Early Genesis Interpretations Agreed With Darwin

[stromboli]

http://biologos.org/questions/early-int ... of-genesis

Given the stark difference between evolution and six-day creation, many people assume that Darwin's theory shook the foundations of the Christian faith. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1-2 was not the only perspective held by Christians prior to modern science.  St. Augustine (354-430), John Calvin (1509-1564), John Wesley (1703-171), and others supported the idea of Accommodation.  In the Accommodation view, Genesis 1-2 was written in a simple allegorical fashion to make it easy for people of that time to understand.  In fact, Augustine suggested that the 6 days of Genesis 1 describe a single day of creation.  St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) argued that God did not create things in their final state, but created them to have potential to develop as he intended.  The views of these and other Christian leaders are consistent with God creating life by means of evolution.

Introduction
Many people assume that Darwin's theory must have shaken the foundations of the Christian faith because of the stark difference between evolution and the idea of a six-day creation. In truth, the literal six-day interpretation of Genesis 1–2 was not the only perspective espoused by Christian thinkers prior to the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859. The works of many early Christian theologians and philosophers reveal an interpretation of Genesis compatible with Darwin's theory.
Early Christian Thought
Origen, a third-century philosopher and theologian from Alexandria, Egypt—one of the great intellectual centers of the ancient world—provides an example of early Christian thought on creation.
Best known for On First Principles and Against Celsus, Origen presented the main doctrines of Christianity and defended them against pagan accusations. Origen opposed the idea that the creation story should be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how God created the world. There were other voices before Origen who advocated more symbolic interpretations of the creation story. Origen's views were also influential for other early church thinkers who came after him.1
St. Augustine of Hippo, a bishop in North Africa during the early fifth century, was another central figure of the period. Although he is widely known for Confessions, Augustine authored dozens of other works, several of which focus on Genesis 1–2.2 In The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Augustine argues that the first two chapters of Genesis are written to suit the understanding of the people at that time.3
In order to communicate in a way that all people could understand, the creation story was told in a simpler, allegorical fashion. Augustine also believed God created the world with the capacity to develop, a view that is harmonious with biological evolution.4

I've said on here a few times that Genesis was Allegorical. The idea of a 6,000 year old earth and a literal Genesis is absurd on its face. The forbidden fruit is about the fallen state of man, not a literal sin committed by Eve. Silly Christians should do their homework.

Please note that when I say "agrees with Darwin" in the title doesn't mean I specifically believe that, its just the title of the article.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

Apparently I need to do my homework as well, I didn't know some early Christians thought that way.

[stromboli]

This is a conundrum with true believers, because the babble is thought to be literal truth, and therefore infallible. But my Bible (English major) class stated emphatically that is was allegorical; then if not literal truth it can be interpreted differently. There goes claims of infallibility, sorry to say.

[Agramon]

I read things like this and still find myself trying to find ways to prove the Bible has to be literal. I'm nearly 3 years out of it... C'thulu help those still in it to see the Genesis that way.

[bennyboy]

Well, even Bible writers had brains and eyes.  They may have even had some knowledge, or have heard from a friend who heard from a friend about some actual observable facts.

Then you layer on the BS.

[billhilly]

The conundrum is with the Pauline doctrine.  No Adam & Eve, no original sin. No original sin, nothing for jesus to save us from.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I read things like this and still find myself trying to find ways to prove the Bible has to be literal. I'm nearly 3 years out of it... C'thulu help those still in it to see the Genesis that way.

I was raised a Southern Baptist, and even at ten or eleven had begun to internalize the Genesis-as-allegory view, without any formal education in the interpretation.

[ApostateLois]

Interesting. I didn't realize that those sorts of ideas went back that far. Too bad more modern-day Christians don't abandon the notion of a literal 6-day creation and all of the baggage that goes with it. It simply isn't supportable by any evidence whatsoever.

[Aroura33]

As I was raised Catholic, the genesis as allegory thing, god setting evolution in motion was exactly what I was taught. Adam and Eve was also allegorical, being the first humans who god caused to evolve into actual humans. I do not think I ever thought about that nullifying the reason for Jesus to die...seems like Christians, myself included at that time, often overlook the details like that. I expect there is some official rcc appologetic explanation for this. I would wish for Azzi to be here to explain it, but I am not feeling masochistic tonight.  

[Davka]

The modern hyper-literal reading of the Bible is actually the result of a backlash against Darwin's theory. Evolution was seen as a threat because if humans could evolve from less intelligent animals, we weren't special-made chillins of Gawd no more. We were just animals, like everybody else. So the Genesis account of special creation began to have more and more importance among Conservative Christians as "proof" that we were created, not merely evolved.

Racism played a huge part in the discussion as well. Remember, blacks were still bought and sold as property, and if we were all simply products of evolution then all those non-white inferior people were actually our complete equals, and all of us were merely localized varieties of Homo Sapiens. White Civilized Europeans and Americans could not stand the thought that they were no better than those uncivilized heathen blacks or indians or asians. The more ignorant and racist the Christian, the more likely they were to cling to the idea of human superiority, and especially white superiority.

Darwin's cry of "the white male emperor has no clothes!" was, oddly enough, the catalyst that created Biblical literalism.

[Hydra009]

As I was raised Catholic, the genesis as allegory thing, god setting evolution in motion was exactly what I was taught.

Same.  Liberalish Methodist upbringing.  I never understood the whole "God vs Evolution" framing of the issue until I met creationists.  (They might as well call it God vs Gravity for all the sense it makes to me)  To me, it is and will always be an issue of science vs denialism.  The fact that the denialism is usually religious in nature is simply a happy coincidence for me.  Two birds with one stone.  :)

I use scientific discoveries against the faithful only if and when they make it an issue (if they want to falsify their religion so badly, I'll oblige them), but I understand that not all Christians feel that way.

But I don't even try to debate what texts should be taken literally or allegorically.  If their religion is supernaturalistic, as it invariably is, I need only ask for evidence to support this claim and find nothing (or worse than nothing) in response.  Outsider tests are lethal and I make good use of them.   Why go through all the trouble of hashing out scripture and get mired there when a single moment of introspection is so much more direct and devastating?  :-D

Christians are usually heavily compartmentalized.  One need only unseparate the compartments.  After all, it worked for me.

[Thumpalumpacus]

As I was raised Catholic, the genesis as allegory thing, god setting evolution in motion was exactly what I was taught.

Same.  Liberalish Methodist upbringing.  I never understood the whole "God vs Evolution" framing of the issue until I met creationists.  (They might as well call it God vs Gravity for all the sense it makes to me)  To me, it is and will always be an issue of science vs denialism.  The fact that the denialism is usually religious in nature is simply a happy coincidence for me.  Two birds with one stone.  :)

I use scientific discoveries against the faithful only if and when they make it an issue (if they want to falsify their religion so badly, I'll oblige them), but I understand that not all Christians feel that way.

But I don't even try to debate what texts should be taken literally or allegorically.  If their religion is supernaturalistic, as it invariably is, I need only ask for evidence to support this claim and find nothing (or worse than nothing) in response.  Outsider tests are lethal and I make good use of them.   Why go through all the trouble of hashing out scripture and get mired there when a single moment of introspection is so much more direct and devastating?  :-D

Christians are usually heavily compartmentalized.  One need only unseparate the compartments.  After all, it worked for me.

A brilliant post, imo.

[Youssuf Ramadan]

Wholesale biblical literalism is a comparatively recent phenomenon.

[St Giordano Bruno]

Genesis it so full of ambiguities it can agree with fairies at the bottom of the garden. I this case the garden called Eden.

[Aupmanyav]

The conundrum is with the Pauline doctrine.  No Adam & Eve, no original sin. No original sin, nothing for Jesus to save us from.

^^ That. And the whole edifice comes down. However, muslims do not face this problem, it works better for them. :)