For theistic evolutionists to consider...

[citizenkyle]

I have traditionally thought theistic evolution was a somewhat reasonable compromise between faith and science. However, assuming the modern mainstream theory of evolution is correct, I would like people to consider the following argument which seems to invalidate my earlier thinking.

Mark 10:6 says:
"From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female."

1. If Jesus was/is the Christian God, he was/is omniscient.
2. Evolution occured.
3. Jesus' teaching in Mark 10:6 precludes the possibility of evolution occuring (at least in any form recognizable to modern biology).
4. Therefore Jesus was mistaken.
5. An omniscient being wouldn't make mistakes.
6. Thus, Jesus wasn't omniscient.
7. Therefore, Jesus wasn't the Christian God.

I can only think of two objections offhand.

1) Jesus meant "From the beginning of (human) creation, God made them male and female." This seems like quite a stretch though.

2) Jesus never actually used this argument. It was put into his mouth by Mark. This is a little more reasonable from my point of view, but perhaps not from most Christians'.

Thoughts?

[Dee Dee Warren]

Moderator Notice

Kyle, it is kind of hard for theists to respond here as this is a nontheist area. Where would you like it moved?

***If you wish to take issue with this notice DO NOT do so in this thread.***
Contact the forum moderator or an administrator in Private Message or email instead. If you feel you must publically complain or whine, please take it to the Psychotherapy Room unless told otherwise.

[citizenkyle]

Today @ 12:23 PM post located here
Dee Dee Warren:

Doh! I meant to post this in Natural Sciences 101. I appreciate you moving it there. Sorry DeeDee!

[Socrates]

It is a powerful argument, and the attached pic graphically shows what Kyle means about Jesus's statement.

Most Christian theistic evolutionists have not thought carefully through the implications. The remedy is in realising that evolution from goo to you via the zoo is not science at all, but a materialistic philosophy of origins deduced from an assumption that only naturalistic causes are permissible. Conversely, the resurrection of Jesus, which validated His claims to deity, is verified by eye-witness history.

It's more disturbing when professing Christian theistic evolutionists HAVE thought through the issues and prefer the fallible theories of man, and claim that Jesus was mistaken.

[grmorton]

Mark 10:6 says:
"From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female."
...
I can only think of two objections offhand.
...
1) Jesus meant "From the beginning of (human) creation, God made them male and female." This seems like quite a stretch though.
...
Thoughts?

Yeah. You are quoting out of context. Jesus is clearly speaking of humans because he was answering a question on divorce.

mark 10:4And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5But Jesus said unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them.

to claim that this is referring in any way to the origin of life and the time before sex evolved misses the entire context of the passage. Animals don't get divorced, at least not the animals I have had the pleasure of knowing.

[Amazing Rando]

Mark 10:6 says:
"From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female."

Well, Day six isn't exactly the "beginning of creation," is it?

[sophia]

Day Six as the Beginning of the Creation of Earth.....No, it's not exactly the First day of Creation per se, Genesis says that humans were created after the First Day. What is important and what Mark 10 is trying to point out is that it was the beginning of the creation of a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman, which is a large point of the passage. I would have to think that the author in Mark 10:6 is referring to the "beginning of creation" merely as a magnified comparison to that which God is currently and will in the future create, both in terms of relationships that he will create and in physical creations on earth. Of course, that would necessitate believing that God did not finish all of his creation on the sixth day....

[Socrates]

Yeah. You are quoting out of context. Jesus is clearly speaking of humans because he was answering a question on divorce.

More Mortonic misreading. It says that humans were there "from the beginning of creation" ( [greek]ap archV ktisewV[/greek] , a phrase referring only to the beginning of the current created cosmos, cf. the usage in:

Scripture Verse:

Mark 13:19 ‘For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be.’
2 Peter 3:4 ‘[Scoffers say] “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”’

Scripture Verse:

mark 10:4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5But Jesus said unto them, For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. 6But from the beginning of the creation, Male and female made he them.

to claim that this is referring in any way to the origin of life and the time before sex evolved misses the entire context of the passage. Animals don't get divorced, at least not the animals I have had the pleasure of knowing.

It is -- it is a matter-of-fact way of saying that human males and females were there right from the beginning, not billions of years later.

[Socrates]

Scripture Verse:

Mark 10:6 says:
"From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female."

Well, Day six isn't exactly the "beginning of creation," is it?

Don't be crass. See that diagram -- when you try to place Day 6 on a numberline with scale of ~4,000 years, it's indistinguishable from the beginning. Actually it's about 0.0004% away, which is pretty exact when you realise that the Bible writers were happy with whole number precision.

[grmorton]

More Mortonic misreading. It says that humans were there "from the beginning of creation"

...


It is -- it is a matter-of-fact way of saying that human males and females were there right from the beginning, not billions of years later.

Then I guess you haven't read the Bible. Humans were not created in Genesis 1:1, the beginning of the creation. They came later regardless of what view one holds. Even evolutionists would agree that since the beginning of humanity, hominids had only two types: male and female. so, I don't see how on earth one can twist and force this verse to an anti-evolutionary use.

[markporter]

1. If Jesus was/is the Christian God, he was/is omniscient.

I would dispute that for his state of kenosis, during that I would make the weaker claim that he wouldn't/couldn't lie I think.

[burgy]

I have traditionally thought theistic evolution was a somewhat reasonable compromise between faith and science. However, assuming the modern mainstream theory of evolution is correct, I would like people to consider the following argument which seems to invalidate my earlier thinking.

Mark 10:6 says:
"From the beginning of creation, God made them male and female."

1. If Jesus was/is the Christian God, he was/is omniscient.
2. Evolution occured.
3. Jesus' teaching in Mark 10:6 precludes the possibility of evolution occuring (at least in any form recognizable to modern biology).
4. Therefore Jesus was mistaken.
5. An omniscient being wouldn't make mistakes.
6. Thus, Jesus wasn't omniscient.
7. Therefore, Jesus wasn't the Christian God.

I can only think of two objections offhand.

1) Jesus meant "From the beginning of (human) creation, God made them male and female." This seems like quite a stretch though.

2) Jesus never actually used this argument. It was put into his mouth by Mark. This is a little more reasonable from my point of view, but perhaps not from most Christians'.

Thoughts?

3) The statement was not a mistake, but either an incomplete assertion or a deliberate deception. The 2nd of these has its own problems.

Other possibilities come to mind, but all I have thought of include negating one or more of premises 1-4. For example:

1. If Jesus was/is the Christian God, he was/is omniscient.

It is difficult to think of Jesus as omniscient at age -- say -- 2 months. It is also difficult to think of Jesus as omniscient when the lady touched him on the way to Jeruselem for he said "Who touched me." Therefore this premise can be challenged.

2. Evolution occured.

This is far too broad a premise. Quite obviously evolution is a fact of nature. Perhaps the premise could be restated as "All life came from a common ancestor."

3. Jesus' teaching in Mark 10:6 precludes the possibility of evolution occuring (at least in any form recognizable to modern biology).

With the change to premise 2 (above), this still is not falsified. Some theories of progressive creation (I hold to one of these) might apply (not mine).

4. Therefore Jesus was mistaken.

Does not follow now. Jesus, we may presume, held the knowledge of his times and place. Go back in time, query Jesus on quantum mechanics or the weird political theories of Pat Robertson -- you would be met with a blank stare.

5. An omniscient being wouldn't make mistakes.

True. But the statement cannot be proven false from these (amended) premises.

6. Thus, Jesus wasn't omniscient.

As above, it does not appear that he was.

7. Therefore, Jesus wasn't the Christian God.

Does not follow that he is not God now, of course.

[Amazing Rando]

Don't be crass. See that diagram -- when you try to place Day 6 on a numberline with scale of ~4,000 years, it's indistinguishable from the beginning. Actually it's about 0.0004% away, which is pretty exact when you realise that the Bible writers were happy with whole number precision.

I know it's not an error or anything. I'm just pointing it out because I don't think that was Mark's (or Jesus') intention to use this verse for the context we're considering here.

[NeilUnreal]

markporter: I would dispute that for his state of kenosis, during that I would make the weaker claim that he wouldn't/couldn't lie I think.

Ditto.

However, even leaving aside this caveat, I think the argument is irrelevant. Obviously the point Jesus was making was about commitment in marriage, not a scientific statement about origins. (Particularly in a social context where men might be tempted to view their wives as a kind of chattel property.)

If I said: "I prefer Dickens over Dostoyevsky," everyone knows what I mean. It would be irrational to assume I meant when I was 6 months old I had read both Dickens and Dostoyevsky, and equally silly to assume I was making a statement about the relative spatial positions of the two authors.

Likewise, Jesus' words are clear when taken in context, but potentially misleading when extrapolated for polemic purposes.

-Neil

[Socrates]

1. If Jesus was/is the Christian God, he was/is omniscient.

I would dispute that for his state of kenosis, during that I would make the weaker claim that he wouldn't/couldn't lie I think.

This is dangerous slope to start sliding down. Once you start claiming that some of Jesus's claims could have been wrong, where do you stop? Perhaps Jesus was wrong about John 3:16 too?

And four verses earlier, we see that He was not wrong about earthly things either:

Scripture Verse:

I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?

But the compromise view asserts that he might have been wrong about earthly things, so there is a huge problem.

Geisler and William E. Nix, in their book A General Introduction to the Bible, point out a great difference between limitation and misunderstanding.

While the Second Person of the Trinity was incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth, He voluntarily limited His omniscience (Phil. 2:5-11). I.e., in His humanity, He did not know all things. But this does not entail that He was mistaken about anything He did say. All human understanding is finite, but this doesn’t entail that every human understanding is errant. Also, what Jesus did preach, He proclaimed with absolute authority (Mt. 24:35, 28:18), because He was speaking with the full authority of God the Father (John 5:30, 8:28), who is always omniscient. So anyone wanting to charge Jesus with any error because of His humanity must logically charge God the Father with error as well.

There is also a difference between simplification and error. A mother might tell her four-year-old ‘you grew inside my tummy’ — this is not false, but language simplified to the child’s level. Conversely, ‘the stork brought you’ is an outright error. The Bible also uses some simplified descriptions, e.g. using the earth as a reference frame, as modern scientists do today, but these are analogous to using the word ‘tummy’. But if evolution from goo to you via the zoo were true, then saying that the world was created in six ordinary days, that earth was created before the sun, whales and birds before land mammals is not simplified but diametrically opposed to the truth. So it is like the ‘stork’ explanation. The cartoon attached explains it well.