Should Everyone Memorize Bible Verses?

For those of us who have been Christians for any significant length of time, it’s likely that we have been encouraged at some point to memorize Bible verses. I have what may be an uncommon opinion of Bible verse memorization, but I want to begin by acknowledging that doing so has been helpful for very many people. I’m certainly not saying that it’s universally a bad idea and should never be done. However, I generally avoid memorizing Bible verses (at least in their exact wording), and I simply want to explain my reasons for having this position.

When I was younger, I recall some of my friends from church being involved in Bible quizzing. I was never involved in these competitions myself, but I was awed by the stories I heard of kids my age having the ability to memorize and recite entire books of the Bible. Yet, even though I was fairly young, a part of me was uncomfortable with Bible quizzing. It seemed to me that mindlessly reciting the words in order to win a competition might somehow detract from the significance and impact of the words. This is not a criticism of anyone who participated in Bible quizzing, it’s simply the thought I had at the time.

Perhaps one of the ideas behind Bible Quizzing was that if these kids knew portions of the Bible so well, their lives couldn’t help but be enriched by the words they had memorized. But I think it possibly might have had the opposite effect: if you become too familiar with something, it can lessen the impact and become a meaningless recitation of words.

I have a one-year-old daughter, and one of the most fascinating things about her is watching her discover the world for the first time. When we take her to the park, she’s mesmerized by the leaves on the ground, the grass, sticks, and anything else she finds. I’m so accustomed to seeing these things that I barely notice them anymore; they’re like background noise that is tuned out. But from her perspective, this was the first time she had ever seen them up close, so they occupied her entire focus. This same phenomenon can happen with words if they are heard, read, or spoken in exactly the same form too frequently; they begin to be stale and less impactful than they might be otherwise. We hear the beginning, realize it’s something we’ve heard many times before, and find it hard not to tune out the rest.        

            It’s important to realize that Bible verses aren’t magic words; they’re not incantations or spells that we say, producing some sort of magical effect. Yes, they are powerful words, but the power comes from their meaning, and the impact that meaning has on us.I still remember the first verse I ever memorized, Phillipians 4:8: “Finally, my friends, keep your minds on whatever is true, pure, right, holy, friendly, and proper. Don’t ever stop thinking about what is truly worthwhile and worthy of praise.” If I read that and truly grasp its meaning and importance, it will hopefully help me manage my own thoughts in a productive and beneficial way. However, if I were to read it in another language that I didn’t understand, would it have the same effect? Clearly not. It’s not merely reading or reciting the words that has an impact on my life; it’s my ability to grasp their meaning, and then to apply it.  

            This is why I generally avoid memorizing Bible verses. I’ve memorized several in the past (and still remember them), but those verses have unfortunately become some of the least meaningful to me, because they’re too familiar. I can recite them without thinking about the words, and that’s precisely the problem.

            I believe the solution is to be familiar with everything in the Bible, and obviously in some cases this will result in virtual memorization of some portions; but it’s possible that, by avoiding focusing on mere memorization, the point of a verse may become fixed in our minds and have an impact on us without becoming stale or easy to tune out. As a result, our attempts to apply those words (and their meaning) to our lives may be far more effective. Once again, memorizing verses has been helpful to many people, and to anyone for whom this is true, I certainly wouldn’t suggest that you stop doing so. However, it’s possible that for others complete memorization may be counterproductive, and I believe it’s wise for each of us to consider for ourselves what would be the best way for us to ensure that the words and ideas in the Bible can be most impactful and familiar. 

How Old is the Universe? (Part 2)

Last week I attempted to make the case that as Christians, we ought to be careful of placing too much weight on a particular interpretation of the creation account in Genesis. While personally I believe in an old rather than young universe, my point was not to defend this position. My intent was to demonstrate our need to have an open mind and embrace, rather than be concerned by, scientific progress.

However, there still may be some who are concerned that an interpretation of Genesis that accommodates an old universe warps the plain meaning of the Bible. As I said last week, the scientific evidence for an old universe is fascinating, but I am not qualified to present it. Rather, in this post, I would like to offer some observations about the Genesis account itself that I believe imply an older universe. If the following is not convincing, my hope is that at least it will further demonstrate the possibility of harmonizing belief in an old universe with the Biblical account.

Christians who hold to the old universe view have a variety of ways of reconciling this view with the Genesis account. One is to accept that the 6 days of creation were literal days, but that there was an unknown (perhaps very large) amount of time between each day. Another approach, which is to consider the days to represent ages of an unknown duration, is supported by the fact that the Hebrew word for “day”, “yom”, does not necessarily mean a literal 24-hour day. A final view is that the days are figurative in nature, and that the Genesis account presents creation a logical or thematic order, rather than chronologically.

However, those who hold to the literal 6 day creation view often fear that to accept any alternative interpretation would cast doubt on everything that is recorded in the Bible, that it entail placing our trust in human knowledge over God’s knowledge, or even to support a secular and materialistic agenda. To those with such concerns, I would like to point out that many theologians throughout history, including Augustine, have believed that the days in Genesis were not literally 24 hours, even long before science had suggested this. They drew this conclusion based on the text itself, and I would like to present the following observations about the Genesis account that I believe support the old universe view. Again, my goal is not to prove or disprove either one, but merely to show that the old universe view is, at the very least, viable.

First, we must realize that the Bible does not actually say how God created the universe, or how long it took Him to do it. God’s role in the entire process is beyond dispute, but this still leaves us with quite a bit of flexibility to accept new scientific discoveries without feeling threatened or fear that we have to throw out the belief that God is the author of it all.

When Genesis 1:1 says that “God created the heavens and the earth”, this statement is not meant to be merely a summary of what follows. Rather, it is an event that precedes verse two. One reason we know this is that the earth exists and is covered with water already in verse two. The actual creation of the universe, then, could have taken any amount of time.

Some may wonder why God would take such a long time, and assume that if no reason can be imagined, this must mean He didn’t do so. But the same question could be asked of those who believe in a six-day creation. Why not five days, or seven? Why not create it all in a single moment? We must be careful to avoid assuming God would not do a particular thing simply because we can’t come up with a reason that satisfies us.

Secondly, there are several reasons to believe the “days” had to be longer than 24 hours. For example, Adam named all the animals during day 6, but this certainly would take much longer than one day. Also, God said that Adam and Eve would surely die in the day that they ate the fruit, but they continued to live much longer than 24 hours. And in chapter 2 verse 2, when it says that God rested (a phrase that surely incorporates some symbolism, unless God has a recliner chair), this can only mean that He ceased creating. In this case, unless He began creating again on day 8, the 7th day must be longer than 24 hours. If so, the other days may be as well.

Genesis 2:4 says “in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven”, using “yom” for day as in the previous chapter. Unless we take this to mean He did it all in a single day (contradicting the previous chapter), we must admit that this use of the word does not refer to a 24 hour period, and therefore, the days in the previous chapter may not either.

Thirdly, there are a few points about the Genesis account that seem to suggest that it isn’t necessarily written in chronological order, which leaves open the possibility that the world is much older than might be initially assumed. The events of each day don’t entirely make sense in the order they are written. For example, the sun isn’t created until day 4, but there’s light long before that. And how could there be an evening and morning without the sun? How do plants grow without the sun?

It’s also interesting to note that there is a thematic correspondence between days 1 and 4, 2 and 5, and 3 and 6. This seems to indicate at least some level of poetic creativity meant to make a point:

Day 1	Created light, separated light from darkness, established day and night	Day 4	Created lights in the sky (sun, moon, stars)
Day 2	Created the sky to separate the water above from the water below	Day 5	Created fish in the oceans and birds in the air
Day 3	Separated water from dry land, created plants on the land	Day 6	Created animals and humans

On day 4, God created the lights in the sky to indicate the day and night that were established on day 1. On day 5, God created fish and birds to occupy the water and sky that were created on day 2. And on day 6, God created animals and humans to occupy the dry land and cultivate and eat the plants created on day 3. Overall, the account is structured in order to show a gradual development from chaos to order.

Finally, the style of the text itself clearly is poetic. Different parts of the Bible will be understood best if they are read as the type of literature they are. Some portions are poetry, some are parables, some are history, and in most cases the style is sufficiently evident. This difference is apparent when comparing the creation account to the Gospels or books such as 1 and 2 Kings, which clearly are historical. Of course, this does not mean that the Genesis account is not historical. It simply means that we should expect generalizations (rather than scientifically precise language) as well as certain themes and symbolically vivid language in order to communicate particular ideas. This was a common way to record history at the time Genesis was written.  

If anyone still is uncomfortable with labeling anything in the Genesis account as “symbolism”, consider that it says God “walked” through the garden. Obviously God is not a bipedal creature, and we all would agree He is omnipresent as well. So it cannot be denied that there are at least some figurative elements in the account.

All of these points don’t necessarily make a solid case for the old earth model (although I believe science does), but they do reveal several difficulties with a purely literal interpretation, further allowing for an older age for the universe. Again, my goal is not to prove that the universe is 13.7 billion years old, but only to argue that this belief is consistent with the Genesis account and does not in any way deny the foundational beliefs of Christianity.

How Old is the Universe? (Part 1)

       I’ve decided to write about an issue that has divided many Christians. Some of you will disagree with what I say below. However, while I will briefly defend my own viewpoint at a later time, my primary goal here is to set the entire dispute in a larger context and discuss how I feel we ought to approach it, regardless of our own opinions. 

This topic is the debate commonly referred to as “young earth vs. old earth” debate, though it actually deals with the age of the entire universe. The beginning of Genesis (according to its most straightforward interpretation) appears to claim that God created everything within six literal, 24-hour days. James Ussher, Archbishop of the Church of Ireland born in the 16th century, conducted an analysis that included (among other things) the length of time covered by the genealogies in the book of Genesis. This brought him to the conclusion that creation occurred in 4004 BC. Actually, Ussher suggested a very specific date (and even time) for creation, although most believers in a young earth allow for a range of 6,000 to 10,000 years old. The opposing view, held by the majority of scientists, is that the universe is roughly 13.7 billion years old, and the earth itself about 4.6 billion years old. 

       There’s no doubt it would be entertaining and stir things up quite a bit if I were to write extensively on the merits of each viewpoint and defend my own particular conclusion. However, besides the fact that this would take much too long for a blog post, I’m nowhere near qualified to do this. For the sake of full disclosure, I personally believe in the old universe model. I believe there is very strong scientific support for this position, but like I said, I won’t be getting into that here. There is still much I would like to say on this topic, however, and I plan to divide it between two blog posts. In the first, I will discuss why I believe this is an important issue for Christians to discuss and why we need to keep an open mind. 

       Often, when this topic is debated, Christians will briefly disagree but then conclude that it doesn’t really matter in the end, as long as we’re all followers of God and believe He is the creator. Besides, we’ll find out the answer in Heaven, right? 

       I agree and disagree. Certainly our salvation and relationship with God do not depend on our beliefs regarding the age of the universe. However, it is an important issue for us to discuss (and on which we ought to seek a reasonable conclusion) for two reasons: 1: A big deal is often made over this issue, and 2: Our credibility, and the credibility of Christianity, may be at stake. 

Interestingly, if we had been born in the sixteenth century, we wouldn’t be concerned about the age of the universe at all. Rather, the primary controversy would be whether the earth moves or is fixed at the center of the universe. As Galileo discovered, the church was very adamant that the Bible teaches a geocentric universe, and the suggestion that the earth orbited the sun was not taken very well. The church’s geocentric view was based on verses such as the following: 

Psalm 104:5:
“He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.”

Psalm 93:1:
“The LORD is king. He is clothed with majesty and strength. The earth is set firmly in place and cannot be moved.”

These verses seem pretty clear, but do we take them to mean that the earth doesn’t move? If not, does that mean we are ignoring what the Bible teaches, preferring finite science over God’s infinite knowledge? Of course not. We have no problem accepting the conclusions of science regarding the solar system. In fact, it is because of the advancement of our scientific knowledge that we are better able to understand the intent of these verses. They are referring to the fact that we are firmly established and secure in a figurative sense. They were never meant to make a statement about astronomy. 

       Our knowledge and observations, scientific or otherwise, are not enemies to our understanding of God and should not be disregarded, but rather embraced as aids to our understanding. Without knowledge of the world to provide a context, information in the Bible would practically be useless because we would have no way to understand or apply it. This may be a simplistic example, but it will serve to illustrate my point. When Jesus says in John 10:9 that He is “the door”, we only know what this means because we are familiar with doors. Since we know not to take it literally, we understand what the metaphor actually means. 

       Regarding the creation account, it is possible to accept the overall truth of what the Bible says (that God is the creator of everything) while also acknowledging that it’s not meant to be a science textbook. We can expect it to use general rather than technical language, as well as to skip over or simplify unnecessary scientific details. And this shouldn’t surprise us, because the account of creation needed to be intelligible to people from different millenniums with varying levels of scientific understanding. An account that would be scientifically complete and precise to us today would be gibberish to people who lived thousands of years ago. 

       Still, those who believe in a literal six-day creation may have some remaining concerns. One is that if we allow some flexibility on this issue, it may open the door for us to interpret everything in the Bible however we want, based on our own preferences or biases. Whatever we don’t like could be dismissed as “symbolic.” I would reply that like it or not, we will always have biases based on our worldview and experiences. We may do our best to overcome these biases, but it’s impossible to view anything entirely objectively. This means that the six-day view of creation may be the result of biases as much as any other view. Why should we assume that the simplest interpretation, or the one that comes to mind first, is the correct one? 

       A second concern may be that if we allow flexibility when interpreting the six days of creation, we open the door to assuming that events such as the resurrection, which are foundational to Christianity, may be disregarded as myths. But I believe this fear is unwarranted. In the case of the resurrection, for example, there is an abundance of evidence that Jesus did, in fact, rise from the dead. We know we can trust the Biblical account because of the historical evidence that the Gospel writers were eyewitnesses who recorded accurately what they saw. Therefore, regardless of what we believe about creation, an objective analysis of other events recorded in the Bible will show that there is good evidence to back up a literal understanding of the way they were recorded. Even if one there is symbolism or generalizations in one portion of the Bible, this doesn’t mean we must understand every other portion the same way. 

       Ultimately, we must differentiate between the trustworthiness of the Bible and the trustworthiness of our own interpretation. Our interpretation is not infallible. And by not allowing any flexibility in our interpretation, we weaken our position by making it unnecessarily vulnerable to new scientific discovery. 

       This issue is most important when interacting with non-believers, because there may be people who would otherwise be open to the Gospel, but are deterred because of the stance of some Christians on the age of the universe. This is because they are put into a position in which they feel they have to choose between Christianity and science (a false dichotomy), and rightly feel uncomfortable dismissing what they consider to be established facts for the sake of religious belief. Furthermore, they may be uncomfortable with a belief system that does not appear to base its beliefs on evidence, and in fact seems determined to hold onto its beliefs despite growing evidence to the contrary. They may wonder why they should trust what the Bible says about God and salvation if it doesn’t seem to them to be correct even about the material world. Therefore, we should avoid trying to make the Bible say more than it does by insisting on our own particular interpretation, especially if doing so creates the illusion of a disagreement between the Bible and science.

       None of this means that the universe is young or old. That is a fascinating question, but as I said, my intent was not to debate that here. My point is simply that we shouldn’t be so dogmatic about a young universe that we risk ruining the credibility of Christianity or imply that one particular interpretation must be accepted in order to believe the Bible or be an authentic Christian.

       As the title implies, this is only part one. Next week, I will address further possible concerns of those who believe the Bible plainly teaches a literal six-day creation, and I will attempt to argue that, upon close inspection, Genesis itself may support an older view of the Earth and universe. 

Can God be Trusted?

Can we trust God? No doubt we all would respond in the affirmative. No matter how stormy life may seem, at the end of the day we know that even if everything else fails, we still can hold onto God and trust Him. But while this may seem like one of the simplest truths we can know, I think it’s worthwhile to examine more closely. What exactly does it mean to trust God? What exactly are we trusting Him for? Without answers to these questions, saying we trust God may be nothing more than a phrase that gives us a brief emotional boost when we need it. Surely expressing trust in God is (or should be) more than personal reassurance.

If I have a need, and I say I’m trusting God for that need, the plain meaning would be that I’m confident that God will provide it. But does God always provide every one of our needs? Note that I’m talking about legitimate needs, not “wants” we may mistakenly consider to be needs. This is important because many people have trusted God and yet still have had terrible things happen to them, even death. Does this mean that they were wrong to trust God? If we maintain that God can be trusted, trusting Him must mean something other than expecting to receive whatever it is that we need.

We may know this in a superficial sense, recalling that we need to rely only on God and that we should expect trials in this life. But when difficulties come, sometimes we still assume that we can trust God to “take care of us.” This phrase is vague intentionally, in order to leave open a wide range of possible ways in which God may do what we expect Him to. However, don’t we often have something more specific in mind? It’s tempting to decide what’s best for ourselves, and then assume that, since God is reasonable, He must agree. Then we assure ourselves that God will do that particular thing and don’t allow ourselves or others to question, because we’re afraid doing so would be “doubting God.” But who would we really be doubting: God, or our own assumptions? When Jesus was tempted to jump off the roof of the temple, He wasn’t doubting God’s ability to catch Him. The mere fact that God is capable of something does not imply that we ought to expect it simply because we have decided that is what is best in our particular situation.

To clarify, I’m not suggesting that God never communicates His specific will in a situation, or that His will never involves supernatural provision, healing, or some other solution to a problem. Certainly this happens, and while as fallible human beings we can’t be 100% sure that we heard correctly from God, it will be reasonable in certain situations (with sufficient confirmation) to trust for these specific things. However, the danger is that we’ll become too preoccupied with our own well-being, deciding for ourselves what is best and then assuming God is nothing more than a wish-granter who is required to act accordingly.

Therefore, when we say we trust God, we must take into account the possibility that our particular needs may not be met. We may not always have our health, but we can trust God even if we lose it. We may not always have material needs such as food, shelter, or enough money, but even without these, we can still can trust Him. Indeed, at some point we all will lose our lives, in some cases far sooner than we would like; yet, He still can be trusted. Thinking through these possibilities reveals whether our focus is on ourselves, or on God. Are we concerned primarily with what we can get from God, or with how we can serve Him regardless of our own well-being? Further, are we really trusting God? Or are we trusting that He will make sure we have whatever it is that we actually trust?

Is there nothing, then, for which we can trust God? Absolutely there is! We can trust Him for our salvation. We can trust that He will never cease loving us. We can trust Him to keep His promises (although we must carefully distinguish between general and specific promises, a great topic for another time). We can trust Him for ultimate justice, that everything will be made right eventually. And we can trust that He is good and always will do what is best (whether that means intervening in a particular situation or not).

This may leave some of us feeling vulnerable and fragile, and it should. We are not promised comfort or well-being in this world. Certainly it would be nice if God would step in and bail us out if things became too difficult. But we have to be careful to avoid imagining God as being the way we think He ought to be. Ultimately, this realization moves our focus from ourselves to God. It helps us understand that our world revolves around God, and His purposes may be accomplished whether or not we have everything we need. In fact, His purposes often are accomplished better if we don’t have everything we need. Our personal well-being is not the issue when our world is centered on Him. God does not exist simply to serve our needs or make us more comfortable. And we cannot assume that, because He loves us, He will do whatever it is we have determined is best and most loving; or, that if He does not do something for us we think He should, that it means He doesn’t love us.

I believe this is an important topic to discuss because there may be some who have a false expectation that will ultimately turn them away from God. Whether it’s a non-believer who concludes that our God must not be very powerful or care about us, or a believer who begins to doubt God’s love, the belief that the trustworthiness of God implies our needs always will be met is dangerous. It’s imperative that we manage our expectations wisely and be sure we understand God’s promises and what we can expect from Him. We need to remember that we are a supporting character in God’s story, not the other way around.

After all, the end of Hebrews 11 points out that most of the people highlighted in the preceding chapter died without yet receiving what it was for which they were hoping. This should serve as a model for our own trust in God. Ultimately, we have a fragile existence that could end at any time. Life isn’t about us, it’s about God and our service to Him, and sometimes this means not having material comforts. But God can always be trusted for things of eternal importance.