[sasha123]

I found the news article about them saying it was opened to Psalm 84 not 83 due to the numbering in the pages being different then. But, this is really strange, don't you think? The director of the museum was referring to a particular part in chapter 83. Do you think this is true or they are trying to keep everyone from reading too much into it?

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2006/0728/1153813832813.html

[EBH]

Boy or boy, what a crazy mixed up thread...or maybe we're supposed to be reading 82,83, and 84 all together for some type of context.

[Just mythoughts]

I really have no idea about why the Psalm found was not more clearly identified. Tells me that it being from the Vulgate is not a source most of us are familiar with. Further since we do not know what else is in this 'book' King James Psalm 83 may well still be included.

Could well be that since it was in "Latin" and dated 800 - to a 1,000 years ago we should have known more than we did.

However, whatever the case I will look at it this as a lesson in being reminded things are not always as they seem at first glance. And I got sent back to revisit parts of the Bible and reminded there are various translations that have been produced since the originals were penned.

King James - Psalms 83 still says what it says and at least it got people to opening their Bibles, no matter why this all happened the way it did.