<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A WikiEN-L discussion actually goes somewhere: BibleBay!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/07/07/a-wikien-l-discussion-actually-goes-somewhere-biblebay/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/07/07/a-wikien-l-discussion-actually-goes-somewhere-biblebay/</link>
	<description>arrogant pontification</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Sep 2010 21:08:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chris Watkins</title>
		<link>http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/07/07/a-wikien-l-discussion-actually-goes-somewhere-biblebay/comment-page-1/#comment-11595</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Watkins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:24:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/?p=192#comment-11595</guid>
		<description>Nicely done. Personally I&#039;d prefer links to the &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Revised_Standard_Version&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;New Revised Standard Version&lt;/a&gt;. The NIV is a very popular version, but as a translation it&#039;s really very good, and tends to reflect mainstream Christian biases in giving an interpretive translation. When I was reading in this area many years ago, I noticed that more scholarly writers, and even the more intelligent books for a popular audience, tend to quote the NRSV rather than the NIV.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nicely done. Personally I&#8217;d prefer links to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Revised_Standard_Version" rel="nofollow">New Revised Standard Version</a>. The NIV is a very popular version, but as a translation it&#8217;s really very good, and tends to reflect mainstream Christian biases in giving an interpretive translation. When I was reading in this area many years ago, I noticed that more scholarly writers, and even the more intelligent books for a popular audience, tend to quote the NRSV rather than the NIV.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sage</title>
		<link>http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/07/07/a-wikien-l-discussion-actually-goes-somewhere-biblebay/comment-page-1/#comment-11591</link>
		<dc:creator>Sage</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 03:16:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/?p=192#comment-11591</guid>
		<description>Er, disregard that comment.  This is teh best app EVAR!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Er, disregard that comment.  This is teh best app EVAR!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sage</title>
		<link>http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/2009/07/07/a-wikien-l-discussion-actually-goes-somewhere-biblebay/comment-page-1/#comment-11590</link>
		<dc:creator>Sage</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jul 2009 03:13:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://davidgerard.co.uk/notes/?p=192#comment-11590</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s nice, but it&#039;s useless to me until it includes the LOLCat Bible:

&quot;So liek teh Ceiling Kitteh lieks teh ppl lots and he sez &#039;Oh hai I givez u me only kitteh and ifs u beleeves him u wont evr diez no moar, k?&#039;&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s nice, but it&#8217;s useless to me until it includes the LOLCat Bible:</p>
<p>&#8220;So liek teh Ceiling Kitteh lieks teh ppl lots and he sez &#8216;Oh hai I givez u me only kitteh and ifs u beleeves him u wont evr diez no moar, k?&#8217;&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
