Comment by schoen

This is very impressive!

Problems I see in the Latin:

(1) The sentence beginning "verum, si Angelorum" loses the thread in the middle (as you can also see in the English translation). The if-clause (protasis) has no main verb, while there is no then-clause (apodosis) at all.

(2) I think "inactiones" is hallucinated. This word isn't found in Wiktionary, Lewis & Short's Latin Dictionary, or Souter's Glossary of Later Latin. If it existed, it also wouldn't be an adjective meaning "inactive".

(3) In the indirect discourse governed by "prodiderunt", the subject should also be accusative ("angelos esse nuntios divinos").

(4) Since "confundo" is generally transitive, it's a bit questionable to say "ne confundamus" without an object like "eos", although I'm not positive it's not idiomatic.

(5) I would think "sinistrum" rather than "sinistram" if the intention is to refer to "something sinister" rather than "the left-hand side".

(6) "nox a lucem fugiat" is wrong (the preposition "a" always governs the ablative, not the accusative), and should probably be either "nox lucem fugiat" (less likely to me "nox a luce fugiat"). For rhetorical parallelism with "a veritate" it would definitely be "a luce".

(7) The orthography is also inconsistent in writing "iam" but then quoting the Aeneid as saying "juvabit" (if you write consonantal i as j, you would expect to do it consistently everywhere).

Again, it's very impressive. That's a lot fewer mistakes than I would make writing a Latin text of this length!