<?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/"
	xmlns:series="http://unfoldingneurons.com/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Behold! Does This Sound Like You?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.anwoth.org/2009/07/27/behold-does-this-sound-like-you/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.anwoth.org/2009/07/27/behold-does-this-sound-like-you/</link>
	<description>&#34;O thirsty love, wilt thou set Christ, the well of life, to thy head, and drink thy fill?&#34;  Samuel Rutherford</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 16:04:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shan Hardage</title>
		<link>http://www.anwoth.org/2009/07/27/behold-does-this-sound-like-you/comment-page-1/#comment-305</link>
		<dc:creator>Shan Hardage</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 23:37:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anwoth.wordpress.com/?p=579#comment-305</guid>
		<description>The second edition HCSB text, available from WORDsearch, has removed &quot;behold&quot; from Job 33:26 and replaced it with &quot;see&quot;, so Dr. Blum will be completely correct with the new printing.

The HCSB has been my main Bible for about two years now. I appreciate its readability and accuracy. I don&#039;t know anyone who has a problem with accuracy in contemporary speech, so why should a Bible translation be any different? I will preface this statement by saying that I was raised on and love the KJV. After all, it is a translation of the very word of God. But while I am reading it, I can&#039;t help but think that it sounds like a religious text that Shakespeare would have been proud to have written. And to a lesser extent, sometimes the ESV sounds like Shakespeare updated a couple of hundred years. Again, no irreverence intended. I could be satisfied if the ESV was the only English translation available, even the KJV. But since the HCSB is here, that is what I prefer. If only I would not have to wait to &quot;behold&quot; the new HCSB study Bible due next year!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The second edition HCSB text, available from WORDsearch, has removed &#8220;behold&#8221; from Job 33:26 and replaced it with &#8220;see&#8221;, so Dr. Blum will be completely correct with the new printing.</p>
<p>The HCSB has been my main Bible for about two years now. I appreciate its readability and accuracy. I don&#8217;t know anyone who has a problem with accuracy in contemporary speech, so why should a Bible translation be any different? I will preface this statement by saying that I was raised on and love the KJV. After all, it is a translation of the very word of God. But while I am reading it, I can&#8217;t help but think that it sounds like a religious text that Shakespeare would have been proud to have written. And to a lesser extent, sometimes the ESV sounds like Shakespeare updated a couple of hundred years. Again, no irreverence intended. I could be satisfied if the ESV was the only English translation available, even the KJV. But since the HCSB is here, that is what I prefer. If only I would not have to wait to &#8220;behold&#8221; the new HCSB study Bible due next year!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: volleyballdad</title>
		<link>http://www.anwoth.org/2009/07/27/behold-does-this-sound-like-you/comment-page-1/#comment-304</link>
		<dc:creator>volleyballdad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2009 03:49:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://anwoth.wordpress.com/?p=579#comment-304</guid>
		<description>AMEN!!!!!

I think you have nailed it spot on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>AMEN!!!!!</p>
<p>I think you have nailed it spot on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
