Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: rbowman Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.folklore.computers Subject: Re: Recent history of vi Date: 9 Dec 2025 01:10:50 GMT Lines: 17 Message-ID: References: <10ga6r1$7ph$1@news.misty.com> <10gpatq$jpt$3@news.misty.com> <69334624$0$11430$426a74cc@news.free.fr> <10h175s$2b64m$19@dont-email.me> <10h4noh$3n4no$4@dont-email.me> <10h5a1j$3rsmf$1@dont-email.me> <830j0mxn2u.ln2@Telcontar.valinor> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net z0OwhRzUbFPP+18cvLah8gJFn0VwEo+XVTUUuCyR08Ya6WJX/P Cancel-Lock: sha1:bJti5I8NpGXgqbWRb2E+cZQndPE= sha256:sKJBUk/fy0bSYo8LwDdRiTbTN6q79DpXy8IuQecQKG4= User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:78532 alt.folklore.computers:232472 On Mon, 8 Dec 2025 14:23:20 +0100, Carlos E.R. wrote: > I have a catholic bible in 6 thick tomes from about 1850 which has one > column in latin, taken from the vulgata, and another column in Spanish. > Then the bottom half are foot notes. The Douay-Rheims is a translation of the Vulgate. Pius XII suggested a new translation from the Hebrew and Greek that resulted in the Jerusalem Bible, which is the one I have. The first version was in French but that spurred an English translation. The editors of the New Jerusalem Bible thought the Jerusalem Bible was more a translation from French than the original sources and tried again. Then there was the Revised New Jerusalem Bible that was supposed to be more literal but had gender inclusive language. Will the real bible please stand up?