‘Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.’ [Matthew 6:9-13, KJV]

The doxology; ‘For thine is the kingdom….” Does not appear in the oldest manuscripts or in other translations of the Bible.

The popular Protestant New International Version (NIV) renders it thus;

'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come, your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. [Matthew 6:9-13, NIV]

The NIV adds a footnote here; 6:13 Or from evil; some late manuscripts one, / for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.

It seems that this doxology was ADDED TO SCRIPTURE in the King James Version.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 25, 2004

Answers

The King James Bible was translated pout of the Textus Recopoitius, and made as exacy a copy as possible, so the translators didnt add to scriptture.

The texts they used had that line in them... Please stop attackign the King James translation...

Further, their is debate on rather or not the phrase belongs their or not. In short, we don't know if it was added, or if it was their origionally or omited. If it was omited , then we dont know ig by accedent, or filiberately. If added, same applies... its contested.

he NIV however is a bad translation, as its a paraphrase Bible, and wholly LESS accurate than ther KJV ...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 25, 2004.

What nitpickers!!! Hey, if you have a problem with the way King James translated or any other way the Bible is understood then find the scriptures in it’s original language and read it that way.

-- Always Pray (Nitpicker@begone.com), January 26, 2004.

The Textus Receptus was authored by Erazmus in 1516. My assertion that the doxology added by the KJV is absent from the earliest manuscripts still stands.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 26, 2004.

It's a Doxology, however, that shows up in the CAST MAJORITY of manuscripts.Upu are accusing the King James translators of adding tot he Bible, which itsself is an attack on their effort, for the sole reason to attack this translation.

The way you worded it, it seemed like the King's translators where themselves inventing the text, which, of course, they wheren't.

Indeed, MOST manuscripts at the time possessed these lines, and as I said, they are ocntested... but at the timd of hte King James Bible they wheren't, and it was assumed that they belonged their.

ALSO...what vital Docotrine does this addition, if it is so , make to the scriptures?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 26, 2004.

Jmj

My understanding is this ... It is generally agreed by Christian Bible scholars (Catholics, Orthodox, Protestant) that the "doxology" was not written down by the evangelists, but was a later addition to the actual text -- made by a copyist and then spread to other manuscripts. However, it was not an invention by the copyist. Rather, it was something that was being used by some Christians within the first 100 (and possibly the first 50) years after the Resurrection. How do we know this?

Have you heard of the early Christian (non-scriptural) Greek document known as the "Didache ton Apostolon" ("Teaching of the Apostles") -- or simply "Didache"? It is a fairly brief and interesting work, believed to have been written between 80 and 120 A.D., and is quoted by Catholic apologists for a variety of reasons. Its "chapters are actually small sections, sometimes just one paragraph. Chapter 8 concerns the Lord's Prayer and, according to one translation, gives the text of the prayer as follows (reflecting the fact that part of the doxology used by Protestants today was being used by some Catholics of that early era):

"Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be Thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily (needful) bread, and forgive us our debt as we also forgive our debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (or, evil); for Thine is the power and the glory for ever."

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), January 26, 2004.

ZAROVE: It's a Doxology, however, that shows up in the CAST (sic) MAJORITY of manuscripts.Upu (sic) are accusing the King James translators of adding tot he Bible, which itsself (sic)is an attack on their effort, for the sole reason to attack this translation.

JOHN: The point is that the doxology is ABSENT from the vast majority of the earliest texts and is admitted by most scholars to have been added later; in other words Jesus never said those words in the Lord’s prayer. The reason I bring it up is that I have heard so many ‘KJV Only’ advocates accuse others of adding to the Scriptures etc… It’s not my only reason for rejecting the KJV; far from it. The KJV has many poor translations in addition to adding this to the Scriptures. Also, the KJV was not the first Bible to be printed in the language of the people as many ‘KJV Only’ advocates claim.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 26, 2004.

John,

That's very interesting about the Didache. I'll look over it.

Thanks

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 26, 2004.

John M.,

We have no direct access to exactly what Jesus said except through the testimony and faith of his first followers. We believe that the Gospels are without error, but that does not exclude the possibility that the doxology came from Christ, nor does it imply that the doxology is illegitimate as an appendix to the Lord's Prayer.

-- anon (ymous@God.bless), January 26, 2004.

No one is arguing that the King James Bible was the first english Bible...

But as to innaccuracies, the List of Innaccuracies posted already proved NOT to be bad translations. so far, I have not been shown realy more errors in the King James than in any other translation, and in most cases their are fewer errors.

Take the Contemporary enhlish Version, as an example...

The King James Bible was NOT poorly translated, and was an excellent translation for the mateirals they had had. The other John has alreayd shown where hte other part of the Lords Prayer may have origionated, and again, at the time (1611) they didnt have modern finds...

Now, can you please stop attackign the King James Bible as a Kneee Jerk reaction to the King James Onlyist crowd? I mean, relaly, its not a bad translation, and we have discussed THAT on other threads, likewise, it really doesnt alrter any doctorine.

Its the one I happen to use most, in fact.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 26, 2004.

anon: We have no direct access to exactly what Jesus said except through the testimony and faith of his first followers. We believe that the Gospels are without error, but that does not exclude the possibility that the doxology came from Christ, nor does it imply that the doxology is illegitimate as an appendix to the Lord's Prayer.

JOHN: Of course we have direct access to exactly what Jesus taught. We call it ‘Divine Revelation.’

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 27, 2004.

At the same time, their is debate over the text you mentioned, and two lines of transmission fromt he early church. One fromt h scholars of Alexandria, the other from antioch. The early Church suffered persecution, and as a result, many scriptures wehere burned or destroyed, so, the early Church sent a few remaining copies to alexandria, and Antioch managed to preserve several as well.

From these two lines, we receive the text, which is remarkabely well preserved and in agreeance, save for minor differences, such as the " Thine os the power." phrase. No existing early antiochan manuscipts have been found, and to my knowledge, only two existing Alexandrian ones have been discovered. The Siniticus and Vaticanus.

The two thewories are that either he Antiochan suffered corruption, by the phrase beign added by a scribe, and subseqwuently carried on ( Which is not the fault of the King James translators, which you make to be the case in your first post by accising them of adding to scripture, when in fact ll they did was produce a translation based on a copy that had this phrase in it.)

The other hteory was that the origional master manuscrupt used in Alexandria had had this phrase omited, and the mistake was carried on.

Currently. Scolars tend to side with the former theory over the later, that the phrase was affed by a scribe, but this was unknown to the King James translators, and so is not the casw that they added to scripture, but rathe used scripture that possessed the phrase as a text base in translation.

Incedentlaly, even though most modern scholars side withthe Alexandrian line of today, many credible scholars think that the master copy, form which all alexandrian copies where made, is the one that is corrupt, thinkign the phrase may have been inadvertantly, or even diliberatly, omited.

This is why the term is CONTESTED.

We cannot know for sure, btu what we do know is that, by and large, all of them form eithe rline agree, and none diverge from the basic doctotrines. ( NEither the Antiochan line nor the ALexandrian line teach a seperate overall message. IE, one doesnt teach Jesus died on a cross for remission of sin, and the other claim he was hanged... )

The King James Bible is a nice translation that can be enjoyed and read and bring knowledge and understanding, so why tear into it?z

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 27, 2004.

ZAROVE: but this was unknown to the King James translators…

JOHN: If it was unknown to the KJV translators why does it appear to have been known to the translators of other important versions that came before and after the KJV?

“For thine is the kingdom…”

KJV: Yes Luther-Bibel: No Douay-Rheims: No Wycliffe: No Tyndale: No Guttenberg: No RSV: No NIV: No NAB: No NASB: No NLT: No NLV: No 21st Cent. KJV: No Good News: No Jerusalem: No New Oxford: No Navarre: No Spanish RV: No

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 27, 2004.

KJV: Yes Luther-Bibel: No Douay-Rheims: No Wycliffe: No Tyndale: No Guttenberg: No RSV: No NIV: No NAB: No NASB: No NLT: No NLV: No 21st Cent. KJV: No Good News: No Jerusalem: No New Oxford: No Navarre: No Spanish RV: No

The RSV, NIV,NAB,NASB, NLT,NLV, and otehrs ont he list are all post date to King James, and dont fit youtr point.

Again, the manuscripts wherent known that you are disxcussing, they had to choose ewither the Antioch line, called then he Btzantine line, or the alexandrian line. They didnt have the old manuscripts we have now.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 27, 2004.

ALSO, the 21st century King James DOES have the line in it...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 27, 2004.

Just checked my Bible collection...dont yet have a NAB, but this is your list of thos hwo didnt have " FOr thine is the Kingdom...", after the list,I looked a few up.

KJV: Yes Luther-Bibel: No Douay-Rheims: No Wycliffe: No Tyndale: No Guttenberg: No RSV: No NIV: No Jerusalem: No New Oxford: No Navarre: No Spanish RV: No

The King James renders it thusly.

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Noww, you claim the Luther Bibel doesnt have the latte rpart, BUT...

Und führe uns nicht in Versuchung, sondern erlöse uns von dem Übel. Denn dein ist das Reich und die Kraft und die Herrlichkeit in Ewigkeit. Amen.

Here t is, in the Luther Bibel...

Likerwise, here it is in the 21st century KJV...

And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Indeed, the 21st century KJV is identicle to the regular... so lets look at one not on your list, the New King James...

And do not lead us into temptation, But deliver us from the evil one. For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.

Yup, theoir too...

You got one right thusfar that I can confirm, the Douat rheims...

And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen.

However, others I will have to search our, but form this list, you make it as though the King James is the ONLY one that possesses the line, and is thus adding to scriptures, which is a lie... unless you woudl like to explain what the line isa doing in all mine...

Soem have it, otehrs donet, but its not piculiar tot he King James... thats just wrong.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 27, 2004.

The RSV, NIV,NAB,NASB, NLT,NLV, and otehrs ont he list are all post date to King James, and dont fit youtr point.

Of course the fit my point because I said "translations before AND after the KJV."

Some Luther-Bibel editions have the doxology in parenthesis at the end of the Lord's Prayer.

The Douay-Rheims translation came before the KJV.

Besides you seem to miss my point. You said the KJV translators didn't know. My point was that many translators before and after the KJV seemed to know. And the KJV publishers today know but they keep putting it there. That was my point; don't try to make something of it that it isn't.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 27, 2004.

Ik not, your just not listening.

Carefully now...

In 1611, they had two lines of manuscripts, calle dhte Btzantine, and the alexandrian. They didnt have th eolder ones we have now...so they dotn get involved in the discussion.

Both claimed the same autority and both where used...

The debate is still over which line is the most accurate,t he Antiochan or alexandrian, current scholarshoip favours the alexandrian, BUT this can change with any new discovery...

as to why the line is left, its because its an established part of he translation.

As tot he DR, sorry, its not relaly a translation, its a translation of a trasnlation, it was taken fromt eh Vulgate, not the origional languages, and itssel fis seriosyly flawed.

Incedentally, my Luther Bibel diesnt have the phrase in Parenthasis...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 27, 2004.

ZAROVE,

Look, the fact remains that most translations before and after the KJV omit the doxology. The fact also remains that both Protestant and Catholic Biblical scholars say that older manuscripts do not have the doxology. And that's the whole point. But you seem to be trying to make something out of this that isn't there.

As far as it being a good translation I disagree. As you said it is based upon the Textus Receptus which was written by a humanist (Erazmus) in the 1500,s. The Textus Receptus is itself a poor rendering of the Scriptures thus a translation based upon it would likewise inherit it's inferiority.

-- John Miskell (RomanRite@aol.com), January 27, 2004.

"Look, the fact remains that most translations before and after the KJV omit the doxology."-John

Not so, "Most" isnt the vcase.SOME omit it, and SOME dont. You assume a majority vite here. Ther eisnt a majority vote, its about even...even the Luther Bibel had it in their.

"The fact also remains that both Protestant and Catholic Biblical scholars say that older manuscripts do not have the doxology. "-John

This is current concensus, not past consensus, and certainly not proven. Just the most probabele given current Data.

"And that's the whole point. But you seem to be trying to make something out of this that isn't there. "-John

Nope, I ma merely saying that the things you say are contested. Current scholarship can turn on a dime, just needs one new discovery. In 1611 ther where two lines, both accepted.

"As far as it being a good translation I disagree."-John

Based on what your objection lies? I think your reasons for attackign this translation are personal, rather than out of any higher interest, or else you see it as an easy tarhet. Likewise, I admit it has a few flaws, but the King James has fewer flaws than the NIV, the CEC, o most modern translations that are htemselves paraaphrases.

Indeed, it sta nds up, even to modern Formal. Equivolancies. ( Which I wish their where more of...)

"As you said it is based upon the Textus Receptus which was written by a humanist (Erazmus) in the 1500,s."-John

Ad Homonim attakcs are meaningless. He coudl have been an atheist and still prodices good work...

"The Textus Receptus is itself a poor rendering of the Scriptures thus a translation based upon it would likewise inherit it's inferiority. "-John

Simpley callign it flawed doesnt render it so, and you have yet to show either the King James Bible to be grossely flawed ( Which is yout initial intent) Nor have tou illustrated the received text to be inherantly more flawed to a greater extent than woudl be expected than een modern interliners.

Sorry, I htink you either selected the KJV as a target to get at fundamentalists, or else you have some personal ax to grind, but all you are oding is levying one charge and expectign the whole to fall. Even f the phrase was added, its a relativley small part, and doesnt relaly damage muchg. Further, it was already mentiomned part of church tradition earlier. Further still, you havwnt relaly llustrated that the majority of scholars are rightg, argument of authority doesnt work well either, its right up their with ad homonimm.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), January 27, 2004.

A few things to keep in mind. The King James' Version was based mainly (for the New Testament) on the Textus Receptus which featured many interpolations. These interpolations represent glosses, etc., that were inserted into manuscripts (by mistake) over generations. These don't present any heresies, but they are extraneous. This is all discerned by critical editions and many cases of interpolation are almost complete sure. A case that is sure is the doxology after the Pater noster which entered into the text over a few generations and represents most likely the doxology that was recited in the early Mass after the Pater noster. These doxologies are still recited to this day, e.g., per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum Filium tuum, qui tecum vivit et regnat in unitate Spiritus Sancti, Deus, per omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen., that is, through our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, who lives and reigns with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. Amen. These occur after many prayers, are seen in every rite of the Church, and go back to the Church's earliest days. Beside this point, the KJV is very popular but its greatest fault is in its controversial prejudice which is shown in its selection of translating certain words which pertain specifically to Catholic ideas (like Mary, tradition, works, etc.). They chose the translation which denies these things as much as possible, or renders them in a non-traditional manner. Like our Lady as "highly favoured".

-- Sean (s22w22@yahoo.com), February 07, 2004.

The Kign James translation is still a reliable translation. Besides, all protestant Translations tend to do what yoyu said,a nd tend to accuse Catholic Bibles of being the ones who selectively translate.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROVV3@JUNO.COM), February 07, 2004.

Besides, all protestant Translations tend to do what yoyu said, and tend to accuse Catholic Bibles of being the ones who selectively translate.

Mr. Zarove, please try to remember that this is not a general "religious forum." It is a Catholic forum, and many of us Catholics don't care that "all protestant Translations ... tend to accuse Catholic Bibles" of something. Don't think that we consider ourselves "on an even playing field," as though we need to pay attention to what Protestant Bibles say about Catholic Bibles. Heck, we wrote the New Testament, for Pete's sake, and we decided both testaments' canons. We don't need Protestants to help us know what the Bible is saying. Please be careful about what you say at a Catholic forum.

-- (Try@To.Remember), February 08, 2004.

Mr. Zarove, please try to remember that this is not a general "religious forum." It is a Catholic forum, and many of us Catholics don't care that "all protestant Translations ... tend to accuse Catholic Bibles" of something. Don't think that we consider ourselves "on an even playing field," as though we need to pay attention to what Protestant Bibles say about Catholic Bibles. Heck, we wrote the New Testament, for Pete's sake, and we decided both testaments' canons. We don't need Protestants to help us know what the Bible is saying. Please be careful about what you say at a Catholic forum. -Earlier post.

I was beign careful, I merely pointed out that the issue was a bit more complexe. That said, the Old Testement Cannon was affirmed byt he Jews, Christains, of any sort, merley inhereted it.I meant no disregard, howevedr, you must remember that the origional language texts are the better texts, and all translatiosn will be given in a slant.

The King James, at leats,m isnt a Protestant or Catholci Bible, as Both Protestants and Catholcis whre invovled in its creation. Its a Bible for Universal use.

I meant no offence, merleyciting a point.

As to Jay

"Yes, And don't forget that while you were writing the "new testament", you were actually believing what it says Sola Scriptura. It wasn't until later that you started to make up a bunch of "doctrines of devils", and add paganism to the church. At that point the TRUE "catholics" had to bail out, and call themselves "protestants". Lol! "Heck", what a joke you people are! "-Jay

Perhaps, and htis is jut a siggestion, you shoudl ask yourslf the tirte old queasiton "What woudl Jesus do?" Do you see Jesus as comeing fourth, spewign Venhom randomly at people?

Let us assume , and I do mean asusme as not to offend anyone here, that gou are correct and that the Cahtolci Church is a Pagan fgoddess worshippign religion that is wholly apostate. Lets just asusme you are correct for a moment, as to clarify a simple point that you seem to overlook.

OK, well, if this is the case, if this is the turth, isnt their soem better way to minister the tirht than to openly attack people? How much success to you hope to gain by illustrating your poitn if you only come accross as a disshovled aggressor who makes cheap one liner shots? You certainly wont make any new friends like htis, and most crtainly wont prompt the sort of deep thought you sem to wish to invoke. Instead, all you will do is cause bitterness and spread hatred. This sort of dessent speaks ill og you and shows ths you dont even hodl to Sola Scriptura, dfor the scriptures speak ill of your actions.

"Blessed are the meek, Blessed ar ehte peacemakers." Is htis not in the Bible?

Does the Bible not say "WOe unto those form ehom offences come?"

Does not the Bibel sy a Gentle answer turneth away wrath?

Where then, in all the admonishments of Jesus to love one another,a nd speak indly in turth and love, do you find such comments as yours beign wlecomesd in any format?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), February 09, 2004.

Jay,

There is a forum more appropriate for you ... it's called the "Ask Jesus" Forum ... it's a blatant Anti-Catholic forum severely controlled by a 17 year old Protestor who loves Sola Scriptura much more than you do. That would be a great opportunity for you to present your very own extra-special private biblical misinterpretations to the other members of the "Ask Jesus" Forum ... none of the protestors there could agree on a single biblical interpretation ... you can spew all your hatred for the Catholic Church in that forum -- and you will be applauded!

-- Anti-Jay (Pro-Mary@Co.Redemptrix), February 09, 2004.

All of the responses have been very interesting, and it is easy to see that there is some intelligent thought going into the answers. However, it is also easy to see how a vast majority of people are mislead. The KJV has been revised 7 times and all of the previously revised KJVs where never questioned to their authenticity, because it is well-known that the books within the KJV were canonized by the 1611 translators. If anyone continues to try and drink water from the bottom of the well he or she will drown. On the surface it is easy to see which translation is the most accurate. The KJV has withstood the test of almost 4 centuries. Although the KJV could be revised for an 8th time sadly it may never be done appropriately.

-- Paul Atkins (pablopage@yahoo.com), April 15, 2004.

"All of the responses have been very interesting, and it is easy to see that there is some intelligent thought going into the answers. However, it is also easy to see how a vast majority of people are mislead. The KJV has been revised 7 times and all of the previously revised KJVs where never questioned to their authenticity, because it is well-known that the books within the KJV were canonized by the 1611 translators. If anyone continues to try and drink water from the bottom of the well he or she will drown. On the surface it is easy to see which translation is the most accurate. The KJV has withstood the test of almost 4 centuries. Although the KJV could be revised for an 8th time sadly it may never be done appropriately. "-zAROVE

Actually this, like the "Erasmus" text, is Misleading.

John,I beleive, claimed the King James Bibel was translated form the erasmus text. As a reuslt, it owudl enherit its defects. However, the King James used a variety of Greek MSS, and was princiipley based on the Bezra text, rather than the Erasmus text.

As to your own claim, the King James Bibel is impleid ot be imperfect, and no matter hwat it cannot be made free of error. This is false. For starters, yourely on the revision myth, and for another, it assumes one cannot simpley amend errors made.

Let us assume an 8th revision comes about, techniclaly one already has, its called the 21sr century Kign James, but lets say you are correct. why coudl we not merley weed out the errors?

Secondly, most of the revisions happened to change puncutuation and make spellignuniform. In 1611 their was no Unofrm manner of spelling.

Mot of the revision where in living memory of the origional edition, and where overseen b the origional commity.

The Last one wss in 1769, and was revised not to purge the Kign James of errors, btu to formalise the spelligns to modern standards, and to correct puncutation and a few difficult to read passafges into a more readable style. No actual changes tot he text where made aside form those.

I use the King James Bibel because it is the most Accurate Translation ont he Market as well as the most majestic. It also uses theMajority text base, rather than the Crfitical text. I have no faith in the Critica Text, base don the wesctott-Hort text of the 1800's, and am amazex at the new edition of the Nestles text, which is the standard Greek text now, for its restoration of reains similar tot he King Jmaes.

the 27th edition restoed many Omited verses,, and restored many readinfs form their Critical varient tot heri Majorty vairietn, based on newer discoveries that th majority text was, in fact, older.

The Kikng Jmaes is a translation of the Byzantine line of manuscripts, the others are based on a weaker set of manuscripts only proclaimed in the1800's as more authentic, that have proven erroneous before.

Their is a small btu growing number of textual scholars that favour the majority readinfgs, an the Majority readings faour the King James Bibles renderings.

I hope one day the reaidngs will be re-established completley, until suc time that this happens however, I will maintian use of my rleiableKing Jmaes Bible.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), April 15, 2004.

I find it interesting and saddening to see tha queationers of the Catholic Tradition are still being misused and berated on these pages. Yes it is a Catholic Forum where Catholic views are held to be Wholly True. I have no problem with this assumption. As such it is a valuable repository and resource for all seekers of Truth including the non Catholics. Some of us non Catholics simply want to learn more about Catholic belief and tradoition either as part of their search for truth or as a testing of their own beliefs. I know this forum is plagued by anti catholic mindless prujudice and hatred BUT not all who question are doing so to cause offence!

Please be gentle in your replies -at least until it becomes obvious what kind of poster you are dealing with. Any casual reader of this forum maybe put off all religion by the vitriolic and unpleasant exchanges. It is possible to question and defend a belief while having respect for the person.

I am an Anglican and we have much in common with the Catholic Church. I admire the dedication that the tradition and belief is upheld even though I don't share all the same beliefs.

The Catholics may think I'm on the wrong path but most of them here are pleasant people just standing firm in what they believe.

We should all practice tolerance and love - at the end of the day Jesus Himself will sort the sheep from the goats......

-- Sharon (sharon.guy@ntu.ac.uk), April 16, 2004.