Okay, religious people, and atheists, too.

You’re familiar with the debate, creation vs. evolution.

Creationists say: God created our world. Out of nothing, God fashioned the species we know today. Just as the Bible literally tells it.

Evolutionists say: Our world evolves continuously. As some elements shift, others respond. Just as biology proves.

You probably have participated in this discussion. And taken a side too:

Science or spirituality. Tradition or modernity. Fundamentalism or rationality.

Except none of those dichotomies are historically accurate. Because the debate is much older than you think.

Its roots are found in medieval religious philosophy: Islamic, Jewish, and Christian. Centuries ago, advocates of “creation” clashed with advocates of “emanation.”

Both groups agreed that God is unlike any of our fellow creatures. Our fellow creatures are born and die; their bodies occupy space; they change when causes affect them. God, however, is eternal, infinite and independent.

Creationists thought that an eternal God existed in this perfect state long before the world began. So did God’s infinite will, i.e., ability to make and implement decisions. God, independent and without need of materials, created the world we know ex nihilo — out of nothing.

Emanationists, however, thought that an eternal God exists outside our time continuum – neither before nor after anything. As infinite being, God includes everything – nothing could be outside of God, certainly not the world. And nothing could have triggered an independent God to make a decision to begin a creative process. Thus, the world emanates continuously from God as rays of light emanate from the sun.

Sound familiar?

Creationists say: One day, God began to create our world out of nothing.

Emanationists say: God never began anything; our world emanates continuously.

Well, yes, it differs a bit from our modern approach. In the middle ages, both groups were religious. Each accused the other of disrespecting God. Under charges of heresy, academic and political leaders lost status, jobs, and friendships.

Until Ibn Rushd (1126-1198) came along and said: Stop! Stop calling each other heretics! None of you can claim authority. You can’t know enough intellectual history to identify the definitively “traditional” view. And none of you follow a literal reading of scripture.

Ibn Rushd was talking about Qur’an, of course, but his words ring true for Hebrew Bible as well. We do not have written records of early interpretations; the ones we do have are diverse. And it is really not possible to read Genesis literally.

“By way of beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. … God said, “Light, exist!” and light existed. … It was evening, it was morning, one day.” (Genesis 1:1-5)

Let’s assume that a “literal” reading takes words in their plainest meaning. “Beginning” is the first thing that happens. “Light” is a ray or a beam that makes it possible for people to see. A “day” is 24 hours.

At first, Genesis draws you into a literal reading. God creates light, one day. God creates sky, a second day. God creates dry land and plants, a third day. God’s pattern is established, and the reader can just hum along.

Until the fourth day. When God creates sun, moon and stars, to mark time.

Say what??? Suddenly a literal meaning makes no sense.

The first “day” wasn’t a day in any plain sense of the word. Because, in ordinary language, a day marks the time that passes between one sunrise and the next. And, on that first “day,” there wasn’t any sun to rise or set. Or to generate the kind of light we know. Day four sends us back to re-imagine the beginning, and to begin our reading anew. Suddenly, plain words like “day,” “light,” and “beginning” are not so plain.

The first few verses of Hebrew Bible seem to support creationists: God created our world. Out of nothing, God fashioned the species we know today.

But when the narrative falls apart, Bible seems to support evolutionists: just like the reader’s interpretation, our world evolves continuously. As some elements shift, others respond.

The debate is both more and less familiar than you think. Both sides are Biblical. Neither side is modern. And, if you agree with Ibn Rushd, we don’t even know which is traditional.

Thank you to members of our class at Ruach Haaretz, “When Jews, Christians, and Muslims Thought Alike” aka Medieval Philosophy of Religion. Image:alibris.