Churches and Creation

[FireDragon76]

Hi resha,

Thanks for your response. You wrote:


Well, again, we'll have to agree to disagree on both of those points. God's Scriptures do add up years as we go from father to son to father to son in the genealogies of Adam to Noah to Abram to Isaac and Jacob. Now, if one doesn't want to add those numbers, then that's up to them.

Listen, I know your position, but I wholeheartedly disagree with it.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

But this would be like what C.F. Walther advised Lutheran pastors, to not get drawn into debates that may be intellectually curious, but are not ultimately pertinent to the Gospel.

This could only be really important to people who think of the Bible as some kind of arcane, secret knowledge that needs to regulate the secular world via an alternative "worldview" (and they seem to be the only ones that use that term). Traditionally, this is not how Lutherans think of proper use of the Bible. That's how Reformed churches treat the Bible.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

But this would be like what C.F. Walther advised Lutheran pastors, to not get drawn into debates that may be intellectually curious, but are not ultimately pertinent to the Gospel.

This could only be really important to people who think of the Bible as some kind of arcane, secret knowledge that needs to regulate the secular world via an alternative "worldview" (and they seem to be the only ones that use that term). Traditionally, this is not how Lutherans think of proper use of the Bible. That's how Reformed churches treat the Bible.

The Bible is the worldview. Anything else (read: less) is the alternative.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Bible is the worldview. Anything else (read: less) is the alternative.

This actually cheapens the whole thing, because it ultimately instrumentalizes the Bible towards human ends. The Bible is primarily God's story about himself, communicated to us through the life of Jesus Christ. Far from being merely a blueprint for how human beings should order their lives, it is meant to be much more intimate and personally engaging than that.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

The Bible is primarily God's story about himself, communicated to us through the life of Jesus Christ. Far from being merely a blueprint for how human beings should order their lives, it is meant to be much more intimate and personally engaging than that.

I agree.

 

[FireDragon76]

I agree.

I don't think you really do, otherwise you would never champion the Bible as merely a "worldview". The Bible is more about, as Brennan Manning put it, the "furious longing of God" for creation and his people.

 

[Ttalkkugjil]

I don't think you really do, otherwise you would never champion the Bible as merely a "worldview". The Bible is more about, as Brennan Manning put it, the "furious longing of God" for creation and his people.

Did you actually read my post before you sought to engage in debate? I never said the Bible is, "merely a 'worldview.'" Next time, don't be so trigger-happy.

 

[Resha Caner]

We assume it is a sacred story, but like Resha says, we are more interested in discussion than firm stances that would exclude peoples perspectives and shut down conversations.

I know I can be a curmudgeon. I try to stay away from it, but no one's perfect. In the spirit of the above comment it would be interesting for the discussion to continue.

I think we three largely represent the spectrum, with @FireDragon76 at one end and @miamited at the other, with me holding the middle ground ... or would you disagree with that?

Well, again, we'll have to agree to disagree on both of those points. God's Scriptures do add up years as we go from father to son to father to son in the genealogies of Adam to Noah to Abram to Isaac and Jacob. Now, if one doesn't want to add those numbers, then that's up to them.

Listen, I know your position, but I wholeheartedly disagree with it.

I'm not interested in challenging your math. I'm more interested in the issue. What theological issue do you think the age of the earth impinges upon? If it's an issue of accepting the Bible as inerrant, then I'm not sure what we're disagreeing about. As I've already stated, when Genesis 5:5 says Adam died at the age of 930, I accept he was a real person who died at the age of 930. And so it goes for all such verses.

Likewise, I don't get the "human DNA is not 99% similar to ape DNA" spat. It seems an issue of human pride to me. That God created us similar - very similar - seems obvious to me. That our DNA is therefore similar also seems obvious. Finally, even if an evolutionist conceded humans and apes don't have a common ancestor, that wouldn't disprove evolution.

As such, I'm more interested in other issues. For example, life and death are more interesting to me.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think we three largely represent the spectrum, with @FireDragon76 at one end and @miamited at the other, with me holding the middle ground ... or would you disagree with that?

It looks like a spectrum, but really we are coming from different places as a result of different confessional commitments and hermeneutics.

 

[miamited]

But this would be like what C.F. Walther advised Lutheran pastors, to not get drawn into debates that may be intellectually curious, but are not ultimately pertinent to the Gospel.

This could only be really important to people who think of the Bible as some kind of arcane, secret knowledge that needs to regulate the secular world via an alternative "worldview" (and they seem to be the only ones that use that term). Traditionally, this is not how Lutherans think of proper use of the Bible. That's how Reformed churches treat the Bible.

Hi resha,

Ok, put me in the group of arcane, secret knowledge that needs to regulate the secular world via an alternative "worldview", if that's what my understanding forces you to do. I guess one of the reasons that I answered the OP's question with the Southern Baptist's as being a denomination that generally supports the literal biblical account, and not the Lutherans, is that they apparently don't.

Ok. I think that's what the OP was looking for.

However, it must always be remembered that there is truth.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[FireDragon76]

Hi resha,

Ok, put me in the group of arcane, secret knowledge that needs to regulate the secular world via an alternative "worldview", if that's what my understanding forces you to do. I guess one of the reasons that I answered the OP's question with the Southern Baptist's as being a denomination that generally supports the literal biblical account, and not the Lutherans, is that they apparently don't.

Ok. I think that's what the OP was looking for.

However, it must always be remembered that there is truth.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Some Lutherans do support a literal account, as in the case of the LCMS, they just don't attach to it the importance of a Baptist. Biblical inerrancy and literalism is not axiomatic for a Lutheran, it's a derived principle (for the LCMS at least). For a Baptist, it's more like a de fide dogma.

 

[Resha Caner]

Some Lutherans do support a literal account, as in the case of the LCMS, they just don't attach to it the importance of a Baptist. Biblical inerrancy and literalism is not axiomatic for a Lutheran, it's a derived principle (for the LCMS at least). For a Baptist, it's more like a de fide dogma.

I guess one of the reasons that I answered the OP's question with the Southern Baptist's as being a denomination that generally supports the literal biblical account, and not the Lutherans, is that they apparently don't.

As @FireDragon76 points out, your conclusion about Lutherans would be incorrect. I hope you also understand his distinction regarding de fide dogma. I'm getting the impression you don't want to discuss this, but I'm not sure why. Still, if that's the case, I'll let it drop.

I was hoping, though, that you would answer my question. I can't determine what you think the issue is, and where we differ. For example, surely you are aware of Matthew 1:1, wherein "son" is not used to indicate direct biological progeny. Does this then require some official listing that indicates how to interpret the word each time it used? How would such a listing be created?

Does that listing extend to other words? For example, Numbers uses a word that could be interpreted as "thousand" in some contexts and "contingent" in others. So if someone questions the Israelite population of Numbers 1:46 as 603,550, and instead thinks it is a reference to a census of Israelite family groups, do you take the same position that they have rejected the truth of Scripture?

[edit] Sorry. I guess I jumped too soon. I see you answered, so that probably renders this post irrelevant. I'll read your other reply.

 

[miamited]

Hi again resha,

You also asked of me:

I'm not interested in challenging your math. I'm more interested in the issue. What theological issue do you think the age of the earth impinges upon?

The answer to that is the same as it was for Abraham. Abraham was declared righteous because he believed God. As I closed in my last post to you, there is truth. There is an actual reality as to how you and I got to be living on the earth today. As has been mentioned in another of your posts to firedragon, there seems to be a few 'understanding' of how you and I got to be living on the earth today.

1. God created this realm of existence about 6,000 years ago, all out of nothing and complete and perfect in all that it is, on the day that it was completed. The first man Adam was created on the sixth day of God's work in creating this realm of existence. Then God has accounted for us a timeline as to approximately how long it has been since all of this began.

2. God started something, that over a period, as we account time, took millions or billions of years to become what it is today so that you and I live upon the earth today. However, other than through the scientific methods of man, we have no understanding of how long this realm of existence has existed. Whether the scientific methods of man are trustworthy and true in what they tell us is really anyone's guess.

3. Pretty much any variation between 1 and 2.

However, there is a truth! I choose to believe the simple account that God has given me, whether or not I understand any of the multitude of scientific theory and methodology, in it's most simple form, based on the evidences that God has given me in His word. It took six days to create this realm and on the sixth day of that creative work, when all was ready in this realm to support the life of man, that God made the first man, Adam. Adam then had a son named Seth and through the generations of fathers and sons God has accounted for us also all the years that have passed from the day that Adam begot Seth.

It's simple and it seems to be fairly clear and concise in its telling. However, between 1 and 3 of the possibilities listed, one of them is the truth of the matter. Now, also as I mentioned previously, I don't have any problem with understanding that God just WHOOOOSH! filled the entire universe with billions of stars and planets and asteroids in the mere time that it took Him to command them to be. I don't have any problem understanding that one moment the earth was just a barren ball covered in dirt and water and then WHOOSH! every tree and plant of the field just immediately popped up. Each one fully grown and mature as a full grown specimen of its kind, just as Adam was created as a fully grown man and didn't pass through the years of infant, toddler and child as the rest of us have. I have no problem with any of that. Yes, the scientific method will assure me that my understanding is impossible. That's ok, I'm willing to wait and find out. But rest assured, my faith is not in the science of men. My faith is in the words of God.

The science of men can't tell me how a sea, that according to the account had to part at least deep enough that there was a wall of water on both the right and left of the Israelites as they passed through and to drown the Egyptian soldiers pretty much immediately as it all rushed back in to place. So, just for argument's sake, let's say the sea was 30' deep. Can science explain to you how a wall of water 30' tall could stand on its own for the period of time that it would take for the Israelites to pass through. The general understanding is that there were likely close to a million people that made that journey. Miriam said that as they passed through the sea, the water was congealed. It literally hardened somehow enough to stand upright unaided. How did that happen?

Has science explained for you how a virgin woman came to be carrying a child?

You see, friend, the point is that science can't answer the miracles of God. They can throw out some possibilities and assumptions, but they can't give you any definitive answer for a single miracle of God. How in the world, if you believe that God did create all things as the Scriptures tell us that He did, do you think science can answer that miracle, but none of the others?

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[miamited]

Hi resha,

Straw man anybody? You responded to my post:

As @FireDragon76 points out, your conclusion about Lutherans would be incorrect. I hope you also understand his distinction regarding de fide dogma. I'm getting the impression you don't want to discuss this,

Look, I don't know a whit about the theological understanding of the creation event according to the Lutheran denomination. You're the one that told me that my understanding was not in agreement with the Lutheran position. Yes, I answered that and I'm perfectly happy to continue providing answers to direct questions you may send my way. There really isn't much that I 'don't want to discuss', but this is a thread started by someone asking if there are any denominations that support a particular viewpoint and understanding of what the Scriptures tell us.

You and I going off in to never, never land about the understanding of Lutherans and the creation event would be derailing the purpose of the thread, but I'd be happy to tag along for the ride.

Now you're apparently telling me, that firedragon has somehow 'proven' my understanding of the Lutheran position is wrong. Ok. Firedragon didn't start off with saying that the Lutherans have a different understanding. Firedreagon started off by saying that there were some Lutherans who do hold to the creation account pretty much as I do. But that isn't what you said and my discussion was with your response.

If you'd like to assign firedragon as your official mouthpiece, let me know and I'll begin discussing with them.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Resha Caner]

The answer to that is the same as it was for Abraham. Abraham was declared righteous because he believed God.

Hmm. I'm not sure we're understanding each other yet.

AA. I take it you are saying the issue is believing God. I'll agree that is important.
BB. IIRC you believe in inerrant, inspired Scripture. So do I. So we also agree there.

From AA. and BB. it would follow believing God means believing Scripture. I think we also agree there.

But, here's the catch. Believing Scripture doesn't mean believing Ted. Nor does it mean believing Caner. I think we agree on that as well. So, when you use the term 6000 years (and by that mean the number 6000 as added up by humans and correlated to 6000 orbits of the earth around the sun as calculated using human astronomical calculations), I don't feel compelled to believe you.

What is the more "literal" reading of the Bible? That it does state the age of the earth is 6000 years, or that it doesn't state the age of the earth is 6000 years? Who is using human reason? The one who does the addition and connects it to astronomical calculations or the one who doesn't?

Again, if WHOOSH is good enough for you, then WHOOSH is good enough for me. But leave it at that. God created everything - WHOOSH. Problem is, you don't seem willing to leave it at that, and I'm trying to understand why.

So let me repeat my other post:

As @FireDragon76 points out, your conclusion about Lutherans would be incorrect. I hope you also understand his distinction regarding de fide dogma. I'm getting the impression you don't want to discuss this, but I'm not sure why. Still, if that's the case, I'll let it drop.

I was hoping, though, that you would answer my question. I can't determine what you think the issue is, and where we differ. For example, surely you are aware of Matthew 1:1, wherein "son" is not used to indicate direct biological progeny. Does this then require some official listing that indicates how to interpret the word each time it used? How would such a listing be created?

Does that listing extend to other words? For example, Numbers uses a word that could be interpreted as "thousand" in some contexts and "contingent" in others. So if someone questions the Israelite population of Numbers 1:46 as 603,550, and instead thinks it is a reference to a census of Israelite family groups, do you take the same position that they have rejected the truth of Scripture?

[edit] Sorry. I guess I jumped too soon. I see you answered, so that probably renders this post irrelevant. I'll read your other reply.

Why does it bother you that I would say, I'm not sure the number was 603,550. I'm not sure that is proper translation and interpretation of Numbers 1:46, and I don't see how it changes God's message to say it refers to a census of Israel as opposed to saying the census counted 603,550 people. Do you get into the numerology thing?

 

[Resha Caner]

You and I going off in to never, never land about the understanding of Lutherans and the creation event would be derailing the purpose of the thread ...

Fair enough. If @RC Tent doesn't want me to continue, I won't.

Look, I don't know a whit about the theological understanding of the creation event according to the Lutheran denomination.

I didn't mean to make your understanding of Lutherans the issue. I was simply pointing out that your statement was incorrect. Further, my mention of @FireDragon76 was merely an attempt to include a diversity of views in the conversation - not to gang up on you.

I think there is value in building understanding between Christians. My approach here is that I don't think you'll be able to articulate why you differ from my position until you understand it ... and my position is fairly well defined by the Lutheran position. I don't think we're there yet - to putting a finger on the actual difference. If you're OK with proceeding. Great. If not, have a nice day.

 

[miamited]

Hi resha,

Thanks for your response. You responded:

I didn't mean to make your understanding of Lutherans the issue.

And yet that seems to be exactly what you were doing in telling me, based on firedragon's response, that I didn't understand the 'Lutheran' position. I would wholeheartedly agree that I don't. I have never studied with a 'Lutheran' nor worshiped in a 'Lutheran' fellowship. This seems to be exactly what your purposing. Your regular response to my posts run along the lines of "Well, this is what 'Lutherans' believe. Friend, I don't really care what 'Lutherans' believe. I'm interested in what God believes and has revealed to all of us through His Scriptures. Period! Your argument sounds a lot like the kind of behavior that Paul rebuked among the early believers. I follow Cephas and I follow Paul and I follow so-and-so. 'Lutherans' didn't die that you might gain eternal life. Jesus did! Follow him! Believe what he believed!

Jesus spoke quite a lot confirming things found in the Scriptures. That Adam was the first man. That there was a great flood. That Jonah was swallowed by a great sea creature. Do you know how many people argue and bicker over the possibility that some creature of the sea could have swallowed a man whole and spat him out on dry ground 3 days later? Yet, Jesus said it happened! Personally, I'm of the understanding that the day before Jonah got on that ship to Tarshish that sea creature didn't even exist on the face of the earth. When Jonah was cast into the sea God created that creature to do what he was to do and then as soon as he spat Jonah out on the dry ground, that sea creature once again disappeared from the face of the earth. That's the God I know! He can do absolutely anything and claims of Himself to be able to do that which is impossible for man.

You're all wrapped up in what 'Lutherans' believe. Me, I'm concerned with believing what those who are the born again children of God, believe.

Have you ever read the seven letters to the churches? You realize that those letters were written within 100 years of the foundation of Jesus' church on the earth? By 100 years of man's existence, according to those letters, most of the 'churches' were running off in the wrong direction. How far off the mark do you think those 'churches' might have come in 2,000 years? Man's nature is always the same. In every experience in the Scriptures where God did some great and miraculouts work, the people that He was dealing with praised Him and promised to be faithful. Then we read on through the next 100-200 years and everything's off the tracks again. So, it's now been 2,000 years since Paul and the first apostles began to establish followers in the various cities and what do we have now?

One denomination thinks that they're ruled and governed by a certain emissary that lives upon the earth and you're either with that group or your done for. One denomination believes that also, but does allow that other denominations may also lead to salvation. Another thinks that we should only worship on Saturday because Saturday is the Sabbath, although there was nothing in the law of the Sabbath about worship. It was all about work and keeping the day holy (set apart) to God. One even questions whether or not Jesus really died, but that it's all just some metaphorical message for us to live a 'happy' life.

In John's day there were only 7 churches for Jesus to address. I rather imagine that if Jesus were to send a similar letter out to the various churches today, there may well be hundreds of such letters. Each one of them rebuking and encouraging different things. Some getting no encouragement, but only condemnation.

So look, you believe what it is that you choose to believe. You can base that belief on a particular denomination, as you seem to have done, or you can base your belief in the truth of God. It's your choice, but it seems clear to me that the ones who claim that we can't 'know' what God did in the creation event just aren't willing to allow that God has said what He did and now it's up to us to believe it or not.

He can make the sun go backwards! He can part a sea, which while my example said a 30' sea, I'm confident was at least 100' deep in some areas. The geographical body of water that separates Egypt from what is today Saudi Arabia. God split that sea and congealed the water to stand like a wall on both the right and left hand of His people as they passed through the sea. He can cause a young woman who has never had sexual relations to be pregnant with child. He can make a dead man, who had lain 3 days in his tomb, to stand up and walk out alive to his family.

So, when God tells me in an account that He has written to me that in six days, as I know days, that He created all that exists in this realm...I believe Him! Personally, I believe that every born again believer also believes Him. Why? Well, because they are getting their knowledge from the same source that I am. Not the Lutherans or the Methodists or the Baptists or the Catholics, but the Holy Spirit of God. The one that Jesus has said will lead us into all truth. The one who Jesus has said will be given to all those seeking to follow after his Father.

Now, you're welcome to respond as you think necessary, but my mind is made fast on this issue. The God who will save me from the day of His wrath...that God...He has told me the truth of the matter on this and I believe Him.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Resha Caner]

This seems to be exactly what your purposing. Your regular response to my posts run along the lines of "Well, this is what 'Lutherans' believe. Friend, I don't really care what 'Lutherans' believe. I'm interested in what God believes and has revealed to all of us through His Scriptures. Period! Your argument sounds a lot like the kind of behavior that Paul rebuked among the early believers. I follow Cephas and I follow Paul and I follow so-and-so. 'Lutherans' didn't die that you might gain eternal life. Jesus did! Follow him! Believe what he believed!

I explained my purpose. If you don't believe me, then this will indeed be a difficult conversation - one that it's maybe better we don't have.

Jesus spoke quite a lot confirming things found in the Scriptures. That Adam was the first man. That there was a great flood. That Jonah was swallowed by a great sea creature.

I accept all those things. I don't see what they have to do with the question at hand, but if it helps in some way, I'll go through your list here and confirm them one by one.

Mentioning I'm Lutheran was merely shorthand for summarizing my position. If you're not familiar with it, I'll drop the term. You'll not hear me mention it again in this thread. But what terms can I use? For example, if I said I believe in sola scriptura, does that help, or would I need to write a paragraph about that position should it come up?

Have you ever read the seven letters to the churches?

Yes, I've read them. Sure, churches can drift over time. If I knew of an error in my position, I would correct it.

One denomination thinks that they're ruled and governed by a certain emissary that lives upon the earth and you're either with that group or your done for. One denomination believes that also, but does allow that other denominations may also lead to salvation. Another thinks that we should only worship on Saturday because Saturday is the Sabbath, although there was nothing in the law of the Sabbath about worship. It was all about work and keeping the day holy (set apart) to God. One even questions whether or not Jesus really died, but that it's all just some metaphorical message for us to live a 'happy' life.

I don't believe any of these things.

So look, you believe what it is that you choose to believe. You can base that belief on a particular denomination, as you seem to have done, or you can base your belief in the truth of God.

As I said above, if I knew of an error, I would correct it. Scripture remains the primary authority. I live out my faith within the group of people that I do because they help me live out that faith, not because I have signed over my fate to a denomination. So far, you've still not listed anything I would disagree with. Surely you don't want me to change the things we agree on?

He can make the sun go backwards! He can part a sea ... He can cause a young woman who has never had sexual relations to be pregnant with child. He can make a dead man, who had lain 3 days in his tomb, to stand up and walk out alive to his family.

I agree.

... in six days, as I know days, that He created all that exists in this realm...I believe Him!

So do I.

Now, you're welcome to respond as you think necessary, but my mind is made fast on this issue.

Fine. I understand that won't change. But what I asked was if you were interested in a discussion. So far, it still seems to me you are not.

If you are, just start with a simple question: Where do you think we differ? I didn't see anything in your list ... nor did I see how that list related to the origins of life.

 

[miamited]

Hi resha,

Thanks for your response. You asked:

If you are, just start with a simple question: Where do you think we differ? I didn't see anything in your list ... nor did I see how that list related to the origins of life.

I don't know. I responded to a question from the OP and your first response to me was:

This is where the misunderstanding lies. Confessional Lutheranism doesn't hold to any origins "model". Rather, it is one of the few Christian traditions that is willing to say, "Scripture is silent on issue X, therefore we are also silent on the matter."

Issues of creation create a complex blend of a belief in contextual interpretation (Genesis is history) and silence (the Bible doesn't explicitly address inheritable mutation of DNA).

You began with the contention that there was some sort of misunderstanding. So, if you'd like to go back to your first response to me and reword that so that there isn't some misunderstanding, then perhaps we do agree. However, your first position was that God has not provided us with any way of knowing how old this realm of His creating is. I deny that. I think He's been perfectly clear and fairly concise, although I'm certainly not willing to commit to some X number of years. The Scriptures do contain evidence that this realm of God's creating is somewhere around 6,000 years old.

That's what I believe, do you agree?
God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Resha Caner]

However, your first position was that God has not provided us with any way of knowing how old this realm of His creating is. I deny that. I think He's been perfectly clear and fairly concise, although I'm certainly not willing to commit to some X number of years. The Scriptures do contain evidence that this realm of God's creating is somewhere around 6,000 years old.

That's what I believe, do you agree?

If there is a way to use the Bible to determine the age of the earth, I don't know what it is. I don't think it was God's intent to tell us. It seems a secondary conclusion.

For example, were I to mention that I like film, you might conclude I've been to a theater. You might be right, you might be wrong. There is more than one way to watch a film. And that conclusion has nothing to do with the intent of my statement.

My question to you, then, is: Does my view change the Bible's intended message?

 

[miamited]

If there is a way to use the Bible to determine the age of the earth, I don't know what it is. I don't think it was God's intent to tell us. It seems a secondary conclusion.

For example, were I to mention that I like film, you might conclude I've been to a theater. You might be right, you might be wrong. There is more than one way to watch a film. And that conclusion has nothing to do with the intent of my statement.

My question to you, then, is: Does my view change the Bible's intended message?

Hi resha,

Yes, you've made that point that you don't see where God has given us a rough timeline of the existence of this realm of His creating. Got it!

As for your question, I personally think that it means that you're bad at math. God has laid it out for us. He has been clear on this point. If God did give us the inclusion of that timeline that I speak of, and you don't understand it, then yes, I'd say that on that particular issue of the Scriptures, you haven't learned the intended message. It doesn't mean that you haven't learned any of what the Scriptures tell us, but only that particular and singular issue.

BTW, I thought you were trying to continue this discussion to show how we were in agreement and that I had misunderstood when I said that we weren't. You wrote:

If you are, just start with a simple question: Where do you think we differ? I didn't see anything in your list ... nor did I see how that list related to the origins of life.

See, I thought I gave a pretty clear explanation as to how these other issues related to the matter, but you apparently weren't able to grasp the intention of my words, either. Here is the complete rendering of my previous post:

He can make the sun go backwards! He can part a sea, which while my example said a 30' sea, I'm confident was at least 100' deep in some areas. The geographical body of water that separates Egypt from what is today Saudi Arabia. God split that sea and congealed the water to stand like a wall on both the right and left hand of His people as they passed through the sea. He can cause a young woman who has never had sexual relations to be pregnant with child. He can make a dead man, who had lain 3 days in his tomb, to stand up and walk out alive to his family.

So, when God tells me in an account that He has written to me that in six days, as I know days, that He created all that exists in this realm...I believe Him! Personally, I believe that every born again believer also believes Him. Why? Well, because they are getting their knowledge from the same source that I am. Not the Lutherans or the Methodists or the Baptists or the Catholics, but the Holy Spirit of God. The one that Jesus has said will lead us into all truth. The one who Jesus has said will be given to all those seeking to follow after his Father.

If you open your copy of the Scriptures and read the account of those six days, you'll see that the origins of life is accounted for within that six day narrative. I just didn't feel like I needed to copy and paste the entire Genesis 1 narrative. I assumed that you knew it. But, for your understanding:

Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. And God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Then God said, “Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree which has fruit yielding seed; it shall be food for you; and to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the sky and to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food”; and it was so. And God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

According to the narrative, on the sixth day of creating, God created all of the living creatures of both animals and men. That's the origin of life in this realm. I apologize if you hadn't read that part yet. I assumed that you had, and therefore, knew that the sixth day creation event included the origins of life in this realm.

God bless,
In Christ, ted