Remembering vital scriptures?

Most churches have a preferred translation that they use in normal circumstances. In general scripture is taught from that version, and any memorization can be done using that version. If there is an explicit memorization exercise to be done, usually the person organizing it will show or tell people the exact text of the verse (in the preferred version) and that is what they would normally memorize. For personal memorization it's entirely up to the person doing the memorizing which version they use.

The version is not usually significant. For the kinds of key verses that are usually memorized there is little difference in meaning between versions. The purpose of memorization is to know the meaning of the scripture. Small variations in wording between translations are not significant.

Remembering vital scriptures?

It takes time, effort and determination to memorize the Scriptures that are important to us. Stick with the translation that suits one needs best.

In medieval times, monks were known for their ability of knowing the Scriptures by heart. Obviously, not everything was put to memory but vast parts of Sacred Scriptures were. They also lived in times where there were fewer distractions such as video games, computers, televisions and a myriad of things in our modern culture.

One of the desert Father once recommended memorizing five (5) verses at a times, keep on repeating out loud once mastered and choose another five (5) verses to be repeated daily. Eventually one could have hundreds of verses under one belt so to speak. There is no success without hard work.

In the early centuries of the Church, monks and Religious were required to have memorized all 150 psalms. They prayed the entire Psalter by heart everyday! How many modern priests or Religious have memorized all 150 psalms? How many modern priests, elders or deacons have memorized all 150 psalms? Compared to some early Christian practices, many of us modern age Christians seem to be a bunch of slackers. In the days of old, they have my admiration.

Repetitio est mater studiorum. Repetition is the mother of study/learning.

I used to be really good at quoting Bible verses from childhood right up till about aged 30. That was because the group's preferred version (their own) was drummed into me and I was trained by them to speak to others and to quote from it. But then I spent two years investigating the group and their Bible version, realising that I could not remain with a group prepared to add to (and detract from) God's holy word in order to bolster their teachings.

What helped me was getting hold of a different translation of the Bible. But I also had to dig into biblical Greek and examine interlinear translations. Well, I shelved the version I'd been brought up on and began quoting from this new translation. It flowed much better, language-wise (no heavy Americanisms or long-winded sentences.) I delighted in it, and that was the same translation used at the orthodoxly Protestant church I then went to.

Ah, but it was then that I noticed hesitancy in quoting from memory. The old memory-verses got mixed up with the new-version verses! What compounded the problem was then 'discovering' the Authorised Version, for the first time in my life. It was beautiful! As I read it more and more, quoting from memory became less and less, as I was now getting muddled. I mean, three versions vying for prominence in my poor brain (that was getting older and older!)

The moral of this sorry tale is that, if you wish to be good at quoting Bible verses from memory, stick to one translation. Never mind what your denomination's preferred translation is. Sort out the matter for yourself, as to which one is the most accurate and closest to the Hebrew and Greek texts. Then absorb it daily. Study it as much as you can. Read it just for the pleasure of reading it as much as you can. Pray about your Bible reading and understanding.

Just an important detail - ALL translations have to add English words to make sense, given the different sentence structures of the various languages. They should ALL put such words in italics. Alarmingly, this is becoming a problem with many modern translations not doing this now. Especially with 'dynamic equivalence' translations (such as the New Living Translation). They are not sticking to as close to a word-for-word translation. Some play fast and loose with the ancient texts, in order to give a modern feel to the language - to put it in terms today's people use. This is extremely dangerous if you want to read as close to the original wording as possible. The A.V. is not a perfect translation, but at least it is honest about words put in to make English sense of the sentences. There is great worth in using a literal translation, known also as "formal equivalence", such as the A.V.