<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Proving Doctrine with the Bible</title>
	<atom:link href="http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/04/proving-doctrine-with-the-bible/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/04/proving-doctrine-with-the-bible/</link>
	<description>A biblioblog</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:31:18 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mike Aubrey</title>
		<link>http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/04/proving-doctrine-with-the-bible/#comment-16230</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Aubrey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2007 18:17:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bluecord.org/biblioblog/2007/04/proving-doctrine-with-the-bible/#comment-16230</guid>
		<description>I don't know if it would be any more honest for people who hadn't heard of it until the reprint to think that its still "recent" theology, as opposed to "modern" theolgoy, which does not necessitate the theology being recent. Well, its a tough call.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t know if it would be any more honest for people who hadn&#8217;t heard of it until the reprint to think that its still &#8220;recent&#8221; theology, as opposed to &#8220;modern&#8221; theolgoy, which does not necessitate the theology being recent. Well, its a tough call.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
