Our understanding of the past is always filtered through the context of the present, so there's no such thing as a modern doctrine that absolutely, faithfully duplicates the belief or practice of a much earlier time.
That is one reason I couldn't subscribe to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. First of all, that's missing the point. It's not really meant to be taken as a historical document. Much like Star Trek continuity

there are inconsistencies from that standpoint. Things that just don't gel together no matter how hard you try to make it fit.
It's more a book of lessons and teachings for Christians to live by. Each time I read it I discover new things. Believing it's the inspired Word of God does not mean every word is factually, historically true. That's not the point.
And I find it a bit ironic. I've read a couple of books about the Catholic faith and how much of what we do is Biblically based, even though some Protestants argue otherwise. There was one in particular that went through how the Catholic Mass is very much Biblically based. Even the Sign of the Cross has it's basis in some customs noted in the Old Testament. And in some ways we take things more literally than Fundamentalists. Such as the Eucharist--we literally believe what Jesus did at the Last Supper, that he actually meant us to continue that celebration. Many of our prayers during Mass are from the Bible as well, such as the "Holy, Holy, Holy...." which is from the Book of Revelations.
But the Catholic Church also teaches that the Bible is not a literal work of history. It's our basis in faith and lessons on how God wants us to live our lives. I mean, I accept evolution (much to the consternation of some of my Fundamentalist cousins). In fact, to be honest, when I read the creation account in Genesis, to me, that almost reads like a highly simplified version of evolution. And Adam and Eve could simply represent the first humans who gained consciousness in themselves, or first had a soul. After all, somebody had to be first I would think to cross that threshold.
Interestingly enough I once had a debate with a cousin of mine about works vs. faith and the Bible. He thought Catholics focused too much on works, that we thought works would get us entry into heaven when in his denomination it was all about faith. We could never do enough to curry favor with God basically. But that's a misunderstanding of the Bible. Yes, works without faith will never be enough. And there are a lot of Catholics out there that are very good at being
Catholic, but not good
Christians. We all know those people--they are very good at doing churchy things, always go to Mass, always there at Church functions, etc....yet they may be some of the meanest and most judgmental people we know. But I argued if you are true to the faith, you do good works....not because you want brownie points with God. But because it's what Jesus would do. I was at a loss as to how he didn't grasp that concept, though he grudgingly agreed that was true. It's even noted in the Bible several times. I mean, at one point it says if you see someone cold you don't just say something like 'God be with you' and walk away. You help that person out with a coat and warm shelter. The mistake some people make is that they await some supernatural divine intervention. Frankly, most of the time the intervention is us, fellow human beings. Most miracles are small miracles, simple acts.