<?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:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Writing for the web vs writing for print</title>
	<atom:link href="http://judyredman.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/writing-for-the-web-vs-writing-for-print/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://judyredman.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/writing-for-the-web-vs-writing-for-print/</link>
	<description>musings mainly related to my PhD on the Gospel of Thomas</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 21:05:01 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Simon Holloway</title>
		<link>http://judyredman.wordpress.com/2008/04/14/writing-for-the-web-vs-writing-for-print/#comment-537</link>
		<dc:creator>Simon Holloway</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 04:00:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://judyredman.wordpress.com/?p=94#comment-537</guid>
		<description>You raise some interesting points, but I suppose the decision to use &quot;people&quot; or &quot;men&quot; in 2 Timothy may rest upon whether you wish to employ a &quot;hermeneutics of suspicion&quot; or a &quot;hermeneutics of reconstruction&quot;. The former would recognise that the original author of the text may have only had men in mind, and is thus faithful to the original import. The latter would recognise that the text is a dynamic text and that it is read by an organic community; whatever the &quot;original&quot; meaning may or may not have been, new communities can render words in such a fashion as to include those who were previously marginalised.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You raise some interesting points, but I suppose the decision to use &#8220;people&#8221; or &#8220;men&#8221; in 2 Timothy may rest upon whether you wish to employ a &#8220;hermeneutics of suspicion&#8221; or a &#8220;hermeneutics of reconstruction&#8221;. The former would recognise that the original author of the text may have only had men in mind, and is thus faithful to the original import. The latter would recognise that the text is a dynamic text and that it is read by an organic community; whatever the &#8220;original&#8221; meaning may or may not have been, new communities can render words in such a fashion as to include those who were previously marginalised.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
