especially appreciate your sentiment in the nearly last paragraph that the account in Gen is much less about exactly what happened and much more about who did it and why. I have for many years been very frustrated with the whole evolution/creation thing. It feels to me like arguing over what color carpet to put in the sanctuary when the question is whether we are going to worship here. That is, the question is not how you believe God created the universe, but whether you choose to give him the glory for it! So for years, I have conceded evolution, if for no other reason than that I don’t care. I think it is highly unlikely that families of animals actually evolved from other families of animals, but I’d rather not get lost in the details of fossils and bones.
As for the Christians who can’t tolerate the idea of evolution, I always wonder if they’ve read 2 Peter 3:8 that says “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.” I think it is obvious that time means something different to a God who identifies himself as “I am.”
But then, I am one who has never had much trouble accepting the idea that we are not meant to understand everything that there is to know, or even everything that there is in scripture. I am ok not knowing now, b’c I know I will find out later 😉
My sense is that those unable to accept evolution is more about the “kind” concept in Genesis 1. Personally, I do not think that Hebrew word was meant to indicate that evolution does not happen outside of “kind” but I can understand the consternation.
My honest, deepest belief is that all of this debate is that we are not meant to understand how God creates. I read your articles on the new research on the big bang theory too–the something from nothing theory. The history of science is that as soon as we sort of understand how something works, we start trying to replicate it. It won’t be long before people are walking around trying to clap their hands hard enough to create a universe! or even more likely, scientist are working on how to set off a bomb in a vacuum. We still have en vitro fertilization because they haven’t actually figured out how to grow a baby outside of a mother’s uterus. When they do, there will be a race of humans who were never born. I just think there are things that we are not meant to ever understand. I’m not saying it well, but what I’m trying to say is what if scientists did figure out how we were all created?
When I was in highschool I picked up an old book from the 1920’s I think and it talked about the Gap theory. I let that theory kind of hold things together for me regarding The General Theory of Evolution and what the Bible has to say. I’ve since realized with the help of resources from CMI and answersingenesis that the Gap theory was created not from good hermeneutical understanding in scripture but as a way to fit scientific data interpretations in geology w/ the Bible and it still all make sense. My main theological issue w/ theistic evolution or whatever they want to call it is how can you have death and suffering prior to Adam and Eve causing death and suffering when they ate the forbidden fruit? If sin is the cause of death why all the death before sin?
There are a few possible thoughts that come to mind… First, it is certainly possible that sin had come into existence before the creation of man, through the fall of Satan, for example. Also, and more likely from my perspective, is that the death that entered the world was the Spiritual death the seems to have been the consequence for Adam and Eve (otherwise, we would expect them to have died immediately after eating the fruit)… I think those are plausible explanations.
Chris, you have left out an answer. That is “functional maturity”. This does not mean that the world was created “old” or the “appearance of age” (since age has nothing to do with appearance). God says Adam was created fully mature, so we would not expect him to have tooth decay. Nor on “day eight” would we expect to see a lot of rotting fruit on the ground, or a lot of animal poop. Yet the creation still has the superficial “age” that is merely an artifact of functional maturity.
Genesis One says God created them “male and female”. Jesus said “in the beginning God created them male and female”. So that God does not start a human from a single cell, but from the contribution of two trillion-celled mature humans, each offering a “seed” cell (ovum or sperm) to combine and conceive the first cell of the next human, each containing half the chromosomes of its parents. God said each creature and plant starts with “their seed within themselves” – but you are starting with the seed alone. Each animal seed needs an initial container, and this Biblical explanation perfectly dovetails with genetic science. Your single-cell approach is merely a thought experiment – it is the same thought-experiment that launches the evolutionary narrative, so you are not the the first to “come up with” this idea.
Each time I read where someone “comes up with” something outside the plainspoken narrative of Genesis One, it is simply because they don’t believe the plainspoken narrative of Genesis One. Is that where you are – that there’s no way the earth and cosmos were created in six ordinary (24-hour) days. And if you accept this as true, why do you accept it?