Until Darwin, everybody in the Christian world knew the world was created in six 24-hour days, right? And all attempts to read Genesis differently are because evil followers of Darwin are desperately trying to avoid what the Bible clearly says, right? Right?
Yeah, no. History time. Click ‘more’ to keep reading….
Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859. 1700 years earlier Justin Martyr wrote:
For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years [Gen. 5:5]. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression ‘The day of the Lord is a thousand years’ [Ps. 90:4] is connected with this subject” (Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 81 A.D. 155).
Or Clement of Alexandria, this time 1650 years before Darwin:
“And how could creation take place in time, seeing time was born along with things which exist? … That, then, we may be taught that the world was originated and not suppose that God made it in time, prophecy adds: ‘This is the book of the generation, also of the things in them, when they were created in the day that God made heaven and earth’ [Gen. 2:4]. For the expression ‘when they were created’ intimates an indefinite and dateless production. But the expression ‘in the day that God made them,’ that is, in and by which God made ‘all things,’ and ‘without which not even one thing was made,’ points out the activity exerted by the Son” (Miscellanies 6:16 [A.D. 208]).
Origen, writing not much after Clement, was fierce:
“For who that has understanding will suppose that the first and second and third day existed without a sun and moon and stars and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky? . . . I do not suppose that anyone doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance and not literally” (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:1:16 [A.D. 225]).
Origen again:
“The text said that ‘there was evening and there was morning’; it did not say ‘the first day,’ but said ‘one day.’ It is because there was not yet time before the world existed. But time begins to exist with the following days” (Homilies on Genesis [A.D. 234]).
More Origen, still 16 centuries before anyone had heard of Natural Selection. These require careful reading, but are worth it:
“And since he [the pagan Celsus] makes the statements about the ‘days of creation’ ground of accusation—as if he understood them clearly and correctly, some of which elapsed before the creation of light and heaven, the sun and moon and stars, and some of them after the creation of these …
“And with regard to the creation of the light upon the first day . . . and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth . . . we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with those who, taking the words in their apparent signification, said that the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world…
“For he [the pagan Celsus] knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and rest of God [the seventh day], which follows the completion of the world’s creation, and which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those will keep the festival with God who have done all their work in their six days” (selected passages from Against Celsus [A.D. 248]).
Cyprian was on the right track, 16 hundred years before Darwin:
“The first seven days in the divine arrangement contain seven thousand years” (Treatises 11:11 [A.D. 250]).
St. Augustine, writing in A.D. 408 was a warrior with the pen (or quill). He wrote some gold, including advice we would be wise to hear today, and he deserves a post of his own. Here’s a taste:
“[A]t least we know that it [the Genesis creation day] is different from the ordinary day with which we are familiar” (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).
You could just as easily find a stack of ancient dead guys saying it took 6 literal, 24-hour days. And others with completely different ideas altogether. I don’t quote these ones to show that my ideas are right. I quote them to show the sillyness of the myth that interpreting Genesis was clear, easy, and uncontroversial until Darwin came along and threw a spanner in the works.
No, far from it. For centuries and centuries Biblical commentators have agreed that Genesis is difficult to interpret and disagreed about its interpretation.
This site was very, very, very helpful.
« The Problem is not Christianity, but Christians Surfing at dusk »
Sweet quotes. I ponder on this subject and find myself in between what I would define as two extremes:
- Billions of years
- 7, 24 hour days (regardless of how many years ago)
Here’s my scenario:
I see the difficulty of a 24 hour day without sun, moon and sky. Add to that the relative nature of time depending on a viewers perspective.
But as soon as I say “ok, it probably wasn’t a 24hour day” then I’m forced with a billions of years model! Is there another position?
See I have many problems with a billions of years model, some may be my lack of scientific understanding, but some are genuine problems arising from the rest of scripture.
Any thoughts?
Augustine has some. I’ll post them tomorrow
But don’t let this be the definitive word on it, anyone else got any thoughts?
I’m glad so many Christian scholars throughout history are on record advising against taking the seven-day thing at face value.
Mind you, with all this scholarship around reasoned interpretations of the Bible, you’d have thought Darwin’s theory would cause less of a stir for being incompatible with the literal reading. There are always those who hold on to absolute literalism, even if their own people say they don’t have to.
Odd thing is that Augustine toyed with allegorical renderings, and rejected them – He holds a literal interpretation that isn’t 6-day creationism.
Oh, I know he didn’t see it as allegorical…but as you quoted, he had to change the meaning of the word “day”. It hardly counts as literalism if you take such liberties with the words themselves.
Still, if it is a loose kind of literalism which can stretch Creation out to the kind of timeline you can defend scientifically, then it’s not young-earth creationism anymore. It’s old-earth or day-age creationism (not equivalent, but similar). And not everyone will jump on that bandwagon.
Meh, I am thoroughly unconvinced by either the Young Earth Creation scientists, or the “billions of squillions of years” camp. And I don’t enjoying arguing about seeing as people get so militant about it: see here and here.
It is interesting though that when Drew was at uni, a lot of his phys/chem lecturers were unconvinced by big bang theory. Which is interesting, given that any lay person who disputes it usually gets called an ignorant fundamentalist.
I know few sciency-type people who don’t believe Big Bang simply because of its philosophical implications. A recent New Scientist magazine cover article argued that it was on its last legs, scientifically. I was convinced by the arguments advanced by my physics textbook, but I don’t put too much stake in it either way.
I wouldn’t hesitate to call someone an ignorant fundamentalist if they’d never taken the time to look at it properly. A university professor, on the other hand… My point is that it has a lot to do with one’s motivations and knowledge.
SmartLX, I’m no hebrew scholar (at all!), but the hebrew word there (“yom”) can also mean a period of time. See Genesis 2:4 for another use of ‘day’. This article might interest some people. Maybe.
Good grief, the word in the Bible isn’t even unambiguously “day”? Ken Ham and many others would find that tremendously interesting.
Michelle, no need to exaggerate. Billions are big enough, but it’s only about 15 of them, not squillions. While I don’t believe in an eternal omnipotent god, I don’t see why such a god would have a problem with working on such a time scale. Maybe getting it all right takes a lot of patience.
I don’t think Michelle has a problem with the length of time. I think she is just unconvinced by those theories?
Correct me if I’m wrong.
Yeah sorry, all this literalism!
I didn’t mean a literal squillion, I meant neither camp has ever convinced me of their position.
Sorry Michelle, I know it was just a throwaway expression. I used it to make my own point. Wasn’t really responding to you in the end.
I guess I’m a little sensitive to exaggeration after so often seeing the random aspect of evolution played up to make the whole thing sound like a coin toss.
The sites I write for get some very adversarial “questions” from religious folk among the legitimate ones from all corners. It’s nice to find people who are really thinking it all through.