EDITING NOTES for Harry Prior’s version


                                                                   Speech of Christ


"Love One Another!"


paragraph 5

INGER/POUL: ". . .all who sigh and moan under the heavy burdens!"

KAI:  ". . .all who stagger under heavy burdens."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .all who sigh and groan under heavy burdens."

HARRY: ". . .all who sigh under your burdens!"

EDITING NOTE: One can lament with sighing, so that moaning or groaning are not necessary. Kai neatly sidesteps a redundancy with "stagger." Also, if you suffer under your burdens we already know that they are heavy. No need to say heavy. 

paragraph 5

INGER.POUL: ". . .who work with pains and trouble. . ."

KAI: ". . .who toil by the sweat of their brow. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .who labour with toil and trouble. . ."

HARRY:  ". . .all who toil. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  I will assume that Inger and Poul meant with "pain and worry", which Kai rendered into a well-known figure of speech, "by the sweat of their brow." Hanne and Chris fell into the redundancy trap. "Labour" and "toil" mean the same. Actually, "toil" alone will do, as it means "exhausting labor or effort."

paragraph 6

INGER/POUL: "Yea, verily I say unto you. . ."

KAI: "Truly, I say unto you:. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: "Yea, truly I say unto you. . ."

HARRY: "Indeed, I say to you. . ."

EDITING NOTE: "Yea" is too easily confused with the slang term "yeah". Its two synonyms are "indeed" and "moreover", which I will instead use throughout. Notice that Kai simply dropped it. I am also using "to" instead of "unto", which in modern context subtracts not from the solemnity of the wording. I am also turning the annoying "ye" into "you", which falls easier on the modern ear and is just as dignified as the awkward "ye".

paragraph 6

INGER/POUL: ". . .will you raise your heads and harden your wills. . ."

KAI: ". . .if you hold your head high and strengthen your will. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .will you hold your head high and harden your will. . ."

HARRY:  ". . .will you hold your heads high and steel your wills. . ."

EDITING NOTE: A minor note: Inger and Poul have Jesus directing his speech to many, while Kai and Hanne and Chris use it in the singular. I think Inger and Poul are correct. Either way, meaning is not altered.

paragraph 6

INGER/POUL: ". . .then, with detest, ye shall turn away from all sin, from all misdeeds. . ."

KAI: ". . .and you will abhor all sin and misdeeds. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .then with abhorrence will you turn from all misdeed. . ."

HARRY: ". . .then will you abhor all sin. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  Obviously, Inger and Poul stumble with their grammar. They should have said "then will you detest and turn away from. . ." Kai uses a better word, though: "Abhor". Hanne and Chris fall into the redundancy trap again. To abhor is also to shrink back from, to shudder at. You would then of course also be turning away from sin and misdeeds. But wait, a misdeed is an immoral deed which is also a wicked deed, and if wicked it must be evil. To their credit, Hanne and Chris avoid THIS redundancy! They simply use "misdeed", which says it all. But so does "sin", which, if avoided also keeps one from misdeeds.

paragraph 6

INGER/POUL: ". . .then, with a firm confidence. . ."

KAI: ". . .then will you know. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .will you know with immutable certitude. . ."

HARRY: ". . .then will you know. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  Oh those redundancy traps! Confidence already means to have full trust, thus your confidence need not be firm. Kai correctly depends on "know" alone, for if you know, you also have confidence. But poor Hanne and Chris wrestle with the redundancy and create a worse one, the awkward “immutable certitude.”

paragraph 7

INGER/POUL: ". . .to guide and lead you. . ."

KAI: ". . .to guide you and lead you. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .to lead and to guide you. . ."

HARRY: ". . .to lead you. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  To "lead you" is sufficient. Also, we have another mystery reversal by Hanne and Chris, one of many found throughout their translation. The meaning is not altered, but why do they do it?

paragraph 8

INGER/POUL: "If ye stumble overthe many stones of the road. . ."

KAI: "Should you stumble on the stony path. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: "Do you stumble upon the many stones in your path. . ."

HARRY: "Do you stumble over the many stones of the road. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  Hanne's and Chris's "upon" should be "over." You don't stumble upon a stone, although you could come upon a stone or many stones, for example, I came upon a beautiful sight.

paragraph 8

INGER/POUL: ". . .back unto the smoothroads and paths. . ."

KAI: ". . .back onto the rightroad."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .back onto the level paths. . ."

HARRY:  ". . .back to level pathways.. ."

EDITING NOTE:  What does the Danish text say?

paragraph 8

INGER/POUL: ". . .I shall cleanse you from all dirt, all impurity."

KAI: ". . .and cleanse you of all soil and impurity:

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .cleanse you of all soil and mire."

HARRY: ". . .cleanse you of all impurity."

EDITING NOTE:  What a mess of redundancies! "Impurity" alone is enough. Look up dirt, soil and mire in the dictionary and you'll find that these can all be covered by that one word impure.

"Mire" is an area of wet, swampy ground; bog, marsh. 4. to involve, entangle; 5. to soil with mire, 6. to sink or stick in mire.

"Dirt" is any foul or filthy substance, as mud, grime, dust, or excrement; 2. earth or soil; 4. moral filth, vileness, corruption.

"Impure" means not morally pure.

paragraph 8

INGER/POUL: ". . .back to the right roads and paths."

KAI: ". . .back onto the right roads and paths."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .back onto the straight and proper paths."

HARRY:  :. . .back to level paths.. ."

EDITING NOTE:  “. . .Hanne and Chris avoided the redundancy. "Roads" and "paths" are synonymous.

paragraph 8

INGER/POUL: ". . .and I shall not let you go. . ."

KAI: ". . .and I will not release my hold. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .and I shall not leave you nor forsake you. . ."

HARRY: ". . .and I shall not release my hold. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  Now why did Hanne and Chris have to fall into the redundancy trap here? "Leave" and "forsake" are the same thing.


The heading ends with an exclamation point in the Danish, which Hanne and Chris retain but Inger and Poul and Kai omit. Whether they did so intentionally or overlooked it I know not. I question why there should be an exclamation point? The heading is not an exclamation. You could use an exclamation point if Christ said: "Listen! I speak to you of some of our Father's laws."

paragraph 8

INGER/POUL: ". . .promised to guide and lead you. . ."

KAI: ". . .given my pledge to guide you and lead you. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .promised to lead and to guide you. . ."

HARRY:  ". . .pledged to accompany and to lead you. . .”

EDITING NOTE:  More redundancies and another of those mysterious reversals by Hanne and Chris.

paragraph 9

INGER/POUL: ". . .towards light and purity."

KAI: ". . .toward Light and purity."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .forward unto purity and Light."

HARRY: ". . .towards Light and purity."

EDITING NOTE:  Another mystery reversal by Hanne and Chris.

paragraph 10

INGER/POUL: ". . .praying to our Father for strength and power. . ."

KAI: ". . .by asking our Father for strength. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .by asking our Father for power and strength. . ."

HARRY: ". . .by prayer to our Father for needed strength. . ."

EDITOR: Kai avoids the redundancy. Strenth gives you power. And again another of those mystery reversals by Hanne and Chris.

paragraph 8

INGER/POUL:  ". . .whoever of you would of his own free will let his living ego be eliminated. . ."

KAI:  ". . .who would, of his own free will, allow his living self to be extinguished for all eternity. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .who among youwould of their free will allow their living selves to be extinguishedfor all eternity. . ."

HARRY: “. . .who amongst youwould freely allow their existence to be ended for eternity. . .”

EDITING NOTE:  Who comes closest to the Danish text?

paragraph 10

INGER/POUL: ". . .our Father for strength and power. . ."

KAI: ". . .by asking our father for strength. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .our Father for power and strength. . ."

HARRY:  ". . .our Father for needed strength. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  Kai eliminates the redundancy (strength and power in this context mean the same). Hanne and Chris also do one of those mystery reversals again.

paragraph 10

INGER/POUL: “. . .despite suffering, sorrow and pain. . .”

KAI: “. . .despite suffering, grief and adversity. . .”

HANNE/CHRIS:  “. . .despite suffering, grief and adversity. . .”

HARRY: “. . .despite sorrow and pain. . .”

EDITING NOTE:  Suffering and grief are synonymous with sorrow.

paragraph 12

INGER/POUL: “. . .but follow your own lusts andunclean desires. . .”

KAI: but yield to your own cravings and unclean desires. . .”

HANNE/CHRIS: “. . .but follow your lusts and unclean desires. . .”

HARRY: “. . .but follow your own unclean desires. . .”

EDITING NOTE:  Lust and unclean desires are synonymous. Kai avoided a redundancy with ”cravings”, not the same as “lust” but unnecessary.

paragraph 8

INGER/POUL: ". . .but if ye deny to repair what ye have broken down. . ."

KAI: "But if you refuse to rectify your wrongs. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS:  "But do you refuse to restore what you have destroyed. . ."

HARRY:  "But do you refuse to put right your wrongs. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  Exactly what does it say in the Danish text?

paragraph 13

INGER/POUL: ". . .towards the Light and the home."

KAI: ". . .toward the Light and the Home."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .toward the Light and the Kingdom."

HARRY: ". . .towards the Light and the Home. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  Is it "home" or "Kingdom" in the Danish text?

paragraph 14

INGER/POUL: "Yea, verily, each one of you. . ."

KAI: "Truly, each of you. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: "Yea, verily, all of you. . ."

HARRY: "In truth, all. . ."  

EDITING NOTE:  Kai catches the redundancy. "Yea" means "indeed." "Verily" means "in truth, really", and also "indeed."

paragraph 15

INGER/POUL: ". . .of all the knowledge and all the experiences acquired. . ."

KAI:  ". . .the knowledge and the experience acquired. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .the knowledge and the powers that your spirit has gained. . ."

HARRY: ". . .the knowledge and the experience gathered. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  Why do Hanne and Chris say "power"?  Its meaning is entirely different from "experience."

paragraph 17

INGER/POUL: ". . .oscillations of Light and Darkness. . ."

KAI: ". . .vibrations of either the Light or the Darkness. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .vibrations of Darkness or of the Light. . ."

HARRY:  ". . .oscillations of Light and Darkness. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  Another puzzling reversal by Hanne and Chris. Why?

paragraph 17

INGER/POUL: ". . .for the bad and sinful. . ."

KAI: ". . .for the evil and the sin. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .for the sin and the evil. . ."

HARRY: ". . .for the evil . . ."

EDITING NOTE:  Well, here is the usual mystery reversal by Hanne and Chris. But more than that, what is the difference between evil and sin, pray tell? If you sin you also do evil, and the reverse. Yes, another redundancy.

paragraph 18

INGER/POUL: ". . .bringing you much grief and suffering. . ."

KAI:  ". . .causing you many sufferings and much grief. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: causing you many sufferings, much sorrow. . ."

HARRY: ". . .bringing you much grief. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  It alters not the meaning, but here we find Kai and Hanne AND Chris both doing one of those mystery word reversals. But whatever the order of the words, they are still redundant. "Grief" alone is sufficient. It clearly implies suffering in the context here.

paragraph 18

INGER/POUL: ". . .to good and bad deeds. . ."

KAI: :. . .to do evil or good deeds.. ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .commit evil deeds or to do good. . ."

HARRY: ". . .to do good and bad deeds. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  Kai and Hanne/Chris reverse "good" and "bad/evil". No change in meaning, but why do it then?

paragraph 22

INGER/POUL: ". . .and do never forget them!"

KAI: ". . .and remember them always!"

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .and never forget them!"

HARRY: ". . .and forget them never!"

EDITING NOTE: Interesting that Kai turned negative wording to positive. It's like when you say, "This glass is half-empty", or "This glass is half-full."  One is negative, one is positive. How is it said in the Danish text?

paragraph 22

INGER/POUL: "For every evil and sinful deed. . ."

KAI: ". . .for every evil and sinful act. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: "For each evil and sinful act. . ."

HARRY: "For each wicked act. . ."

EDITING NOTE: If it is evil it is also sinful. But "wicked" also covers it nicely, and eliminates the redundancy.  If I commit a sinful deed I also commit a wicked act.

paragraph 23

INGER/POUL: “Only the good deeds, born out of your hearts’ compassionate love and pity. .”.

KAI:  “. . .only the good deeds which are born of unselfish love and compassion. . .”

HANNE/CHRIS: “Only the good deeds that are born of the merciful love and compassion of your hearts. . .”

HARRY: “Only good deeds born of unselfish love. . .”

EDITING NOTE:  Kai’s “unselfish love” says it all.

paragraph 25

INGER/POUL: ". . .always be quite honest, truthful and. . ."

KAI: ". . .always be honest, truthful and. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .be fully honest, truthful and. . ."

HARRY: ". . .act honestly and justly always. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  If you are honest you are also truthful. Kill the redundancy.

paragraph 26

INGER/POUL: ". . .towards the Light and the Home."

KAI: ". . .toward the Light and the Home."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .toward the Home and toward the Light."

HARRY: ". . .towards the Light and the Home. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  Another mystery reversal by Hanne and Chris.

paragraph 28

INGER/POUL: ". . .ye create far more and far greater sufferings. . ."

KAI: ". . .you create far more, and much heavier, suffering. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .you create far more and far greater sufferings. . ."

HARRY: ". . .you create far greater suffering. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  "Greater" alone will do it, for not only does it mean deeper, heavier, etc., but also more.

paragraph 28

INGER/POUL: "In darkness and loneliness. . ."

KAI: "Lonely, and in Darkness. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: "In Darkness and loneliness. . ."

HARRY: "In gloom and solitude. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  Inger and Poul correctly do not capitalize the first letter of "darkness", for this actually refers not to the power called Darkness but a condition of gloom, which in context here means a state of melancholy or depression. "Loneliness" is also incorrectly used by all the translators. The word we want is "solitude". Yes, the person is also lonely, but that state can be felt either alone OR in the company of others. One could also feel NOT lonely in either solitude or among others.

paragraph 29

INGER/POUL: "I say this to those people who by a self-chosen death hope to be able to evade the consequences. . ."

KAI: "I say this to those who are cowardly, weak and discouraged, and to those who, through suicide hope to evade the consequences. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: "This I say unto those human beings who are fearful, weak and faint of heart, and unto those human beingswho hope, by the taking of their own lives, to escape the consequences. . ."

HARRY: "This I say to those fearful, weak and faint of heart, and to those who hope that by the taking of their own lives they can evade the consequences. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  Several words are missing from Inger's and Poul's translation. I will assume the typesetter omitted them by error and no proofreader noticed. It is unlikely that Kai and Hanne and Chris would have invented these words on their own.

paragraph 29

INGER/POUL: ". . .comsequences of their evil crimes or foolish deeds. . ."

KAI: ". . .consequences of their evil crimes or foolish deeds."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .consequences of their evil transgressions or foolish deeds."

HARRY: ". . .consequences of their crimes or foolish deeds. "

EDITING NOTE:  Is there a crime that is not evil? Well, possibly. If your community has a law against spitting on the sidewalk, you could be arrested for the "crime" of spitting on the sidewalk, even though this was not truly an act of evil. But in the context here, we are speaking of real crimes and thus need not redundantly describe them as evil.

paragraph 29

INGER/POUL: ". . .agonizing suffering ye will create. . ."

KAI: ". . .agonizing suffering that you bring. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .agonizing sufferings you create. . ."

HARRY: ". . .suffering you create. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  If one is in agony, one is suffering. Consequently, suffering is also agonizing. To avoid the redundancy, we can use "agony" alone or "suffering" alone.

paragraph 30

INGER/POUL: "Do not be recreant, weak or despondent. . ."

KAI: "Do not be cowardly, weak or discouraged. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: "Be not fearful, weak nor faint of heart. . ."

HARRY: "Be not fearful nor weak nor faint of heart. . ."

EDITING NOTE: I like “faint of heart.” 

paragraph 30

INGER/POUL: “. . .then, in His love and compassion. He will support and strengthen you.”

KAI: “. . .in His love and compassion, then, He will support you and strengthen you.”

HANNE.CHRIS: “. . .then in His love and compassion will He sustain and strengthen you.

HARRY: “. . .then will He in His compassion give you the needed help”

EDITING NOTE:  “Compassion” implies also love. It by itself will suffice. 

paragraph 31

INGER/POUL:  "Do not murder and kill one another!"

KAI: "Do not murder and killone another!"

HANNE/CHRIS: "Do not murder nor killone another!"

HARRY: "Do not take the lives of others!"

EDITING NOTE:  I suppose one could say that soldiers kill but do not murder each other, and that one person who deliberately kills another is committing murder. But then you get into other areas of meaning, such as manslaughter which is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought. Is a soldier killing with or without malice when patriotically obeying his government's order to "defend" the country? Why not simplify the whole thing and say "Do not take the lives of others?"

paragraph 31

INGER/POUL: ". . .progress toward the Light and Home."

KAI: ". . .progress toward the Light and the Home. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .progress toward the Home and the Light. . ."

HARRY: ". . .progress towards the Light and the Home. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  Another mystery reversal by Hanne and Chris.

paragraph 31

INGER/POUL: ". . .through many hundreds of earthly existences. . ."

KAI: ". . .through hundreds of Earth-lives. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS:  ". . .through several hundred lives. . ."

HARRY: ". . .through hundreds of earthly existences. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  Here's that confusion with "several" again. "Several" means more than two but fewer than many. Let's just stick to Kai's simple "hundreds", which implies many.

paragraph 32

INGER/POUL: ". . .nothing is so evil and sinful as murder and manslaughter. . ."

KAI: "Nothing is more evil and sinful than murder and killing."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .Nothing is more evil and sinful than murder and killing. . ."

HARRY: ". . .nothing is more evil than to destroy life. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Evil and sinful are synonymous. You only need one or the other. Murder and manslaughter are the same, the latter being the unlawful killing of a human being though without malice. With malice it becomes murder. Either way, the bottom line is the killing of another. Kill the redundancies!

paragraph 32

INGER/POUL: "Listen unto me, ye men and women. . ."

KAI: "Mankind, hear my words. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: "Yea, hear me, human beings!"

HARRY: "Yes, listen to me all!"

EDITING NOTE: I suspect that the original Danish wording sounded fine but that it could not be literally translated into English without sounding awkward, hence the three different interpretations by the translators. But which of these sounds best? Or is there another way to say it, as for instance: "Listen to me all. . ."?

A reminder here also that, as you can see, I am turning "yea" into "yes", because the meaning of "yea" is "indeed" or "moreover", which means something in addition to something already said. "Yea" fits in some instances but not all. With "yes" there is no chance for incorrect grammar.

paragraph 32

INGER/POUL: ". . .as the devastating and ignominious wars. . ."

KAI: ". . .than the devastating and degrading wars. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .as do the spoiling and disgraceful wars. . ."

HARRY: ". . .as the devastatinganddisgracefulwars.. ."

EDITING NOTE:  Hanne's and Chris's "spoil" means to damage or harm severely, ruin. But I don't think it fully conveys the destructiveness of war.

paragraph 32

INGER/POUL: ". . .with the same deep, infinite love."

KAI: ". . .with the same deep, infinite love."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .with the same deep and boundless love."

HARRY: ". . .the same infinitude of love."

EDITING NOTE:  An infinite or boundless love is also deep. No need to be redundant. 

paragraph 33

INGER/POUL: ". . .our Father's help and assistance. . ."

KAI: ". . .our Father for help and support. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .our Father for help and support. . ."

HARRY: ". . .our Father for assistance. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  Help is also assistance is also support and the other way around.  Dump the redundancy!

paragraph 33

INGER/POUL: ". . .you may steal,plunder,ill-treat, and kill. . ."

KAI: ". . .to rob, plunder,desecrate and kill. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .you may rob, plunder, desecrate and kill. . ."

HARRY: ". . .to be able to plunder, persecute and kill with. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  To plunder is to steal or rob by force. Plunder alone will do. I would also change Inger's and Poul's "ill-treat" to "abuse", although I would feel more comfortable with "persecute" (what is the Danish word?). Where Kai got "desecrate" I know not. Its first meaning is "to divest of sacred character or office." I think Hanne and Chris simply copied Kai witout looking up the meaning of the word, which definitely does not fit here. Inger and Poul are correct.

paragraph 34

INGER/POUL: ". . .He doth not say to some of you. . ."

KAI: "He does not say to some. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .He does not say unto some of you. . ."

HARRY: ". . .He says not to some:. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Keep it simple.

paragraph 34

INGER/POUL: "beware of murder and manslaughter, beware of hatred and grudge, of dissentions, war and enmity, beware of all the evil and sinful. . .

KAI: "Beware of murder and killing, beware of hatred and envy, of strife, of war and enmity; beware of all the evil and sin. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: "Take heed and beware of murder and of killing,beware of hatred and of envy, of strife, of war and of enmity, beware of all the evil and sinfulness. . ."

HARRY: ". . .beware that you kill not, beware that you hate and envy not, beware that you engage not in dissension, war and animosity; be mindful of all the evil. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  After dumping all the redundancies, let's use "beware" correctly. "Of" after beware is grammatically incorrect. Yes, it works if it is the sign on the yard fence saying "Beware of the dog", meaning to take care, look out that the dog doesn't get you, etc. In short, a warning. When applied to, say, killing, it is still a warning — you are cautioned to take care that you do not kill, etc.

paragraph 34

INGER/POUL" ". . .nor is he fickle. . ."

KAI: ". . .nor is He fickle. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .neither is He inconstant. . ."

HARRY: ". . .nor is He capricious. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  I prefer "capricious", while Hanne's and Chris's "inconstant", though correct, does not "sit" well on the ear.

paragraph 35

INGER/POUL: "Yea, listen to me, ye men and women. . ."

KAI: "Yea, hear me, all mankind!"

HANNE/CHRIS: "Yea, hear me, you human beings!"

HARRY: "Yes, listen to me, mankind!"

EDITING NOTE:  This may sound okay in Danish, but obviously falls not comfortably on the ordinary English ear as witness the awkward alternatives by the translators. Kai's "mankind" fits best, but what actually does it say in the Danish text? Is this any better: "Indeed, listen to me, humanity!" Or perhaps "mankind" alone will suffice.

paragraph 35

INGER/POUL: :. . .into wars and fights. . ."

KAI: ". . .into war and battle. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .unto wars and battles. . ."

HARRY: ". . .into battle. . ."

EDITING NOTE: "Battle" will do it.

paragraph 37

INGER/POUL: :. . .has advantages or privileges. . ."

KAI: ". . .has advantages or privileges. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .has rights or advantages. . ."

HARRY: ". . .has privilege. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  Advantages, privileges, rights all add up to the same thing. "Privilege" in the singular, alone will do nicely.

paragraph 39

INGER/POUL: ". . .surround you with good and kind beings. . ."

KAI: ". . .surrounds you with good and sympathetic beings. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .surrounds you with good and benevolent beings. . ."

HARRY: ". . .surrounds you with benevolent beings. . ."

EDITING NOTE: "Benevolent" includes good, kind and sympathetic. Drop the redundancies.

paragraph 39

INGER/POUL:  ". . .who always try to guide and direct you. . ."

KAI: ". . .who always seek to guide you and lead you."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .who seek constantly to lead and to guide you."

HARRY: ". . .who try always to guide you."

EDITING NOTE:  "If you guide you also direct or lead, and there go Hanne and Chris again with another of their mystery reversals. Omit the redundancies. "Guide" is sufficient.

paragraph 39

INGER/POUL: "Their warnings, advice and admonitions. . ."

KAI: "Their warnings, counsel and admonitions. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: "Their warnings, counsel and admonitions. . ."

HARRY: "Their admonitions. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  "Admonitions" says it. It means to "caution, advise or counsel." Since "warning" means "caution", you don't need it. Since "admonish" also means to advise, you don't need advise. "Counsel" is also the meaning of admonition. We don't need all these redundant words.

paragraph 40

INGER/POUL: ". . .without hesitation, without wavering. . ."

KAI: ". . .without hesitation. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .have unfalteringly. . ."

HARRY: "have without pause. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Kai and Hanne and Chris avoided the redundancy. "Hesitation" or "unfalteringly" alone are sufficient. But you could say "without doubt or hesitation", which would also avoid a redundancy. Subtle meanings are involved in synonyms.

paragraph 16

INGER/POUL:  ". . .amidst horror and terror to many. . ."

KAI: ". . .to the dread and terror of many. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .to the horror and dread of many. . ."

HARRY: ". . .to the dread of many. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Horror is the same as terror, dread is the same as terror, horror is the same as dread.  "Dread" alone will do nicely.

paragraph 41

INGER/POUL: ". . .lest in fear and trembling. . ."

KAI: ". . .shall not, in trembling fear. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .shall not, in trembling fear. . ."

HARRY: ". . .lest in trembling. . ."

EDITING NOTE: At first glance, Inger's and Poul's "fear and trembling" appears redundant . But it is not. One can be fearful and not tremble. On the other hand, one can tremble and also be fearful, or one can tremble from the cold without being fearful. Alas, Kai (with Hanne and Chris copying him) create a redundancy with "trembling fear." If used this way, "trembling" alone is sufficient, for within the context of the paragraph we know at once that this kind of trembling is caused by fear.

paragraph 41

INGER/POUL:  ". . .and all the living to doom and punishment. . ."

KAI: ". . .and all the living to judgment and punishment. . .'

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .and all the living to judgment and retribution. . ."

HARRY: ". . .and the living to judgment and punishment. . ."

EDITING NOTE:  Obviously Inger's and Poul's "doom" is the wrong word. "Judgment" is the correct word. I'm not sure I like Hanne's and Chris's "retribution." It means to retaliate for a wrong, which is not quite the same as punishment. When we send a criminal to jail, we do it under impersonal laws that specify a certain punishment. Retaliation implies a personal reaction, such as someone retaliating in anger against someone or something. When we run afoul of God's laws, we are "punished", but not by an angry or "retaliatory" God.

paragraph 42

INGER/POUL: ". . .your evil and good thoughts. . ."

KAI: ". . .your evil and good thoughts. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS ". . .your good and evil thoughts. . ."

HARRY: ". . .your evil and good thoughts. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Another mystery reversal by Hanne and Chris.

paragraph 44

INGER/POUL: ". . .for greater help and strength. . ."

KAI: ". . .for more help and strength. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .for greater help and greater strength."

HARRY: ". . .for greater strength."

EDITING NOTE: If you get help, you are also strengthened. Use "strength" alone.

paragraph 44

INGER/POUL: "For He will never be tired of your grievances and complaints."

KAI: ". . .for God never wearies of your complaints and difficulties."

HANNE/CHRIS:  "For never does He grow weary of your complaints and your worries. . ."

HARRY: "For He wearies never of your grievances. "

EDITING NOTE: Grievances and complaints mean the same. Complaints also imply difficulties or worries in context here. Redundancies strike again!  "Grievances" will suffice.

paragraph 46

INGER/POUL: ". . .sound weak and poor. . ."

KAI: ". . .are weak or poorly uttered. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .sound poor and weak. . ."

HARRY: ". . .sound weak and poor. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Another mystery reversal by Hanne and Chris.

paragraph 46

INGER/POUL: ". . .pray with heartiness and in full confidence. . ."

KAI: ". . .sincerely and with complete trust. . ."

HANNE.CHRIS: ". . .sincerely and in full trust. . ."

HARRY: ". . .with firmness and full trust. . ."

EDITING NOTE: I can't read the Danish text, but somehow I feel it should be: ". . .with firmness and full trust. . ."

paragraph 46

INGER/POUL: "". . .then shall our Father hear you, and then He will listento you. . ."

KAI: ". . .our Father will hear you and grant your prayer."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .our Father will hear you and then will He grant your prayer."

HARRY: ". . .then shall our Father be able to hearyou and then will He listento you."

EDITING NOTE: A subtle distinction in grammar here which slipped by Kai and Hanne and Chris. Inger and Poul say that only if you pray from the heart will God hear your prayer, and THEN he is able to listen to you. "Hear" and "listen" have different meanings in this context. Hanne and Chris add something that Inger and Poul do not say, namely that when God first hears you He THEN grants your prayer. Perhaps, perhaps not. What is being said by Inger and Poul is only that after you are able to "get through" to God, then is He able to listen to you. He has to hear you first before He can listen to you. Catch? Further, Kai and Hanne and Chris add something that Inger and Poul do not: namely, that God will "grant your prayer." This may be a typesetting omission by error in Inger's and Poul's version. I do not know. Please check the Danish text. Such an omission, if that it be, essentially does not change any meaning. We presume that if God listens to your prayer He will likely grant it in one way or another.

Paragraph 48

INGER/POUL: ". . .to pray out of your hearts. . ."

KAI: ". . .to pray from deep in your heart. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .to pray from the depths of your heart. . ."

HARRY: ". . .to pray from your hearts. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Oh those sneaky redundancies! First, let's correct Inger and Poul. What they really meant to say was ". . .able to pray from your hearts. . ." That is not redundant. But then Kai and Hanne and Chris make it redundant with "deep" and "depths." When you pray from the heart, you already pray from its depths. You cannot NOT pray from deep in your heart. Catch?

paragraph 50

INGER/POUL: ". . .grieve at all the evil and sinful. . ."

KAI: ". . .distressed over the evil and the sinful. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .when you grieve over the evil and the sin. . ."

HARRY: ". . .grieve over the evil. . ."

EDITING NOTE: What is the difference between evil and sin? Nothing! More redundancies.

paragraph 50

INGER/POUL: ". . .a prayer for greater strength and power. . ."

KAI: ". . .as a prayer for more strength and support. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .a prayer for greater power and strength. . ."

HARRY: ". . .as prayerfor help, for greater strength. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Greater strength IS more power, IS more support. Eliminate the redundancy.

paragraph 52

INGER/POUL: ". . .nothing is so hard and bitter for them. . ."

KAI: ". . .more painful and bitter to them. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .more painful and bitter to them. . ."

HARRY: ". . .nothing is more difficult and bitter for them

EDITING NOTE: Kai and Hanne and Chris create a needless redundancy. Bitterness can also cause pain, unless it is a lemon that wrinkles your mouth painlessly. Change Inger's and Poul's "hard" to "difficult" and leave it at that.

paragraph 52

INGER/POUL: ". . .nothing is so hard and bitter for them than to see how soon the empty places are again filled."

KAI: ". . .nothing is more painful and bitter to them than to see how soon memory fades and passes into oblivion; nothing is more painful and bitter to them than to see how soon the empty places are again filled."

HANNE/CHRIS:  ". . .nothing is more painful and bitter to them than to see how soon the empty places are filled once more."

HARRY:  ". . .for nothing is more difficult and bitter for them than to see how soon memories fade and the empty places are again filled."

EDITING NOTE: Did Kai make up these extra words? Hardly, I would think. I suspect that Inger and Poul overlooked them, but then why did Hanne and Chris miss them also, unless they simply copied Inger's and Poul's translation? I shall gamble that they were not invented by Kai and with a slight modification in grammar leave them intact. Somebody please check the Danish text.

paragraph 53

INGER/POUL" ". . .but do not wail and lament!"

KAI: ". . .but do not wail and lament. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .but do not wail and lament. . ."

HARRY: ". . .but mourn not to excess!"

EDITING NOTE: Whoever reads these editing notes surely cannot fail to recognize a redundancy by now. Here we have a choice. We can say: ". . .but do not wail and wail. . ." or ". . .but do not lament and lament. . ."  But why twice? When you say "wail" you are saying "lament". when you say "lament" you are saying "wail".  They mean the SAME! That is a redundancy, or the unnecessary use of an extra word or words to say the same thing.  I prefer "mourn."

Paragraph 54

INGER/POUL: ". . .in prayer you meet our Father!"

KAI: ". . .in prayer, you meet with our Father."

HANNE/CHRIS: "In prayer shall you meet with our Father."

HARRY: ". . .in prayer your thought meets with that of our Father."

EDITING NOTE: Linguistically, something nags here. I am going to take editor's license and add some clarifying words: ". . .in prayer your thought meets with that of our Father!" I don't think I have altered any meaning. I hope. Someone else please check out the Danish text.

paragraph 56

INGER/POUL: ". . .how you may best satisfactorily fulfill. . ."

KAI: ". . .how you best can fulfill. . ." 

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .how you may best fulfill. . ."

HARRY:  ". . .how you may best fulfill. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Inger and Poul use the redundant "satisfactorily", which Kai and Hanne and Chris correctly omit.

paragraph 59

INGER/POUL: ". . .that the office of you and your predecessors. . ."

KAI: ". . .that your predessors' office and power. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ".  .that the office and the power. . .

HARRY: ". . .that the office and power. . ."

EDITING NOTE: I will assume that "power" was omitted by error from Inger's and Poul's translation.

paragraph 60

INGER/POUL: "This I say unto thee, that thou shall know. . ."

KAI: "This I say, that you shall know. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: "This I say unto you, that you shall know. . ."

HARRY: ". . .This I say to you, that you know. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Oh, that question of Biblical "tone"! " Inger and Poul go all out with "unto" and "thee" and "thou", while Kai gives up and stays with modern English. Hanne and Chris give it a partial try with "unto" but drop "thee" and "thou." I go along with Kai. These attempts result only in awkward wording.

paragraph 64

INGER/POUL: ". . .pray our Father from the heart. . ."

KAI: ". . .pray our Father from deep in your heart. . ."

HANNE.CHRIS: ". . .pray from deep in your heart. . ."

HARRY: ". . .pray our Father from the heart. . ."

EDITING NOTE: "Deep" is redundant. When you pray from the heart, it IS deep. It can be no less.

paragraph 65

INGER/POUL: ". . .but as the highest and most supreme authority of thy church."

KAI: ". . .but as the highest and ablest authority of your church."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .but as the highest and most exalted authority of your Church."

HARRY: ". . .but as the highest and ablest authority of your church."

EDITING NOTE: See what happens when you allow redundancies to creep in. Inger's and Poul's "highest" means exactly the same as "most supreme authority." Worse, a second redundancy has crept in within the first redundancy. When one is supreme, that is it. One is not "most" supreme. Supreme is supreme. Period. It cannot be less supreme. To his credit, however, Kai adroitly avoids a redundancy with his "ablest authority." Nice try, but unnecessary. It is possible a Pope could be, as the highest in the Church, a leader of poor ability and thus not the "ablest" in this respect. But this is unnecessary to say in the context here. Hanne and Chris also struggle. Their "exalted" refers to the noble character of a Pope, not his ability as a leader. You see the semantic problems raised? The Pope could be an able leader but of poor character, for instance. President Bill Clinton was denounced as a man of poor moral character but seen by some as an able leader, for instance.

paragraph 66

INGER/POUL: ". . .with too much pomp and splendour. . ."

KAI: ". . .with excessive pomp and glory. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .with an overabundance of splendour and glory. . ."

HARRY: ". . .with excessive pomp. . ."

EDITING NOTE: What is pomp? It is splendour. What is splendour? It is pomp. Pomp is also glory and splendour is also glory and the other way around. Everything here is adequately stated in the one simple word, POMP. That is all you need. Kill those redundancies!

paragraph 67

INGER/POUL: ". . .with childlike love, hope and trust. . ."

KAI: ". . .with the love of a child, with hope and confidence."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .with the love of a child, in hope and in trust. . ."

HARRY: ". . .in childlike trust."

EDITING NOTE:  Redundant overkill. "In childlike trust" is sufficient. Love, hope, etc. are all implied in this. It is unlikely that you would pray trustingly to God without love, hope, confidence, etc.

paragraph 68

INGER/POUL: ". . .behind thick walls. . ."

KAI: ". . .behind closed walls. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .behind forbidding walls. . ."

HARRY: ". . .behind heavy walls. . ."

EDITING NOTE: I will assume that the Danish word was sufficiently ambiguous so that the translators could not agree on its precise meaning in English. A thick wall is a physical description; a closed wall could be thick or thin or anything else as long as we understand it encloses something; a forbidding wall could be thick, heavy or tall, presenting a forbidding appearance. Well, none satisfy me, so I will make my own choice: "heavy walls."

paragraph 68

INGER/POUL: ". . .far from the temptations, struggle, and trouble of life."

KAI: ". . .from the temptations, struggle and adversities of life."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .removed from the temptations, the struggle and the toil of life."

HARRY:  ". . .from the temptations and struggles of daily life. "

EDITING NOTE: "Far from the temptations and struggles of. . ." is sufficient. 

paragraph 68

INGER/POUL: ". . .to overcome sin and vices. . ."

KAI: ". . .to overcome sin and vice. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .to overcome sin and iniquity. . ."

HARRY: ". . .to overcome sin. . ."

EDITING NOTE: How does sin differ from vice and from iniquity? Same thing. Another redundancy!

paragraph 69

INGER/POUL: ". . .shall live in celibacy. . ."

KAI: ". . .shall live in celibacy. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .shall live and not be married. . ."

HARRY: ". . .should live in celibacy. . ."

EDITING NOTE: To be celibate is to refrain from any sexual relations. Hanne and Chris seem to be saying the same thing but in a confusing way — that they should not be forbidden to be married. Or in other words that they are forbidden to marry. This is not the same as being celibate, for one could be married and be celibate as well as unmarried and celibate. Let's stick with the simple word "celibacy."

paragraph 70

INGER/POUL: ". . .the many penitential exercises and self-tortures. . ."

KAI: ". . .the many penances and strictself-tortures. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .the many penances and severeself-torments. . ."

HARRY: ". . .the many penances and self-torments. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Hanne and Chris correctly use "self-torment" instead of "self-torture." But why do Kai and Hanne and Chris describe these self-torments as "strict" and "severe"? This is already implied in "self-torment", which Inger and Poul correctly use by itself. 

paragraph 70

INGER/POUL: ". . .who torture and ill-treat. . ."

KAI: ". . .who torture and mistreat. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .who torment and maltreat. . ."

HARRY: ". . .who ill-treat. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Redundancies all! "Abuse" or "ill-treat" alone will do nicely.

paragraph 70

INGER/POUL: ". . .weaken or exhaust themselves. . ."

KAI: ". . .weaken or exhaust themselves. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .exhaust or weaken themselves. . ."

HARRY: ". . .weaken or exhaust themselves. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Another reversal by Hanne and Chris. Meaning is not changed, by why, oh why do they do this? They do it repeatedly throughout their translation.

paragraph 70

INGER/POUL: ". . .by sinful and vicious thoughts. . ."

KAI:  ". . .by sinful and depraving thoughts. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .by sinful and depraving thoughts. . ."

HARRY:  ". . .by depraving thoughts. . ."

EDITING NOTE: My oh my, how those redundancies do sneak in! Pray explain the difference between a sinful and a depraved thought? If I have a depraved or a lascivious or lewd, etc. thought, can it be anything but sinful?

paragraph 71

INGER/POUL: “. . .are able to do so from heartfelt love and compassion.”

KAI: “. . .does so out of deep love and compassion.”

HANNE/CHRIS: “. . .to show love and compassion.”

HARRY: “. . .are able to do so from truecompassion.”

EDITING NOTE: Compassion implies also love.

paragraph 72

INGER/POUL: ". . .only in the deep, heartfelt devotion. . ."

KAI: ". . .only in deep and sincere prayer. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .only in the profound and fervent devotion of prayer. . ."

HARRY: ". . .only in the heartfelt devotion. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Another redundancy right under the noses of the unseeing translators, and it is a gem! You can't have deep devotion without it also being heartfelt; you can't have deep prayer without it also being sincere; and you can't have profound prayer without it being sincere. But wait! What's this? Still another redundancy. "Fervent devotion"? If you are devoted you are also fervent about it. 

paragraph 78

INGER/POUL: ". . .to maintain your power and authority, with eternal damnation or frighten with the punishments and tortures of hell.""

KAI: ". . .your power and authority by threatening eternal damnation, punishment or tortures of hell."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .your authority and power, shall you threaten with eternal damnation, nor menace with the punishments and torments of Hell."

HARRY: ". . .to assert your authority, threaten and frighten with eternal damnation and torment in Hell."

EDITING NOTE: Redundant overkill! And another of those mystery reversals by Hanne and Chris, who turn "power and authority" around to "authority and power." Also, Kai italicizes some words, the others do not. I have copied Kai in this and stand corrected if he is wrong.

paragraph 78

INGER/POUL: ". . .then without being tired, you must continually comfort. . ."

KAI: "Untirimgly you must offer comfort and. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .with tireless constancy comfort. . ."

HARRY: ". . .then tirelessly comfort. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Hanne and Chris stumble into a redundancy again. If you do something tirelessly you are also doing it constantly. I prefer: ". . .then must you tirelessly comfort and. . ."

paragraph 79

INGER/POUL: "into eternal inactivity."

KAI: ". . .state of eternal inactivity."

HANNE/CHRIS:  ". . .state of eternal impassivity."

HARRY: ". . .state of eternal inactivity."

EDITING NOTE: I know not where Hanne and Chris found "impassivity." I can find no such word in my dictionary. If they mean "impassive", this does not quite fit. It means to show or feel no emotion, unmoved; not subject to suffering. This is not the same as inactivity, although of course one would not display any emotion or feeling while inactive. But that would not necessarily mean that the capacity for expressing such emotions was gone.

paragraph 80

INGER/POUL:  ". . .self-torments or penitential exercises. . ."

KAI: ". . .self-tortures and penances. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .self-torments and penances. . ."

HARRY: ". . .self-torment in penance. . ."

EDITING NOTE: If one is indulging in self-torment within the context here, one is doing so as a penitence. It's not that you torment yourself AND/OR carry out penitential acts.

paragraph 80

INGER/POUL: ". . .the appalling devices of the Darkness."

KAI: ". . .the dreadful designs of Darkness."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .the dreadful inventions of Darkness."

HARRY: ". . .the appalling devices of Darkness. "

EDITING NOTE: All are correct, but which comes closest to the original Danish text?

paragraph 81

INGER/POUL: “. . .so that all who grieve and suffer may kneel

KAI: “. . .that the grieving and suffering may kneel. . .”

HANNE/CHRIS: “. . .that every grieving and every suffering person may at all times. . .”

HARRY: “. . .so that all who suffer may kneel. . .”

EDITING NOTE: If you grieve you also suffer.

paragraph 81

INGER/POUL: ". . .or so that all, according to their own wishes, may walk in stillness and peace. . ."

KAI: ". . .or that all who so desire may walk peacefully. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .and that all who so desire may walk in peace and tranqullity. . ."

HARRY: ". . .or so that all may walk, in their own way, in stillness and peace. . ."

EDITING NOTE: I think Kai and Hanne and Chris missed a subtle point here. Inger and Poul are saying that all should be able to walk in these beautiful places according to whatever it is that they may believe about God, not that they should be able to walk in these places because they so desire. In other words, perhaps a Hindu or a Moslem or that a believer in God who belongs to no religion might visit and walk in a Christian place of worship, or a Christian or an agnostic might want to walk in a Hindu or Buddhist temple or a Moslem mosque. Remember: Jesus is not just addressing the Catholic Church here, but ALL organized religions. So, just say: ". . .walk in their own way. . ."

paragraph 81

INGER/POUL: ". . .beautiful places consecrated and hallowed to our Father. . ."

KAI: ". . .beautiful places that are consecrated to our Father."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .places of beauty that are hallowed and consecrated unto our Father."

HARRY: ". . .beautiful places that are consecrated to our Father."

EDITING NOTE: Kai is the only one who did not fall into the redundancy trap. "Consecrated" also means "hallowed". Hanne and Chris also do their usual mystery reversal. They hallow first, then consecrate, while Inger and Poul consecrate and then hallow.

paragraph 82

INGER/POUL: ". . .to let hymns or songs of praise and thanksgiving sound from the most hidden depthsof the hearts."

KAI: ". . .that hymns and songs of praise must come from deep in the heart."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .that songs of praiseand thanksgiving shall stem from the deepest depths of their hearts."

HARRY: ". . .to let songs of praise sound from their hearts. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Whatever happened to linguistic simplicity? What is a hymn? It is a song of praise, and a song of praise embodies thanksgiving also. What is a most hidden depth of a heart? What is from deep in the heart? What is from within a heart? Redundancies all! If you sing from your heart, you already sing from its depths.

paragraph 83

INGER/POUL:  “And never must ye, by the sword or hard imperative commands, force your creed and your opinions upon others.”

KAI: “And never must you, by decree or by the sword, force your Faith and your opinions upon others.”

HANNE/CHRIS:  “And never must you by the sword or by decree compel others to accept your faith and your opinion.”

HARRY: “And never, by sword or by edict, impose your creed upon others.”

EDITING NOTE: “Creed” says it all.

paragraph 83

INGER/POUL: :. . .not incessantly quarrel and wrangle. . ."

KAI: ". . .incessant quarrels and disputes. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .unceasingly quarrel and dispute. . ."

HARRY: ". . .quarrel not unendingly, , ,"

EDITING NOTE: In the remote event that anyone reading these editing notes has not yet a clear understanding of what a redundancy is, here is what the translators are really saying:

INGER/POUL: ". . .not incessantly quarrel and quarrel. . ." or ". . .not incessantly wrangle and wrangle. . ."

KAI: ". . .incessant quarrels and quarrels. . ." or ". . .incessant disputes and disputes. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .unceasingly quarrel and quarrel. . ." or ". . .unceasingly dispute and dispute. . ."

Got it? These words all mean the same. You only need ONE.

paragraph 84

INGER/POUL: “. . .try all to meet in your mutual longing for the pure, the sublime, and the divine.”

KAI:  “. . .strive to unite in your mutual yearning for the pure, the sublime and the divine.”

HANNE/CHRIS: “Seek rather that all shall meet in common yearning for the pure, the exalted and the divine.” 

HARRY: “Seek rather for all to meet in common longing for the sublime and the divine.”

EDITING NOTE: If it is sublime and divine it is also pure and exalted.

paragraph 87

INGER/POUL: ". . .become the best and most supreme man of his country."

KAI:  ". . .become the best and the uppermost member of your country."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .become the best and most worthy person of your nation."

HARRY: ". . .be the worthiest citizen of your nation."

EDITING NOTE: Oh, those redundancies! "Supreme" alone is enough for Inger's and Poul's "most supreme."  One cannot be more supreme or less supreme. And Kai's "best" alone implies "uppermost member", while Hanne's and Chris's "best" implies "most worthy". "Worthiest" alone says it all.

paragraph 87

INGER/POUL: "Be pure and without blemish in your doings, so that all may respect, honor and love you. ."

KAI: "Be beyond reproach in your daily life, that all may respect, love and honour you. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: "Be beyond reproach in your dealings, that all may respect, love and honour you."

HARRY: "Be without blemish in your dealings, so that all may honor and love you."

EDITING NOTE: If one is pure, one is also without blemish. Why say it twice? If one is the best, one is also the uppermost. Why say it twice? Kai, Hanne and Chris avoid the redundancy with "beyond reproach."

paragraph 87

INGER/POUL: "Choose your counselors with care and sense. . ."

KAI: "Choose your counselors with care and intelligence. .:

HANNE/CHRIS:  "Choose your counselors with great care and wisdom."

HARRY: "Select your counselors with care. . ."

EDITING NOTE: More redundancies. "Select your counselors with care. . ." is sufficient. If you choose with care, you also choose with sense. if you choose with care and intelligence, the latter is implied in care. If you choose with great care, it is no greater than just care, and it also implies wisdom. That simple little word "care" covers it ALL.

paragraph 88

INGER/POUL: ". . .to submit humbly to your rule. . ."

KAI ". . .to submit humbly to your rule. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .to submit in humility to your rule. . ."

HARRY: ". . .to submit in humility to your rule. . ."

EDITING NOTE: "Humbly" is the wrong word. Hanne and Chris use "humility" correctly.

paragraph 89

INGER/POUL: ". . .all struggle and quarrel. . ."

KAI: ". . .all your disgraceful strifes and quarrels. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .all strife and dispute. . ."

HARRY: ". . .all strife. . ."

EDITING NOTE: A struggle in the context here is also a conflict. Strife is also a bitter conflict or struggle. A quarrel is an angry dispute, and all these meanings can embrace war, armed conflict, whatever. We have redundancies all over the place again. "Strife" alone will cover it all.

paragraph 90

INGER/POUL: “. . .and do never break the mutual peace of the realms and countries..”

KAI: and never violate the peace which prevails among other nations.” 

HANNE/CHRIS: “. . .and never disturb the peace which prevails among the realms and the nations.”

HARRY:  “. . .and disturb not the peace of other realms.”

EDITING NOTE: “Realms” is sufficient.

paragraph 93

INGER/POUL: "I speak unto you, who are legislators, unto you who in many ways have lot and part in the varied management of the countries and political communities."

KAI: "I Speak unto You, the Legislators, unto You Who, in Numerous Ways, Take Part in the Leadership of the Various Countries and States."

HANNE/CHRIS: "I speak unto you who are the givers of laws, unto you who in numerous ways take part in the various kinds of governance in the nations and the states."

HARRY: "I speak to you who are lawgivers, to you who in many ways take part in the administration of countries and governments. "

EDITING NOTE: The translators obviously all struggle with a precise translation from the Danish, producing awkward results. Kai gives up on "political communities" and substitutes "states", for example. Could political communities mean political parties? If so, Hanne and Chris don't try either, preferring Kai's "states". But what kind of states are we talking about? Countries are sometimes referred to as states, such as the State of Israel. Or are we talking of states as within the United States? Also, why does Kai capitalize the first letter of each word?

paragraph 95

INGER/POUL: “Do not hurl out bitter and hateful words against those, who are not of the same opinions ye are.”

KAI: Never utter bitter and hateful words against those who share not your beliefs.”

HANNE/CHRIS: “Never hurl bitter or hateful words against those who share not your beliefs.

HARRY: “Never voice hateful words against those who share not your beliefs.”

EDITING NOTE: “Hateful” embodies also bitterness.  

paragraph 95

INGER/POUL: ". . .by cunning or by underhanded means. . ."

KAI: ". . .deceitfully and underhandedly. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .by guile or with deceit. . ."

HARRY: ". . .by guile. . ."

EDITING NOTE: A minor matter which changes not the meaning, yet tantalizes me no end. Another of those mystery reversals by Hanne and Chris, a hallmark of their translation. If "deceit" (underhanded) comes first in the first two translations, Hanne and Chris are compelled to reverse their order. They do this over and over throughout their translation. In addition, all three excerpts here are loaded with redundancies. "Guile" alone covers it all

paragraph 95

INGER/POUL: ". . .by untruthful and malicious slander."

KAI: ". . .by untrue and wicked slander."

HANNE/CHRIS: :. . .by untrue and wicked slander."

HARRY: ". . .by false accusations and slander.

EDITING NOTE: Slander is already wicked, malicious and untrue. Why the redundancies? Is there such a thing as good and true slander?

Paragraph 95

INGER/POUL: "Be mild to one another."

KAI: "Be conciliatory toward one another."

HANNE/CHRIS: "Be meek toward one another."

HARRY: "Reconcile yourselves with one another."

EDITING NOTE: "Mild" and "meek" won't do. Kai's "conciliatory" is better. How about "Reconcile yourselves with one another"?

paragraph 96

INGER/POUL: ". . .to murder and kill one another. . ."

KAI: ". . .to murder and kill one another. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: :. . .to murder and to slay one another. . ."

HARRY: ". . .to slay one another. . ."

EDITING NOTE: If I murder you, have I not also killed you? If I kill you, have I not also slain you? Redundancies again.

paragraph 96

INGER/POUL: "Let all military service on land or sea be voluntary. . ."

KAI: "All military service on land or sea should be voluntary. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: "Let all bearing of arms be of the free will."

HARRY: "Let all bearing of arms be of free will. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Perhaps Hanne and Chris noticed the absence of "air" in Johanne Agerskov's original writing (since the airplane was just coming into use) and took translator's license to omit land and sea also. I follow suit.

paragraph 96

INGER/POUL: ". . .when all realms and political communities of the earth are. . ."

KAI: ". . .when all countries and peoples on Earth. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .until all the nations and lands upon te Earth. . ."

HARRY: ". . .when all lands of the earth. . ."

EDITING NOTE: We are all tripping over those bloody redundancies! I would like to know what the difference is in Danish between a realm and a political community. Kai turns the realms into countries and the political communities into people, while Hanne and Chris turn realms and countries into nations and . . .oh heck, I'm lost. What a mess! How about a simple"When all lands of the earth are united in a. . ."? You don't really need "people", because if the lands are together it clearly implies that so are the people who live in those lands.

Paragraph 97

NOTE: I will only say about this paragraph (concerning taking care of the needy, sick, etc.) that I have taken great editor's license with the wording. I found all three translations struggling with it, grammatically speaking. I hereby offer my own version and ask whoever looks at it to please check it against the original Danish text and make any changes you feel necessary.

HARRY: "Care for the needy, the sick and others less fortunate among you — for the aged, for deserted wives, for widows, for the orphaned. For I say to you: whatever the size of your communities, no man, woman or child should have to beg for their daily bread. Nor should anyone able and willing to work,13wander about without a roof and employment. Therefore, provide shelter, food, clothing and work without delay for all who cannot obtain these for themselves.”

paragraph 98

INGER/POUL: "Do not support and help in such a way that it becomes ignominious alms, but that so those who are provided for or supported by your political communities may joyfully and gratefully receive help which is rendered them."

KAI: "Support and help should not be provided as a humiliating charity, but rendered in such a way that whoever receives help from your societycan accept it cheerfully and with gratitude."

HANNE/CHRIS: "Support not and help not in any manner by which it becomes demeaning charity, but in such manner that those who receive the help and support from your society can with gladness and gratitudeaccept the help that is offered them."

HARRY: "Render not assistance in such manner that it becomes demeaning charity, but that so those who are provided for by your society may with gratitude receive that which is given them.”14

EDITING NOTE: Dump the redundancies and simplify the paragraph.

paragraph 99

INGER/POUL: ". . .out of selfishness or timorousness. . ."

KAI: ". . .because of selfishness or cowardice. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .out of selfishness or faintness of heart. . ."

HARRY: ". . .out of selfishness or fearfulness. . ."

EDITING NOTE: This is one of those instances where one needs to select the English equivalent with great care. To be timorous (Inger/Poul) is to be fearful but not necessarily cowardly (Kai), nor does it exactly fit faintness of heart (Hanne/Chris). I will guess that Inger and Poul came closest but I prefer "fearfulness" to timorousness. Actually, I suspect all the translators are wrong, because it does not make sense that one would not take care of the poor because of fearfulness or cowardice or faintness of heart. What IS the Danish meaning?

paragraph 99

INGER/POUL: ". . .to the poor, the suffering, and the unhappy. . ."

KAI: ". . .neglect the poor, the suffering and the unfortunate. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .unto the poor, unto the suffering and to the unfortunate. . ."

HARRY: ". . .for the needy and suffering . . ."

EDITING NOTE: "Needy and suffering" is sufficient. The rest is redundant. For instance, if you are poor and suffering you are also unfortunate.

paragraph 100

INGER/POUL: ". . .for if He is with you, then certainly your laws will be fully just."

KAI:  ". . .for, if He is with you, your laws will be just."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .for is He with you, then shall your laws surely be fully just."

HARRY: “. . .for is He with you then shall your laws of a certainty be entirely just.”

EDITING NOTE: The first two translations do not italicize. Hanne and Chris do. What is it in the Danish text?

paragraph 101

INGER/POUL: “. . .for I speak to you all, to whichever country, community, or people ye may belong!”

KAI: “. . .for I speak unto all of you, to whichever country, society or people you belong!”

HANNE/CHRIS: “. . .for I speak unto you all, to whatever nation, community or people you may belomg!”

HARRY: “. . .for I speak to you all, wherever and to whatever peoples you may belong!”

EDITING NOTE: Keep it simple.

paragraph 102

INGER/POUL: ". . .born to you in legal marriage. . ."

KAI: '. . .born in legal wedlock;. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .born unto you in lawful wedlock;. . ."

HARRY: ". . .born in or out of wedlock. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Marriage or wedlock is already legal or lawful. No need to be redundant.

paragraph 103

INGER/POUL: ". . .down by sin and vices. . ."

KAI: ". . .downward by sin and vice. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .downward by sin and iniquity. . .:

HARRY: ". . .downward by sin. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Sin, vice, iniquity are all the same. Sin alone will do, or iniquity.

paragraph 103

INGER/POUL: ". . .down by sin and vices, if they become malefectors and evil-doers. . ."

KAI: ". . .downward by sin and vice, or become malefactors or criminals. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .downward by sin and iniquity, do they become lawbreakers and evil-doers. . ."

HARRY: ". . .are drawn downward by sin to become evil-doers. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Sin, vice and iniquity are all the same. A malefactor is also a lawbreaker and does evil. A criminal is one who engages in serious wrongdoing, which is evil or sin. We are awash in redundancies. 

paragraph 106

INGER/POUL: ".. .bid you to beget and bear so many childen. . ."

KAI: ". . .bid you beget and give life to so many children. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .command you to beget and give birth to so many children. . ."

HARRY: ". . . bid you beget so many children, , ,"

EDITING NOTE: To beget is to procreate or generate offspring. This includes giving birth and life to them, unless they are aborted in the womb. "Beget" is enough. Drop the redundancies.

paragraph 105

INGER/POUL: ". . .at the hands of others the want of a mother's affectionate care and nursing."

KAI: ". . .the loving care and attention of a mother in the hands of strangers."

HANNE.CHRIS: ". . .at the hands of strangers. . .from the lack of a mother's loving care and affection.

HARRY:  ". . .at the hands of others, to suffer the want of a mother's affectionate caring.

EDITING NOTE: I suspect "strangers" did not appear in the original Danish text. A child could just as well be put under the care of someone known to the parents and get bad care at their hands. Inger and Poul are correct with "others." Also, let's get rid of those redundancies. A mother's affectionate care would surely include nursing, a mother's loving care would surely include attention, and her loving care would surely include affection.

paragraph 105

INGER/POUL: ". . .guard and protect your children against . . ."

KAI: ". . .guard and protect your children. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .guard and protect your children. . ."

HARRY: ". . .guard your children from. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Guard and protect mean the same. So you are actually saying: ". . .guard and guard your children. . ." or ". . .protect and protect your children. . ."

paragraph 107

INGER/POUL: "Be good and devoted to those. . ."

KAI: "Be good and devoted to those. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: "Be kind and self-sacrificng. . ."

HARRY: "Devote yourselves to those.  . ."

EDITING NOTE: "Self-sacrificng" does not fit. "Devoted" is sufficient. True, one could be devoted to the point of self-sacrifice, but it is not necessary in normal circumstances. Also, you really don't need "good" and "kind", for though you could be devoted to the cause of winning a war, say, if you are raising children it is most likely that you are devoted to them out of your goodness.

paragraph 106

INGER.POUL: ". . .bodily lusts and desires."

KAI: ". . .lusts and desires of your body."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .body's lusts and desires."

HARRY: ". . .over your lusts."

EDITING NOTE: "Lust" alone IS an intense sexual desire or appetite. To add "and desires" is redundant. "Bodily" is not necessary either, since that is only where lust is found.

paragraph 107

INGER/POUL: "Love all your children with deep, heartfeltlove. Be good and devoted to those. . .Try to create a bright and happy childhood. . .with heartfelt joy. . ."

KAI: "Care for all your children with a deep and sincere love. Be good and devoted to those. . .Seek to provide for them a bright and happy childhood, that they may always retain a happy memory. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS:  "Love all of your children with a deep and abiding love. Be kind and self-sacrificing toward those. . .Seek to create for them a brightand happy childhood. . .may remember you and their home with fervent joy.

HARRY: "Love your children with all your heart. Devote yourselves to those to whom you gave life. Seek to create a happy childhood for them, that they may at all times have a joyous remembrance of their home and you."

EDITING NOTE: This short paragraph is a prime example of redundant overkill by the translators.

paragraph 108

INGER/POUL: ". . .never torture and ill-treat them. . ."

KAI: "Never mistreat or torment them. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: "Never torment or maltreat them. . ."

HARRY: "Never ill-treat them. . ."

EDITING NOTE: More redundancies. To "torture" is also to "ill-treat", to "mistreat" could also be "torment", and "torment" is also to "maltreat."

paragraph 108

INGER/POUL: ". . .He may support and help them. . .to be pure and chaste in mind and thoughts. . ."

"KAI: ". . .He may support them and help them. . .to be clean and chaste of mind and thought. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .He may sustain and help them. . .to be pure and chaste in mind and in thought. . .""

HARRY: ". . .He may give them support. . .to be chaste of mind."

EDITING NOTE: To support or sustain is also to help. "Chaste" is enough. "Pure" and "clean" not needed, as both are implied in chaste, which means decent and modest.  And if you are chaste in mind you are also chaste in thought, for the mind is made up of thought. Do not confuse it with the brain.

paragraph 110

INGER/POUL: ". . .to sin and vices. . ."

KAI: ". . .to sin and vice. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: "into sin and iniquity. . ."

HARRY: ". . .to sin. . ."

EDITING NOTE: More redundancies, Hanne's and Chris's the most glaring. There is not an iota of  difference between sin and iniquity.

paragraph 111

INGER/POUL: ". . .each other's faults and weaknesses, direct and guide each other. . .""

KAI: ". . .each other's faults and weaknesses,guide and help each other. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .faults and weaknesses, guide and help one another. . ."

HARRY: ". . .one another's faults, assist one another . . ."

EDITING NOTE: Lordy, Lordy, more redundancies. Guess what a fault is? It is also a weakness, and if you are going to direct or guide, you are also helping.

paragraph 113

INGER/POUL: ". . .support and help you, that ye shall never act against. . ."

KAI: ". . .support you, and help you never to act against. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .to sustain you and to help you, that you may never act against. . ."

HARRY: ". . .and help you, that you never act against. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Notice the subtle grammatical distinction that enables Kai to avoid a redundancy. "Support and help you" is a redundancy, since both mean the same. Likewise "to sustain you and to help you." But Kai says pray for the support that will help you. . ."

paragraph 115

INGER/POUL: “Take the advice and admonitions given unto you. . .”

KAI: “Follow the advice and admonitions given you. . .”

HANNE/CHRIS: “Follow the counsel and the admonitions that you are given. . .”

HARRY: “Follow the admonitions that you are given. . .”

EDITING NOTE: Counsel, advice and admonitions are synonymous. One will do.

paragraph 116

INGER/POUL: "Be indulgent and respectful to the aged. . ."

KAI: "Be tolerant and respectful toward the aged. . ."

HANNE.CHRIS: "Bear with the aged among you and honour them. . ."

HARRY: "Bear with and honor the aged. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Keep it simple.

paragraph 116

INGER/POUL" ". . .when ye approach the grave."

KAI: ". . .when you are drawing toward the grave."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .when you draw near unto the grave."

HARRY: ". . .when you near life's end."

EDITING NOTE: I assume "grave" is clearly used in the original Danish, but it is outdated. It sounds almost ghoulish. Dare I take editorial license and suggest a more tactful "life's end"?"

Paragraph 115

INGER/POUL: "Do not indulge in sinful and impure lusts. Do never sell your bodies to lechery."

KAI: "Do not submit to sinful and unclean desires. Never prostitute yourselves.

HANNE/CHRIS:  "Abandon not yourselves to sinful and impure desires. Nor ever shall you sell your bodies to fornication.

HARRY: "Yield not to lust. Never sell your bodies for lecherous purpose. "

EDITING NOTE: First, let's get rid of the redundancies. "Lust" is already sinful and impure. A sinful desire is also an unclean or an impure desire. Use "lust" alone. That says it all. Next, Inger's and Poul's "lechery" is correct in the context here. Lechery is unrestrained or excessive indulgence of sexual desire. Kai's "prostitute" is incomplete. Prostitute yourselves to what? Although commonly associated with sex, one can "prostitute" oneself for reasons other than sex. Hanne's and Chris's "fornication" is also not quite correct. This is voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons. Selling your body for this purpose is not limited to married persons but to all. The prostitute may be married or unmarried, as may be whomever she "sells" her body to.

Paragraph 116

INGER/POUL: ". . .never ravish and seduce. . ."

KAI: ". . .never rape and seduce. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .never shall you violate and seduce women."

HARRY: ". . .never ravish and seduce."

EDITING NOTE: Only Hanne and Chris use "women." Is it in the Danish? Usually, men DO these things to women, but they may also do it to other men or boys.

paragraph 116

INGER/POUL: ". . .do not kill the children ye bear! Nor do deliberately destroy the life, which ye have conceived;. . ."

KAI: ". . .Do not kill the children to whom you give birth, nor deliberately destroy the life you have conceived."

HANNE/CHRIS: slay not the children to whom you gave birth! Nor shall you ever willfully destroy the life that you have conceived;. . ."

HARRY: ". . .take not the lives of the children you bear! Neither deliberately destroy the life which you have conceived;. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Something is puzzling here. I don't know of many women who kill their children AFTER they are born, but aborting them before birth is common. Could this be a reference, say, to Chinese or Indian peasants (in India) who are said to kill unwanted girl babies after birth? Someone please double-check the meaning in the Danish text.

paragraph 121

INGER/POUL: ". . .evil and bad acts. . ."

KAI: ". . .evil and wicked acts. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .evil and wicked deeds. . ."

HARRY: ". . .and wicked deeds. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Either the Danish language permits the abundant use of redundancies, or Inger Agerskov used them and had no editor to remove them, or the translators saw them but dared not change a word of the original Danish text. I ask again, as I have done elsewhere: What is the difference between "evil" and "bad" or "wicked"? NONE! They all mean the same. Then why do we repeat the same thing with a synonym?

paragraph 122

INGER/POUL: ". . .through useful and instructive knowledge. . ."

KAI: ". . .with useful and uplifting learning. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .with gainful and instructive learning."

HARRY: ". . .with gainful learning."

EDITING NOTE: Whether useful, uplifting or instructive, it still adds up to one thing: it is GAINFUL. Eliminate the redundancies.

paragraph 124

INGER/POUL: "Be faithful and trustworthy. . ."

KAI: "Be faithful and trustworthy. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: "Be faithful and trustworthy. . ."

HARRY: "Be faithful in all your actions. . ."

EDITING NOTE: To be faithful is to be reliable and trusted. Adding "trustworthy" only produces another redundancy.

paragraph 125

INGER/POUL: ". . .that is beautiful and glorious in the world. . ."

KAI: ". . .the beauty in the world. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .that is glorious and beautiful in this world. . ."

HARRY: ". . .that is beautiful in the world. , ,"

EDITING NOTE: Again one of those mystery reversals by Hanne and Chris. Amd there are those good old redundancies again, but not in Kai's version. He cleverly avoided same with the use of "beauty" alone. I opt for "glorious", however, for it also means "brilliantly beautiful" or "magnificent."

paragraph 130

INGER/POUL: ". . .the first stones of the new system of the world."

KAI: ". . .the first stones for a new World Organization."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .the first stones for the new building of the world."

HARRY: ". . .the first foundation stones for a new order in the world."

EDITING NOTE: Whatever it is in Danish, all the translators are having difficulty saying it in English. Is it a new "system", or an actual organization, or just some kind of "rebuilding" of the world? All vague. I am inclined to say "a new world order", but I don't know if that adequately describes it either.  The problem is also that something is missing. A new system to do what? A new world organization for what purpose? Or for what purpose is there to be a "new building of the world"?

paragraph 127

INGER/POUL:  ". . .that with heartfelt joy. . ."

KAI: ". . .may look back happily. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .that was yours with fervent joy. . ."

HARRY: ". . .may look back joyously. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Joy already is heartfelt. It is already fervent. More redundancies. Kai avoided same with "happily."

paragraph 127

INGER/POUL: "If ye heap up riches by usury or fraud, by theft or robbery. . ."

KAI: ".If you gain riches by fraudulence, swindle, theft or by robbery. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: "Should you gather riches by usury or by fraudulence, by theft or by robbery. . ."

HARRY: ". Should you heap up riches by theft. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Believe it or not, “theft”says it all.

paragraph 131

INGER/POUL: :, , ,because of the sins and misdeeds. . ."

KAI: ". . .because of sins and misdeeds. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: ". . .because of the sins and misdeeds. . ."

HARRY:  ". . .because of the sins. . ."

EDITING NOTE: "Sins" is sufficient.

paragraph 132

INGER/POUL: "He loves all peoples and races, coloured and uncoulered, the smallest as well as the greatest, with the same deep, infinite love; . . ."

KAI:  "He loves all peoples and races, the smallest as well as the largest, coloured or white, with the same profound, infinite love."

HANNE/CHRIS:  "He loves all people and all races, no matter what colour their skin may be, the least as well as the greatest, with the same profound and boundless love."

EDITING NOTE: "He loves all peoples of whatever color, the least and the greatest, with the same boundless love. . ."

EDITING NOTE: Ouch! Kill those redundancies!!




INGER/POUL: ". . .those who apply to him in spirit and in truth, , ,"

KAI: "Those who call upon him in a true spirit. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: "Those who apply to him in spirit. . ."

HARRY: "Those who call upon him in a true spirit. . ."

EDITOR: Kai correctly renders it "in a true spirit."


INGER/POUL: ". . .was omitted by St. Paul."

KAI: "Paul left out the prayer. . ."

HANNE/CHRIS: “. . .was omitted by Paul. . .”

HARRY: “. . .was omitted by Paul. . .”

EDITOR: Is it St. Paul in the Danish text?