<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for stevemcr</title><link>http://disqus.com/by/stevemcr/</link><description></description><atom:link href="http://disqus.com/stevemcr/comments.rss" rel="self"></atom:link><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:47:39 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Oldest Bible (Codex Sinaiticus) Now Online</title><link>http://bahairants.com/oldest-bible-codex-sinaiticus-now-online-286.html#comment-12956242</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Thanks. But the article your link references discusses the dispute over Mark 16:9-20. Codex Sinaiticus includes Mark 16:6, which references the resurrection.&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">stevemcr</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 10:47:39 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Oldest Bible (Codex Sinaiticus) Now Online</title><link>http://bahairants.com/oldest-bible-codex-sinaiticus-now-online-286.html#comment-12949280</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Not sure why the article says there are no references to the resurrection. The manuscript includes Mark 16:6:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;"And he said to them,(A) "Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He has risen; he is not here. See the place where they laid him."&lt;/p&gt;</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">stevemcr</dc:creator><pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:08:56 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>