<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_07_1715210</id>
	<title>British Library Puts Oldest Surviving Bible Online</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1246989420000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="http://peacecorpslibrary.org/" rel="nofollow">Peace Corps Library</a> writes <i>"BBC reports that about 800 pages of the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in\_depth/8135415.stm">earliest surviving Christian Bible, the 1,600-year-old Codex Sinaiticus manuscript</a>, have been recovered and put on the Internet. 'The Codex Sinaiticus is one of the world's greatest written treasures,' says Dr. Scot McKendrick, head of Western manuscripts at the British Library. 'This 1,600-year-old manuscript offers a window into the development of early Christianity and first-hand evidence of how the text of the Bible was transmitted from generation to generation.' The New Testament of the Codex Sinaiticus appears in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koine">Koine Greek</a>, the original vernacular language, and the Old Testament in the version, known as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint">Septuagint</a>, that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians. For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery until it was found in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany, and Britain. It is thought to have survived because the desert air was ideal for preservation and because the monastery, on a Christian island in a Muslim sea, remained untouched, its walls unconquered. <a href="http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/">The British Library is marking the online launch of the manuscript with an exhibition</a> which includes a range of historic items and artifacts linked to the document. 'The availability of the virtual manuscript for study by scholars around the world creates opportunities for collaborative research that would not have been possible just a few years ago.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Peace Corps Library writes " BBC reports that about 800 pages of the earliest surviving Christian Bible , the 1,600-year-old Codex Sinaiticus manuscript , have been recovered and put on the Internet .
'The Codex Sinaiticus is one of the world 's greatest written treasures, ' says Dr. Scot McKendrick , head of Western manuscripts at the British Library .
'This 1,600-year-old manuscript offers a window into the development of early Christianity and first-hand evidence of how the text of the Bible was transmitted from generation to generation .
' The New Testament of the Codex Sinaiticus appears in Koine Greek , the original vernacular language , and the Old Testament in the version , known as the Septuagint , that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians .
For 1,500 years , the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery until it was found in 1844 and split between Egypt , Russia , Germany , and Britain .
It is thought to have survived because the desert air was ideal for preservation and because the monastery , on a Christian island in a Muslim sea , remained untouched , its walls unconquered .
The British Library is marking the online launch of the manuscript with an exhibition which includes a range of historic items and artifacts linked to the document .
'The availability of the virtual manuscript for study by scholars around the world creates opportunities for collaborative research that would not have been possible just a few years ago .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Peace Corps Library writes "BBC reports that about 800 pages of the earliest surviving Christian Bible, the 1,600-year-old Codex Sinaiticus manuscript, have been recovered and put on the Internet.
'The Codex Sinaiticus is one of the world's greatest written treasures,' says Dr. Scot McKendrick, head of Western manuscripts at the British Library.
'This 1,600-year-old manuscript offers a window into the development of early Christianity and first-hand evidence of how the text of the Bible was transmitted from generation to generation.
' The New Testament of the Codex Sinaiticus appears in Koine Greek, the original vernacular language, and the Old Testament in the version, known as the Septuagint, that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians.
For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery until it was found in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany, and Britain.
It is thought to have survived because the desert air was ideal for preservation and because the monastery, on a Christian island in a Muslim sea, remained untouched, its walls unconquered.
The British Library is marking the online launch of the manuscript with an exhibition which includes a range of historic items and artifacts linked to the document.
'The availability of the virtual manuscript for study by scholars around the world creates opportunities for collaborative research that would not have been possible just a few years ago.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611385</id>
	<title>Ancient Manuscripts in a Digital Age</title>
	<author>schmidt349</author>
	<datestamp>1246994100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sinaiticus is arguably one of the most important discoveries in the history of the textual transmission of the New Testament. Add an exciting controversy involving either idiot Greek monks who had quite literally dumped it in the wastepaper bin or a conniving Russian manuscript hunter-turned-thief making up lies to cover his crimes and you've got a great story that never fails to turn up fundraising dollars.</p><p>That said, I wish they could produce software for the examination of the codex that doesn't suck. But because they refuse to release the database of manuscript photos for public download (even though, at least in the United States, those images are uncopyrightable and therefore in the public domain) enterprising folks like me can't build a better system and give it away to people. So you have to suffer with their terrible system if you want to examine the manuscript. It's typical conservator behavior, building unnecessary walls against access to information that should be free.</p><p>We really really need to start making sure that digital copies of the ancient literary patrimony are available for free with no conditions -- i.e., in the public domain, but apparently everyone is too interested in fighting for scarce research grant dollars to produce something that all of their academic competitors could use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sinaiticus is arguably one of the most important discoveries in the history of the textual transmission of the New Testament .
Add an exciting controversy involving either idiot Greek monks who had quite literally dumped it in the wastepaper bin or a conniving Russian manuscript hunter-turned-thief making up lies to cover his crimes and you 've got a great story that never fails to turn up fundraising dollars.That said , I wish they could produce software for the examination of the codex that does n't suck .
But because they refuse to release the database of manuscript photos for public download ( even though , at least in the United States , those images are uncopyrightable and therefore in the public domain ) enterprising folks like me ca n't build a better system and give it away to people .
So you have to suffer with their terrible system if you want to examine the manuscript .
It 's typical conservator behavior , building unnecessary walls against access to information that should be free.We really really need to start making sure that digital copies of the ancient literary patrimony are available for free with no conditions -- i.e. , in the public domain , but apparently everyone is too interested in fighting for scarce research grant dollars to produce something that all of their academic competitors could use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sinaiticus is arguably one of the most important discoveries in the history of the textual transmission of the New Testament.
Add an exciting controversy involving either idiot Greek monks who had quite literally dumped it in the wastepaper bin or a conniving Russian manuscript hunter-turned-thief making up lies to cover his crimes and you've got a great story that never fails to turn up fundraising dollars.That said, I wish they could produce software for the examination of the codex that doesn't suck.
But because they refuse to release the database of manuscript photos for public download (even though, at least in the United States, those images are uncopyrightable and therefore in the public domain) enterprising folks like me can't build a better system and give it away to people.
So you have to suffer with their terrible system if you want to examine the manuscript.
It's typical conservator behavior, building unnecessary walls against access to information that should be free.We really really need to start making sure that digital copies of the ancient literary patrimony are available for free with no conditions -- i.e., in the public domain, but apparently everyone is too interested in fighting for scarce research grant dollars to produce something that all of their academic competitors could use.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611805</id>
	<title>Re:Inferior translated holy works</title>
	<author>CannonballHead</author>
	<datestamp>1246995600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Contrast this book with the Holy Koran, which has not changed one iota since it was written</p></div><p>The question is, who wrote it.  I could write you a poem about the afterlife that had not been changed one iota.  It means pretty much nothing though, because I'm nobody special.</p><p>Unchanged does not necessarily mean special, important, or true.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Contrast this book with the Holy Koran , which has not changed one iota since it was writtenThe question is , who wrote it .
I could write you a poem about the afterlife that had not been changed one iota .
It means pretty much nothing though , because I 'm nobody special.Unchanged does not necessarily mean special , important , or true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Contrast this book with the Holy Koran, which has not changed one iota since it was writtenThe question is, who wrote it.
I could write you a poem about the afterlife that had not been changed one iota.
It means pretty much nothing though, because I'm nobody special.Unchanged does not necessarily mean special, important, or true.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611887</id>
	<title>Celibacy was not the intent</title>
	<author>mangu</author>
	<datestamp>1246995900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you look into 1 Timothy, chapter 3 -</p><p><i>"2: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;<br>3: Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;<br>4: One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;<br>5: (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)"</i></p><p>you will see that it was not the intention of the church founders that priests should be celibate.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look into 1 Timothy , chapter 3 - " 2 : A bishop then must be blameless , the husband of one wife , vigilant , sober , of good behaviour , given to hospitality , apt to teach ; 3 : Not given to wine , no striker , not greedy of filthy lucre ; but patient , not a brawler , not covetous ; 4 : One that ruleth well his own house , having his children in subjection with all gravity ; 5 : ( For if a man know not how to rule his own house , how shall he take care of the church of God ?
) " you will see that it was not the intention of the church founders that priests should be celibate .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look into 1 Timothy, chapter 3 -"2: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;3: Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;4: One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;5: (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?
)"you will see that it was not the intention of the church founders that priests should be celibate.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612647</id>
	<title>Re:Potential for translations</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1246998900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is, of course, not the only manuscript.  There are thousands of others.  The bible is by far the most copied collection of historical documents, ever.  This particular one is the oldest CODEX (book format as opposed to scroll format) containing the entire bible.  There are other codecies containing various parts of the bible.  There are older scrolls.  Much of what was to become the New Testament was written in the form of letters that were circulated among key churches, and copies were made from there and circulated to smaller congregations.  Some of these have survived, and date back to 150AD.<br> <br>
The bible we read today is not vastly different than the one on display (apart from Gutenberg's contribution: the printing press).  Practically every bible has footnotes indicating where there are variations in the various manuscripts used in the translations.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is , of course , not the only manuscript .
There are thousands of others .
The bible is by far the most copied collection of historical documents , ever .
This particular one is the oldest CODEX ( book format as opposed to scroll format ) containing the entire bible .
There are other codecies containing various parts of the bible .
There are older scrolls .
Much of what was to become the New Testament was written in the form of letters that were circulated among key churches , and copies were made from there and circulated to smaller congregations .
Some of these have survived , and date back to 150AD .
The bible we read today is not vastly different than the one on display ( apart from Gutenberg 's contribution : the printing press ) .
Practically every bible has footnotes indicating where there are variations in the various manuscripts used in the translations .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is, of course, not the only manuscript.
There are thousands of others.
The bible is by far the most copied collection of historical documents, ever.
This particular one is the oldest CODEX (book format as opposed to scroll format) containing the entire bible.
There are other codecies containing various parts of the bible.
There are older scrolls.
Much of what was to become the New Testament was written in the form of letters that were circulated among key churches, and copies were made from there and circulated to smaller congregations.
Some of these have survived, and date back to 150AD.
The bible we read today is not vastly different than the one on display (apart from Gutenberg's contribution: the printing press).
Practically every bible has footnotes indicating where there are variations in the various manuscripts used in the translations.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611855</id>
	<title>ta3uo</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246995780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>vioLated. In the</htmltext>
<tokenext>vioLated .
In the</tokentext>
<sentencetext>vioLated.
In the</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187</id>
	<title>Potential for translations</title>
	<author>IndustrialComplex</author>
	<datestamp>1246993500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm really interested to see what different translators come up with.  Now that it's been made available, there is going to be a wonderful opportunity to compare translations and interpretations from a much more 'original' source.</p><p>Though, I have this nagging feeling that "And it was Good" might also be interpreted as "Sorry for the inconvenience."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm really interested to see what different translators come up with .
Now that it 's been made available , there is going to be a wonderful opportunity to compare translations and interpretations from a much more 'original ' source.Though , I have this nagging feeling that " And it was Good " might also be interpreted as " Sorry for the inconvenience .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm really interested to see what different translators come up with.
Now that it's been made available, there is going to be a wonderful opportunity to compare translations and interpretations from a much more 'original' source.Though, I have this nagging feeling that "And it was Good" might also be interpreted as "Sorry for the inconvenience.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612249</id>
	<title>Re:Inferior translated holy works</title>
	<author>MightyYar</author>
	<datestamp>1246997400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"As for the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from God"</p></div><p>Well, sign me up with THAT religion!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" As for the man who steals and the woman who steals , cut off their hands as punishment for what they have earned , an exemplary punishment from God " Well , sign me up with THAT religion !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"As for the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from God"Well, sign me up with THAT religion!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612347</id>
	<title>On the Web?  I find this surprising</title>
	<author>Bemopolis</author>
	<datestamp>1246997760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would think that the Bono Act would have ensured that this work was still under copyright.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would think that the Bono Act would have ensured that this work was still under copyright .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would think that the Bono Act would have ensured that this work was still under copyright.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611943</id>
	<title>Re:Inferior translated holy works</title>
	<author>samkass</author>
	<datestamp>1246996020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Contrast this book with the Holy Koran, which has not changed one iota since it was written</p></div><p>Maybe.  The original Koran is lost.  It was copied off its original materials into book form by the first Caliph after Mohammed's death.  The original book was then borrowed and copied and distributed 4 times by the third Caliph, from which all other "official" copies are made (while the rest were destroyed).  Diacritical marks indicating vowels and pronounciation were added by the fifth Caliph which some claim actually slightly changed some meaning (it reduced ambiguity in particular words).  None of these acts were carried out by Mohammed, and therefore were not verified against the "original" heavenly text.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Contrast this book with the Holy Koran , which has not changed one iota since it was writtenMaybe .
The original Koran is lost .
It was copied off its original materials into book form by the first Caliph after Mohammed 's death .
The original book was then borrowed and copied and distributed 4 times by the third Caliph , from which all other " official " copies are made ( while the rest were destroyed ) .
Diacritical marks indicating vowels and pronounciation were added by the fifth Caliph which some claim actually slightly changed some meaning ( it reduced ambiguity in particular words ) .
None of these acts were carried out by Mohammed , and therefore were not verified against the " original " heavenly text .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Contrast this book with the Holy Koran, which has not changed one iota since it was writtenMaybe.
The original Koran is lost.
It was copied off its original materials into book form by the first Caliph after Mohammed's death.
The original book was then borrowed and copied and distributed 4 times by the third Caliph, from which all other "official" copies are made (while the rest were destroyed).
Diacritical marks indicating vowels and pronounciation were added by the fifth Caliph which some claim actually slightly changed some meaning (it reduced ambiguity in particular words).
None of these acts were carried out by Mohammed, and therefore were not verified against the "original" heavenly text.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612621</id>
	<title>Re:Bible 0.1.1-beta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246998780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No, what they reveal is the tremendous <b>accuracy</b> of today's modern translations compared to the papyrii and codeces of antiquity.  After all, consider the state of Christianity in the first few centuries A.D. - a bunch of "heretics", hated by the Jews, persecuted by the Romans, and driven underground.  It was in that environment that the gospels and letters of Paul, Peter, John, etc. were copied, distributed, re-copied, distributed some more, etc.</p><p>Were there transcription errors?  Sure.  You try copying something the size of the Bible in secret, by hand, while fearing for your life!  But we can reconstruct the original readings of the books of the NT with tremendous accuracy.</p><p>Your insistence that Christians must equate "the literal word of God" with "infallible transcriptions, every single time a book of the Bible is copied" is just plain wrong.  That's not what most Christians believe.  They believe that the method God used to preserve the text was to have it copied <b>quickly</b> and <b>widely</b> before any single organization could control the process and make "secret" alterations to the Scripture.  (Conspiracy theorists who hint darkly about secret councils that burned books or suppressed certain ancient Christian beliefs tend to forget that, even if that was possible, there were no such organizations or counsels like that for many, many centuries .  Compare that with Uthman Ibn Affan, who decided which copy of the Qur'an would be canonical, then gathered together and burning all other copies that differed from the official version.  Christianity has nothing like that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No , what they reveal is the tremendous accuracy of today 's modern translations compared to the papyrii and codeces of antiquity .
After all , consider the state of Christianity in the first few centuries A.D. - a bunch of " heretics " , hated by the Jews , persecuted by the Romans , and driven underground .
It was in that environment that the gospels and letters of Paul , Peter , John , etc .
were copied , distributed , re-copied , distributed some more , etc.Were there transcription errors ?
Sure. You try copying something the size of the Bible in secret , by hand , while fearing for your life !
But we can reconstruct the original readings of the books of the NT with tremendous accuracy.Your insistence that Christians must equate " the literal word of God " with " infallible transcriptions , every single time a book of the Bible is copied " is just plain wrong .
That 's not what most Christians believe .
They believe that the method God used to preserve the text was to have it copied quickly and widely before any single organization could control the process and make " secret " alterations to the Scripture .
( Conspiracy theorists who hint darkly about secret councils that burned books or suppressed certain ancient Christian beliefs tend to forget that , even if that was possible , there were no such organizations or counsels like that for many , many centuries .
Compare that with Uthman Ibn Affan , who decided which copy of the Qur'an would be canonical , then gathered together and burning all other copies that differed from the official version .
Christianity has nothing like that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, what they reveal is the tremendous accuracy of today's modern translations compared to the papyrii and codeces of antiquity.
After all, consider the state of Christianity in the first few centuries A.D. - a bunch of "heretics", hated by the Jews, persecuted by the Romans, and driven underground.
It was in that environment that the gospels and letters of Paul, Peter, John, etc.
were copied, distributed, re-copied, distributed some more, etc.Were there transcription errors?
Sure.  You try copying something the size of the Bible in secret, by hand, while fearing for your life!
But we can reconstruct the original readings of the books of the NT with tremendous accuracy.Your insistence that Christians must equate "the literal word of God" with "infallible transcriptions, every single time a book of the Bible is copied" is just plain wrong.
That's not what most Christians believe.
They believe that the method God used to preserve the text was to have it copied quickly and widely before any single organization could control the process and make "secret" alterations to the Scripture.
(Conspiracy theorists who hint darkly about secret councils that burned books or suppressed certain ancient Christian beliefs tend to forget that, even if that was possible, there were no such organizations or counsels like that for many, many centuries .
Compare that with Uthman Ibn Affan, who decided which copy of the Qur'an would be canonical, then gathered together and burning all other copies that differed from the official version.
Christianity has nothing like that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611779</id>
	<title>Re:Inferior translated holy works</title>
	<author>jcdenhartog</author>
	<datestamp>1246995480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not true, there is plenty of disagreement.  You should read a book called 'Cracks In The Crescent', about a man who was a madrassa teaching assistant and muadhin (calls Muslims to pray) for Islam until he became disillusioned with all the discrepancies and contradictions.  He provides countless examples to back up his point.</p><p>
One of the more humorous examples is a story where he proves to several Muslims that Islam teaches that they will all go to hell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not true , there is plenty of disagreement .
You should read a book called 'Cracks In The Crescent ' , about a man who was a madrassa teaching assistant and muadhin ( calls Muslims to pray ) for Islam until he became disillusioned with all the discrepancies and contradictions .
He provides countless examples to back up his point .
One of the more humorous examples is a story where he proves to several Muslims that Islam teaches that they will all go to hell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not true, there is plenty of disagreement.
You should read a book called 'Cracks In The Crescent', about a man who was a madrassa teaching assistant and muadhin (calls Muslims to pray) for Islam until he became disillusioned with all the discrepancies and contradictions.
He provides countless examples to back up his point.
One of the more humorous examples is a story where he proves to several Muslims that Islam teaches that they will all go to hell.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613519</id>
	<title>Re:Potential for translations</title>
	<author>computechnica</author>
	<datestamp>1246959300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Most today do not read it. They rely on the Pastor to cherry-pick the relevant passage of the week. At LifeChurch.TV services it is very slickly preprinted and packaged like any other commercial product.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most today do not read it .
They rely on the Pastor to cherry-pick the relevant passage of the week .
At LifeChurch.TV services it is very slickly preprinted and packaged like any other commercial product .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most today do not read it.
They rely on the Pastor to cherry-pick the relevant passage of the week.
At LifeChurch.TV services it is very slickly preprinted and packaged like any other commercial product.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612229</id>
	<title>Re:Inferior translated holy works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246997340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I refuse to prove that I exist, says God, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.<p>It's depressing to see all the people who are fundamentally ignorant of the basic tenets of religion.  It's one thing to reject it, but being ignorant and even TAKING PRIDE IN IGNORANCE is something that I just don't understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I refuse to prove that I exist , says God , for proof denies faith , and without faith I am nothing.It 's depressing to see all the people who are fundamentally ignorant of the basic tenets of religion .
It 's one thing to reject it , but being ignorant and even TAKING PRIDE IN IGNORANCE is something that I just do n't understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I refuse to prove that I exist, says God, for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.It's depressing to see all the people who are fundamentally ignorant of the basic tenets of religion.
It's one thing to reject it, but being ignorant and even TAKING PRIDE IN IGNORANCE is something that I just don't understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611757</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612327</id>
	<title>Re:The validity of this manuscript ...</title>
	<author>PRMan</author>
	<datestamp>1246997700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, many books of the Old Testament were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which almost certainly predate Christ, and CANNOT go past the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , many books of the Old Testament were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls , which almost certainly predate Christ , and CAN NOT go past the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, many books of the Old Testament were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which almost certainly predate Christ, and CANNOT go past the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611247</id>
	<title>Wow, that took awhile!</title>
	<author>filesiteguy</author>
	<datestamp>1246993680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Honestly, I remember reading some<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. article a few years back about this coming online back in '05 (?) and being very disappointed it wasn't there yet.<br><br>Of course, it would help if I read Koine Greek...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Honestly , I remember reading some / .
article a few years back about this coming online back in '05 ( ?
) and being very disappointed it was n't there yet.Of course , it would help if I read Koine Greek.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Honestly, I remember reading some /.
article a few years back about this coming online back in '05 (?
) and being very disappointed it wasn't there yet.Of course, it would help if I read Koine Greek...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612477</id>
	<title>Re:Inferior translated holy works</title>
	<author>PRMan</author>
	<datestamp>1246998240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unlike the Koran, early copies of the Bible that don't agree weren't gathered and burned, leaving no copies of the "changed beyond 1 iota".</p><p>

<a href="http://www.harvardhouse.com/quran\_purity.htm" title="harvardhouse.com">Burned Korans</a> [harvardhouse.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unlike the Koran , early copies of the Bible that do n't agree were n't gathered and burned , leaving no copies of the " changed beyond 1 iota " .
Burned Korans [ harvardhouse.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unlike the Koran, early copies of the Bible that don't agree weren't gathered and burned, leaving no copies of the "changed beyond 1 iota".
Burned Korans [harvardhouse.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28616867</id>
	<title>Re:Finally</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246978920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Stalin and Mao didn't do it in the name of atheism, and they didn't use atheism to justify their acts.</p><blockquote><div><p>Even Hitler believed in atheist concepts such as speeding up "survival of the fittest"</p></div></blockquote><p>Can you show some proof that any atheist has considered "speeding up [the] survival of the fittest" an atheist concept?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stalin and Mao did n't do it in the name of atheism , and they did n't use atheism to justify their acts.Even Hitler believed in atheist concepts such as speeding up " survival of the fittest " Can you show some proof that any atheist has considered " speeding up [ the ] survival of the fittest " an atheist concept ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stalin and Mao didn't do it in the name of atheism, and they didn't use atheism to justify their acts.Even Hitler believed in atheist concepts such as speeding up "survival of the fittest"Can you show some proof that any atheist has considered "speeding up [the] survival of the fittest" an atheist concept?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28615393</id>
	<title>Re:Finally</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246967760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read Mein Kampf sometime.  In it's pages you will not find a single mention of Darwin or evolution, but a major influence was "On the Jews and their lies" written by some obscure monk named Martin Luther.  Hitler was a christian.  He was even an altar boy and attended a monastery school as a boy (Stalin it should be noted trained in the seminary).  Hitler worked closely with the Pope to murder Jews.  Hitler whipped up the 99.44\% Catholic and Lutheran Germany to murder Jews.  Please quit lying and just deal with those unpleasant facts.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read Mein Kampf sometime .
In it 's pages you will not find a single mention of Darwin or evolution , but a major influence was " On the Jews and their lies " written by some obscure monk named Martin Luther .
Hitler was a christian .
He was even an altar boy and attended a monastery school as a boy ( Stalin it should be noted trained in the seminary ) .
Hitler worked closely with the Pope to murder Jews .
Hitler whipped up the 99.44 \ % Catholic and Lutheran Germany to murder Jews .
Please quit lying and just deal with those unpleasant facts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read Mein Kampf sometime.
In it's pages you will not find a single mention of Darwin or evolution, but a major influence was "On the Jews and their lies" written by some obscure monk named Martin Luther.
Hitler was a christian.
He was even an altar boy and attended a monastery school as a boy (Stalin it should be noted trained in the seminary).
Hitler worked closely with the Pope to murder Jews.
Hitler whipped up the 99.44\% Catholic and Lutheran Germany to murder Jews.
Please quit lying and just deal with those unpleasant facts.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611383</id>
	<title>The validity of this manuscript ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246994100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The way this manuscript is being spun is as if this document supersedes individual manuscripts (basically all the books in the bible) that date from the first, second and third centuries for the NT and many from the OT that date as far back as the fourth century BCE.  What's up with that?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The way this manuscript is being spun is as if this document supersedes individual manuscripts ( basically all the books in the bible ) that date from the first , second and third centuries for the NT and many from the OT that date as far back as the fourth century BCE .
What 's up with that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way this manuscript is being spun is as if this document supersedes individual manuscripts (basically all the books in the bible) that date from the first, second and third centuries for the NT and many from the OT that date as far back as the fourth century BCE.
What's up with that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611195</id>
	<title>I found one!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246993500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a misspelling on page 3.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a misspelling on page 3 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a misspelling on page 3.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611803</id>
	<title>Re:Bible 0.1.1-beta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246995600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uh. This people practice IGNORING REALITY as part of their religion. They haven't let facts interfere with their lunacy before, doubt they're going to start now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uh .
This people practice IGNORING REALITY as part of their religion .
They have n't let facts interfere with their lunacy before , doubt they 're going to start now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uh.
This people practice IGNORING REALITY as part of their religion.
They haven't let facts interfere with their lunacy before, doubt they're going to start now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611899</id>
	<title>Info pulled from CNN article???</title>
	<author>burtosis</author>
	<datestamp>1246995900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07/24/online.bible/" title="cnn.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07/24/online.bible/</a> [cnn.com]
<p>
Unless I am totally high, I remember the CNN article to have wording almost identical to this source when orginally posted:</p><p>
<a href="http://www.bilalaliproductions.com/religion/oldest-known-bible-goes-online/" title="bilalaliproductions.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.bilalaliproductions.com/religion/oldest-known-bible-goes-online/</a> [bilalaliproductions.com]
</p><p>
Correct me if I am wrong (or hell this is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. correct me in any case) but I wonder if it hit too close to home to most of thier US audience.    It will be nice when people are able to get all of this messy business of imperfect copying and editing proceedures mucking up the details.   Not being a scholar, I was a bit suprised to find most (if not all) of the resection references to be missing.  But I am sure a small detail like that won't shake anyones faith in what is real...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07/24/online.bible/ [ cnn.com ] Unless I am totally high , I remember the CNN article to have wording almost identical to this source when orginally posted : http : //www.bilalaliproductions.com/religion/oldest-known-bible-goes-online/ [ bilalaliproductions.com ] Correct me if I am wrong ( or hell this is / .
correct me in any case ) but I wonder if it hit too close to home to most of thier US audience .
It will be nice when people are able to get all of this messy business of imperfect copying and editing proceedures mucking up the details .
Not being a scholar , I was a bit suprised to find most ( if not all ) of the resection references to be missing .
But I am sure a small detail like that wo n't shake anyones faith in what is real.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07/24/online.bible/ [cnn.com]

Unless I am totally high, I remember the CNN article to have wording almost identical to this source when orginally posted:
http://www.bilalaliproductions.com/religion/oldest-known-bible-goes-online/ [bilalaliproductions.com]

Correct me if I am wrong (or hell this is /.
correct me in any case) but I wonder if it hit too close to home to most of thier US audience.
It will be nice when people are able to get all of this messy business of imperfect copying and editing proceedures mucking up the details.
Not being a scholar, I was a bit suprised to find most (if not all) of the resection references to be missing.
But I am sure a small detail like that won't shake anyones faith in what is real...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28620397</id>
	<title>Re:Bible 0.1.1-beta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247061240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whatever, it's a facile argument: the book of god that you are reading is the book that god wants you to read.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whatever , it 's a facile argument : the book of god that you are reading is the book that god wants you to read .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whatever, it's a facile argument: the book of god that you are reading is the book that god wants you to read.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611689</id>
	<title>Re:Inferior translated holy works</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1246995240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It is one more reason why the true followers of God look down on all other competing theologies.</p></div><p>Which is very nice, except everyone else <b>also</b> believes themselves to be true followers of God, has their own reasons for believing this and doesn't really care too much that the Koran hasn't changed.</p><p>(On a side note - the Koran may not have been translated but it must have been transcribed back in the days before printing presses.  Further, I wonder if some words in Arabic have acquired slightly different meanings over the years....)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It is one more reason why the true followers of God look down on all other competing theologies.Which is very nice , except everyone else also believes themselves to be true followers of God , has their own reasons for believing this and does n't really care too much that the Koran has n't changed .
( On a side note - the Koran may not have been translated but it must have been transcribed back in the days before printing presses .
Further , I wonder if some words in Arabic have acquired slightly different meanings over the years.... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is one more reason why the true followers of God look down on all other competing theologies.Which is very nice, except everyone else also believes themselves to be true followers of God, has their own reasons for believing this and doesn't really care too much that the Koran hasn't changed.
(On a side note - the Koran may not have been translated but it must have been transcribed back in the days before printing presses.
Further, I wonder if some words in Arabic have acquired slightly different meanings over the years....)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28617077</id>
	<title>Re:Potential for translations</title>
	<author>FrankDrebin</author>
	<datestamp>1246981080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Blessed are the cheese makers..."</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Blessed are the cheese makers... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Blessed are the cheese makers..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612369</id>
	<title>Re:Bible 0.1.1-beta</title>
	<author>PRMan</author>
	<datestamp>1246997820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You've clearly put so much research into this...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 've clearly put so much research into this.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You've clearly put so much research into this...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28614909</id>
	<title>Re:Potential for translations</title>
	<author>thersites</author>
	<datestamp>1246964880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "several additional books" are the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, which weren't unanimously dropped from the canon until a few decades after Sinaiticus.</p><p>Codex Sinaiticus is one of the main sources for all of the modern translations.  The only thing new about this is that hi-res photos are available via the web, instead of the 100 year old black and white facsimile that everyone was forced to rely on all these years.  You can get that by googling codex sinaiticus pdf.  But you'll need to know Koine Greek, a bit of an effort for your average lazy skeptic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " several additional books " are the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas , which were n't unanimously dropped from the canon until a few decades after Sinaiticus.Codex Sinaiticus is one of the main sources for all of the modern translations .
The only thing new about this is that hi-res photos are available via the web , instead of the 100 year old black and white facsimile that everyone was forced to rely on all these years .
You can get that by googling codex sinaiticus pdf .
But you 'll need to know Koine Greek , a bit of an effort for your average lazy skeptic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "several additional books" are the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, which weren't unanimously dropped from the canon until a few decades after Sinaiticus.Codex Sinaiticus is one of the main sources for all of the modern translations.
The only thing new about this is that hi-res photos are available via the web, instead of the 100 year old black and white facsimile that everyone was forced to rely on all these years.
You can get that by googling codex sinaiticus pdf.
But you'll need to know Koine Greek, a bit of an effort for your average lazy skeptic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489</id>
	<title>Inferior translated holy works</title>
	<author>DNS-and-BIND</author>
	<datestamp>1246994520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Contrast this book with the Holy Koran, which has not changed one iota since it was written, and is still readable in its original language.  When the Holy Koran says something, it *means* it.  "As for the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from God" is a real command from the real God who really exists (yes it's a translation into English, now get all po-mo on it).  Other holy books go through revisions, get translated, have pages lost, etc etc - they can hardly be called the True Word of God at all.  Mock all you want, this is deadly serious business to millions of people who share the world you live in.  It is one more reason why the true followers of God look down on all other competing theologies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Contrast this book with the Holy Koran , which has not changed one iota since it was written , and is still readable in its original language .
When the Holy Koran says something , it * means * it .
" As for the man who steals and the woman who steals , cut off their hands as punishment for what they have earned , an exemplary punishment from God " is a real command from the real God who really exists ( yes it 's a translation into English , now get all po-mo on it ) .
Other holy books go through revisions , get translated , have pages lost , etc etc - they can hardly be called the True Word of God at all .
Mock all you want , this is deadly serious business to millions of people who share the world you live in .
It is one more reason why the true followers of God look down on all other competing theologies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Contrast this book with the Holy Koran, which has not changed one iota since it was written, and is still readable in its original language.
When the Holy Koran says something, it *means* it.
"As for the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from God" is a real command from the real God who really exists (yes it's a translation into English, now get all po-mo on it).
Other holy books go through revisions, get translated, have pages lost, etc etc - they can hardly be called the True Word of God at all.
Mock all you want, this is deadly serious business to millions of people who share the world you live in.
It is one more reason why the true followers of God look down on all other competing theologies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613727</id>
	<title>Proof?</title>
	<author>mrbcs</author>
	<datestamp>1246960140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>1 Thessalonians 5
<p>12 And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake. Be at peace among yourselves.
14 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all. 15 See that no one renders evil for evil to anyone, but always pursue what is good both for yourselves and for all.
16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies. 21 <b>Test all things; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil.</b>

</p><p>You can't legislate morality... or intelligence.

</p><p>Psalm 111:10 (New King James Version)<br>
10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom;
         A good understanding have all those who do His commandments.
         His praise endures forever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 Thessalonians 5 12 And we urge you , brethren , to recognize those who labor among you , and are over you in the Lord and admonish you , 13 and to esteem them very highly in love for their work 's sake .
Be at peace among yourselves .
14 Now we exhort you , brethren , warn those who are unruly , comfort the fainthearted , uphold the weak , be patient with all .
15 See that no one renders evil for evil to anyone , but always pursue what is good both for yourselves and for all .
16 Rejoice always , 17 pray without ceasing , 18 in everything give thanks ; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you .
19 Do not quench the Spirit .
20 Do not despise prophecies .
21 Test all things ; hold fast what is good .
22 Abstain from every form of evil .
You ca n't legislate morality... or intelligence .
Psalm 111 : 10 ( New King James Version ) 10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom ; A good understanding have all those who do His commandments .
His praise endures forever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 Thessalonians 5
12 And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love for their work's sake.
Be at peace among yourselves.
14 Now we exhort you, brethren, warn those who are unruly, comfort the fainthearted, uphold the weak, be patient with all.
15 See that no one renders evil for evil to anyone, but always pursue what is good both for yourselves and for all.
16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 in everything give thanks; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you.
19 Do not quench the Spirit.
20 Do not despise prophecies.
21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
22 Abstain from every form of evil.
You can't legislate morality... or intelligence.
Psalm 111:10 (New King James Version)
10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom;
         A good understanding have all those who do His commandments.
His praise endures forever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28616353</id>
	<title>Re:Finally</title>
	<author>jeffliott</author>
	<datestamp>1246974540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Religious status does not predict character, morality, or ethical principles[citation needed]. The sociopaths you mentioned were sociopaths first. Your characterization implies that these sociopaths had an impaired sense of ethics because they did not believe in a religion. I would characterize them as sociopaths who selectively believed, preached, and practiced whatever they thought would secure the most power and fulfill personal fantasies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Religious status does not predict character , morality , or ethical principles [ citation needed ] .
The sociopaths you mentioned were sociopaths first .
Your characterization implies that these sociopaths had an impaired sense of ethics because they did not believe in a religion .
I would characterize them as sociopaths who selectively believed , preached , and practiced whatever they thought would secure the most power and fulfill personal fantasies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Religious status does not predict character, morality, or ethical principles[citation needed].
The sociopaths you mentioned were sociopaths first.
Your characterization implies that these sociopaths had an impaired sense of ethics because they did not believe in a religion.
I would characterize them as sociopaths who selectively believed, preached, and practiced whatever they thought would secure the most power and fulfill personal fantasies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612509</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611329</id>
	<title>Re:Potential for translations</title>
	<author>peragrin</author>
	<datestamp>1246993860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually I plan on pointing out the major discrepencies as a sign that the bible is in fact fallible and has been manipulated to change it's message over the centuries.  With several additonal books that aren't in the current versions one has to wonder why the "words of god" Would be left out.  I don't ever expect a reasonable answer. Because trolling religous nutjobs is always fun until they hang you for being a heretic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I plan on pointing out the major discrepencies as a sign that the bible is in fact fallible and has been manipulated to change it 's message over the centuries .
With several additonal books that are n't in the current versions one has to wonder why the " words of god " Would be left out .
I do n't ever expect a reasonable answer .
Because trolling religous nutjobs is always fun until they hang you for being a heretic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I plan on pointing out the major discrepencies as a sign that the bible is in fact fallible and has been manipulated to change it's message over the centuries.
With several additonal books that aren't in the current versions one has to wonder why the "words of god" Would be left out.
I don't ever expect a reasonable answer.
Because trolling religous nutjobs is always fun until they hang you for being a heretic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613689</id>
	<title>Re:Bible 0.1.1-beta</title>
	<author>vertinox</author>
	<datestamp>1246959960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Conspiracy theorists who hint darkly about secret councils that burned books or suppressed certain ancient Christian beliefs tend to forget that, even if that was possible, there were no such organizations or counsels like that for many, many centuries<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</i></p><p>Um... What about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha" title="wikipedia.org">Apocrypha</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>No seriously. What about it? It is there and it is real. This isn't a conspiracy theory. Why isn't that in the Bible? Why are the dead sea scrolls different from what we have today?</p><p>And why does the Orthodox and Western Bibles differ slightly since the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West\_Schism" title="wikipedia.org">schism</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p><p>Secondly what remains of other religions of the time that we still have records of? Like Druidism which the Romans persecuted as much as the Christians. Of course they weren't destroyed on purpose, it is just that 2,000 has a toll on ancient documents (including fires of libraries) and that most people at the time didn't have a need to keep documents that weren't deemed official by the Church.</p><p>Most people couldn't read bad then so they didn't know... The few people who could read and write started copying the official versions when they came out in 400AD and from there the old copies were simply lost because of time problems.</p><p>Not to mention that for Europeans owning any non-approved paper work in the 1500 to 1600s were put to the stake so if they had any ancient heretical texts they most likely burned them at that time as well. Every now and then we find something like the dead seas scrolls and we find out differences.</p><p>It isn't a conspiracy, but Europe in general was a great place to store non-official religious texts long term for 2,000 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Conspiracy theorists who hint darkly about secret councils that burned books or suppressed certain ancient Christian beliefs tend to forget that , even if that was possible , there were no such organizations or counsels like that for many , many centuries .Um... What about the Apocrypha [ wikipedia.org ] No seriously .
What about it ?
It is there and it is real .
This is n't a conspiracy theory .
Why is n't that in the Bible ?
Why are the dead sea scrolls different from what we have today ? And why does the Orthodox and Western Bibles differ slightly since the schism [ wikipedia.org ] ? Secondly what remains of other religions of the time that we still have records of ?
Like Druidism which the Romans persecuted as much as the Christians .
Of course they were n't destroyed on purpose , it is just that 2,000 has a toll on ancient documents ( including fires of libraries ) and that most people at the time did n't have a need to keep documents that were n't deemed official by the Church.Most people could n't read bad then so they did n't know... The few people who could read and write started copying the official versions when they came out in 400AD and from there the old copies were simply lost because of time problems.Not to mention that for Europeans owning any non-approved paper work in the 1500 to 1600s were put to the stake so if they had any ancient heretical texts they most likely burned them at that time as well .
Every now and then we find something like the dead seas scrolls and we find out differences.It is n't a conspiracy , but Europe in general was a great place to store non-official religious texts long term for 2,000 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conspiracy theorists who hint darkly about secret councils that burned books or suppressed certain ancient Christian beliefs tend to forget that, even if that was possible, there were no such organizations or counsels like that for many, many centuries .Um... What about the Apocrypha [wikipedia.org]No seriously.
What about it?
It is there and it is real.
This isn't a conspiracy theory.
Why isn't that in the Bible?
Why are the dead sea scrolls different from what we have today?And why does the Orthodox and Western Bibles differ slightly since the schism [wikipedia.org]?Secondly what remains of other religions of the time that we still have records of?
Like Druidism which the Romans persecuted as much as the Christians.
Of course they weren't destroyed on purpose, it is just that 2,000 has a toll on ancient documents (including fires of libraries) and that most people at the time didn't have a need to keep documents that weren't deemed official by the Church.Most people couldn't read bad then so they didn't know... The few people who could read and write started copying the official versions when they came out in 400AD and from there the old copies were simply lost because of time problems.Not to mention that for Europeans owning any non-approved paper work in the 1500 to 1600s were put to the stake so if they had any ancient heretical texts they most likely burned them at that time as well.
Every now and then we find something like the dead seas scrolls and we find out differences.It isn't a conspiracy, but Europe in general was a great place to store non-official religious texts long term for 2,000 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611655</id>
	<title>Re:Ancient Manuscripts in a Digital Age</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1246995120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But because they refuse to release the database of manuscript photos for public download (even though, at least in the United States, those images are uncopyrightable and therefore in the public domain) enterprising folks like me can't build a better system and give it away to people. So you have to suffer with their terrible system if you want to examine the manuscript.</p></div></blockquote><p>
What am I missing?  If you have all the images in some sort of reasonable format and the images organized linearly (page 1, page 2<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... )what other info do you need?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But because they refuse to release the database of manuscript photos for public download ( even though , at least in the United States , those images are uncopyrightable and therefore in the public domain ) enterprising folks like me ca n't build a better system and give it away to people .
So you have to suffer with their terrible system if you want to examine the manuscript .
What am I missing ?
If you have all the images in some sort of reasonable format and the images organized linearly ( page 1 , page 2 .... ) what other info do you need ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But because they refuse to release the database of manuscript photos for public download (even though, at least in the United States, those images are uncopyrightable and therefore in the public domain) enterprising folks like me can't build a better system and give it away to people.
So you have to suffer with their terrible system if you want to examine the manuscript.
What am I missing?
If you have all the images in some sort of reasonable format and the images organized linearly (page 1, page 2 .... )what other info do you need?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28615601</id>
	<title>Re:Inferior translated holy works</title>
	<author>funkatron</author>
	<datestamp>1246969020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>When the Holy Koran says something, it *means* it. "As for the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from God" is a real command from the real God who really exists</p></div><p>Well it's certainly a command but even if it is from a god that doesn't mean that you have to obey it. Sorry to drop some pop-philosphy into this but I think this bit of Kant (quoted by Popper) says it better than I can:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>For in whatever way<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... the Deity should be made known to you, and even<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... if he should reveal himself to you: it is you<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... who must judge whether you are permitted [by your conscience] to belive in Him and to worship Him.</p></div><p>Also, I cant say if they're a cause or a symptom but ideas like this one seem to link themselves with brutal, violent and sometimes tyrannical societies far too often.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>When the Holy Koran says something , it * means * it .
" As for the man who steals and the woman who steals , cut off their hands as punishment for what they have earned , an exemplary punishment from God " is a real command from the real God who really existsWell it 's certainly a command but even if it is from a god that does n't mean that you have to obey it .
Sorry to drop some pop-philosphy into this but I think this bit of Kant ( quoted by Popper ) says it better than I can : For in whatever way ... the Deity should be made known to you , and even ... if he should reveal himself to you : it is you ... who must judge whether you are permitted [ by your conscience ] to belive in Him and to worship Him.Also , I cant say if they 're a cause or a symptom but ideas like this one seem to link themselves with brutal , violent and sometimes tyrannical societies far too often .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When the Holy Koran says something, it *means* it.
"As for the man who steals and the woman who steals, cut off their hands as punishment for what they have earned, an exemplary punishment from God" is a real command from the real God who really existsWell it's certainly a command but even if it is from a god that doesn't mean that you have to obey it.
Sorry to drop some pop-philosphy into this but I think this bit of Kant (quoted by Popper) says it better than I can:For in whatever way ... the Deity should be made known to you, and even ... if he should reveal himself to you: it is you ... who must judge whether you are permitted [by your conscience] to belive in Him and to worship Him.Also, I cant say if they're a cause or a symptom but ideas like this one seem to link themselves with brutal, violent and sometimes tyrannical societies far too often.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613103</id>
	<title>No mention of god's name</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246957740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>It has been removed, or else was omitted for reasons I only guess are related to the difficulty with which the divine name is translated. Still, Psalms 83:18, Isiah 12:2, 26:4, and 42:8 are all not available for translation. But 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6 are still available which establishes the words translated as "god" and "lord" as titles, and not names as they are often used in many translations. God's name is Jehovah and his son Jesus Christ is the Lord.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It has been removed , or else was omitted for reasons I only guess are related to the difficulty with which the divine name is translated .
Still , Psalms 83 : 18 , Isiah 12 : 2 , 26 : 4 , and 42 : 8 are all not available for translation .
But 1 Corinthians 8 : 5 , 6 are still available which establishes the words translated as " god " and " lord " as titles , and not names as they are often used in many translations .
God 's name is Jehovah and his son Jesus Christ is the Lord .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has been removed, or else was omitted for reasons I only guess are related to the difficulty with which the divine name is translated.
Still, Psalms 83:18, Isiah 12:2, 26:4, and 42:8 are all not available for translation.
But 1 Corinthians 8:5, 6 are still available which establishes the words translated as "god" and "lord" as titles, and not names as they are often used in many translations.
God's name is Jehovah and his son Jesus Christ is the Lord.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613857</id>
	<title>But wait, another version?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246960680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But i thought god's laws were absolute and not subject to interpretation.. huh, go figure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But i thought god 's laws were absolute and not subject to interpretation.. huh , go figure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But i thought god's laws were absolute and not subject to interpretation.. huh, go figure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611849</id>
	<title>Re:Ancient Manuscripts in a Digital Age</title>
	<author>mcgrew</author>
	<datestamp>1246995780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That said, I wish they could produce software for the examination of the codex that doesn't suck.</i></p><p>You're a nerd, get on it!</p><p><i>We really really need to start making sure that digital copies of the ancient literary patrimony are available for free with no conditions </i></p><p>Agreed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That said , I wish they could produce software for the examination of the codex that does n't suck.You 're a nerd , get on it ! We really really need to start making sure that digital copies of the ancient literary patrimony are available for free with no conditions Agreed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That said, I wish they could produce software for the examination of the codex that doesn't suck.You're a nerd, get on it!We really really need to start making sure that digital copies of the ancient literary patrimony are available for free with no conditions Agreed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611385</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612149</id>
	<title>The Codex Sinaiticus?</title>
	<author>Drone69</author>
	<datestamp>1246997040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll wait for the Ron Howard movie, tks.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll wait for the Ron Howard movie , tks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll wait for the Ron Howard movie, tks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613417</id>
	<title>Re:Inferior translated holy works</title>
	<author>FiloEleven</author>
	<datestamp>1246958940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Look, I like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy at least as much as the next guy, but it's not exactly canon, nor is that idea from it a basic tenet of Christianity (for sure) or Islam (as far as I am aware).  It has been used in apologetics from time to time, but it's not a particularly strong argument.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Look , I like the Hitchhiker 's Guide to the Galaxy at least as much as the next guy , but it 's not exactly canon , nor is that idea from it a basic tenet of Christianity ( for sure ) or Islam ( as far as I am aware ) .
It has been used in apologetics from time to time , but it 's not a particularly strong argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Look, I like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy at least as much as the next guy, but it's not exactly canon, nor is that idea from it a basic tenet of Christianity (for sure) or Islam (as far as I am aware).
It has been used in apologetics from time to time, but it's not a particularly strong argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28616269</id>
	<title>Re:Bible 0.1.1-beta</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1246974000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His point being, many people claim the Bible is exactly as is has always been.<br>I know a person who thinks KJ Version is the exact work of God.<br>This person is not alone. When presented with he facts of other version and the chapters removed, he said he didn't believe it and refused to discuss the topic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His point being , many people claim the Bible is exactly as is has always been.I know a person who thinks KJ Version is the exact work of God.This person is not alone .
When presented with he facts of other version and the chapters removed , he said he did n't believe it and refused to discuss the topic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His point being, many people claim the Bible is exactly as is has always been.I know a person who thinks KJ Version is the exact work of God.This person is not alone.
When presented with he facts of other version and the chapters removed, he said he didn't believe it and refused to discuss the topic.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613891</id>
	<title>Re:Inferior translated holy works</title>
	<author>WeirdJohn</author>
	<datestamp>1246960800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Mohammed's sayings were collected, written down and placed in a big chest.  When the Quran was written down, there was an attempt to put the sayings in order, but there is little doubt that the context and sequence was lost.  Hence apparent contradictions, such as "protect the people of the Book" (Jews and Christians) and "Christians can only be enemies, never friends".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Mohammed 's sayings were collected , written down and placed in a big chest .
When the Quran was written down , there was an attempt to put the sayings in order , but there is little doubt that the context and sequence was lost .
Hence apparent contradictions , such as " protect the people of the Book " ( Jews and Christians ) and " Christians can only be enemies , never friends " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Mohammed's sayings were collected, written down and placed in a big chest.
When the Quran was written down, there was an attempt to put the sayings in order, but there is little doubt that the context and sequence was lost.
Hence apparent contradictions, such as "protect the people of the Book" (Jews and Christians) and "Christians can only be enemies, never friends".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28697987</id>
	<title>Re:Celibacy was not the intent</title>
	<author>Corporate Drone</author>
	<datestamp>1247574840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you look into 1 Timothy, chapter 3 -</p><p> <i>"2: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;<br>3: Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;<br>4: One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;<br>5: (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)"</i> </p><p>you will see that it was not the intention of the church founders that priests should be celibate.</p></div><p>umm... it was also the intention of church founders that all Christians must be circumsized, and follow Jewish law.  However, they decided that it was wiser to allow Gentiles to follow their own dietary customs and not to require circumcision.  So... why is it ok on one hand that church leaders to make a decision against Jewish custom, and not ok on the other hand that they decided that celibacy be mandatory?  It all comes down to the ability of church leaders to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit in making decisions related to the church, doesn't it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look into 1 Timothy , chapter 3 - " 2 : A bishop then must be blameless , the husband of one wife , vigilant , sober , of good behaviour , given to hospitality , apt to teach ; 3 : Not given to wine , no striker , not greedy of filthy lucre ; but patient , not a brawler , not covetous ; 4 : One that ruleth well his own house , having his children in subjection with all gravity ; 5 : ( For if a man know not how to rule his own house , how shall he take care of the church of God ?
) " you will see that it was not the intention of the church founders that priests should be celibate.umm... it was also the intention of church founders that all Christians must be circumsized , and follow Jewish law .
However , they decided that it was wiser to allow Gentiles to follow their own dietary customs and not to require circumcision .
So... why is it ok on one hand that church leaders to make a decision against Jewish custom , and not ok on the other hand that they decided that celibacy be mandatory ?
It all comes down to the ability of church leaders to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit in making decisions related to the church , does n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look into 1 Timothy, chapter 3 - "2: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;3: Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;4: One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;5: (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?
)" you will see that it was not the intention of the church founders that priests should be celibate.umm... it was also the intention of church founders that all Christians must be circumsized, and follow Jewish law.
However, they decided that it was wiser to allow Gentiles to follow their own dietary customs and not to require circumcision.
So... why is it ok on one hand that church leaders to make a decision against Jewish custom, and not ok on the other hand that they decided that celibacy be mandatory?
It all comes down to the ability of church leaders to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit in making decisions related to the church, doesn't it?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611249</id>
	<title>Celebrate!</title>
	<author>i.r.id10t</author>
	<datestamp>1246993680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>..... and the old priest looked at the original copy, and came out crying.</p><p>When asked why, he looked at the young novice and said "the word is CELEBRATE not CELIBATE"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>..... and the old priest looked at the original copy , and came out crying.When asked why , he looked at the young novice and said " the word is CELEBRATE not CELIBATE "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>..... and the old priest looked at the original copy, and came out crying.When asked why, he looked at the young novice and said "the word is CELEBRATE not CELIBATE"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612947</id>
	<title>king james</title>
	<author>He who knows</author>
	<datestamp>1247000160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>My king James version is more accurate</htmltext>
<tokenext>My king James version is more accurate</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My king James version is more accurate</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612341</id>
	<title>Re:Inferior translated holy works</title>
	<author>m.ducharme</author>
	<datestamp>1246997760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By your logic, the Book of Mormon has even greater claim to Truth than the Koran, since it was "translated" for us all by Smith in 1823, into English under divine inspiration.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By your logic , the Book of Mormon has even greater claim to Truth than the Koran , since it was " translated " for us all by Smith in 1823 , into English under divine inspiration .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By your logic, the Book of Mormon has even greater claim to Truth than the Koran, since it was "translated" for us all by Smith in 1823, into English under divine inspiration.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611435</id>
	<title>Re:Potential for translations</title>
	<author>loteck</author>
	<datestamp>1246994280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Indeed, it has already been noted that "<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/06/ancient.bible.online/" title="cnn.com">some</a> [cnn.com] familiar -- very important -- passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus". With the Christian faith being so dependent on the Bible being "God's perfect word", one wonders what the religion will look like in another few hundred years given its rampant re-translation and re-interpretation. The Bible that we read today is vastly, vastly different than the one on display in TFA.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed , it has already been noted that " some [ cnn.com ] familiar -- very important -- passages are missing , including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus " .
With the Christian faith being so dependent on the Bible being " God 's perfect word " , one wonders what the religion will look like in another few hundred years given its rampant re-translation and re-interpretation .
The Bible that we read today is vastly , vastly different than the one on display in TFA .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed, it has already been noted that "some [cnn.com] familiar -- very important -- passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus".
With the Christian faith being so dependent on the Bible being "God's perfect word", one wonders what the religion will look like in another few hundred years given its rampant re-translation and re-interpretation.
The Bible that we read today is vastly, vastly different than the one on display in TFA.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612115</id>
	<title>Re:Potential for translations</title>
	<author>PRMan</author>
	<datestamp>1246996920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is more misleading than the typical CNN article.</p><p>The portions are "missing" for a couple reasons:</p><ol>
<li>This manuscript is the oldest.  When copyists left things out accidentally, they put it in the margin.  When people added explanatory notes, they put things...IN THE MARGIN.  The copyist coming along afterward has no way of knowing which is which.  This is why the OLDEST manuscripts (such as Siniaticus) are the most important.  (BTW, this all happened in the 50s and 60s and all versions of the Bible newer than NIV [1970s] have already removed all these verses and relegated them to the footnotes, because they were not in the original text.)</li><li>They are "missing" because the Codex Siniaticus was originally found in a trash can outside a monastery, waiting to be burned in an era where few people thought that keeping an old copy missing some important pages was worth anything.</li></ol><p>Thankfully, Tischendorf rescued it from the fire, even in its incomplete and damaged state.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is more misleading than the typical CNN article.The portions are " missing " for a couple reasons : This manuscript is the oldest .
When copyists left things out accidentally , they put it in the margin .
When people added explanatory notes , they put things...IN THE MARGIN .
The copyist coming along afterward has no way of knowing which is which .
This is why the OLDEST manuscripts ( such as Siniaticus ) are the most important .
( BTW , this all happened in the 50s and 60s and all versions of the Bible newer than NIV [ 1970s ] have already removed all these verses and relegated them to the footnotes , because they were not in the original text .
) They are " missing " because the Codex Siniaticus was originally found in a trash can outside a monastery , waiting to be burned in an era where few people thought that keeping an old copy missing some important pages was worth anything.Thankfully , Tischendorf rescued it from the fire , even in its incomplete and damaged state .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is more misleading than the typical CNN article.The portions are "missing" for a couple reasons:
This manuscript is the oldest.
When copyists left things out accidentally, they put it in the margin.
When people added explanatory notes, they put things...IN THE MARGIN.
The copyist coming along afterward has no way of knowing which is which.
This is why the OLDEST manuscripts (such as Siniaticus) are the most important.
(BTW, this all happened in the 50s and 60s and all versions of the Bible newer than NIV [1970s] have already removed all these verses and relegated them to the footnotes, because they were not in the original text.
)They are "missing" because the Codex Siniaticus was originally found in a trash can outside a monastery, waiting to be burned in an era where few people thought that keeping an old copy missing some important pages was worth anything.Thankfully, Tischendorf rescued it from the fire, even in its incomplete and damaged state.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611435</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612509</id>
	<title>Re:Finally</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246998420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, atheists such as Stalin and Mao committed the worst atrocities of the 20th century.  Even Hitler believed in atheist concepts such as speeding up "survival of the fittest", which in his mind meant white people and certainly not Jews.</p><p>People of religion actually risked their own lives to save others (often strangers) from these tyrants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , atheists such as Stalin and Mao committed the worst atrocities of the 20th century .
Even Hitler believed in atheist concepts such as speeding up " survival of the fittest " , which in his mind meant white people and certainly not Jews.People of religion actually risked their own lives to save others ( often strangers ) from these tyrants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, atheists such as Stalin and Mao committed the worst atrocities of the 20th century.
Even Hitler believed in atheist concepts such as speeding up "survival of the fittest", which in his mind meant white people and certainly not Jews.People of religion actually risked their own lives to save others (often strangers) from these tyrants.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612119</id>
	<title>Re:Inferior translated holy works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246996920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They share the world we live in only because we allow it. They can be removed. Their god would be well advised to stay out of our way.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They share the world we live in only because we allow it .
They can be removed .
Their god would be well advised to stay out of our way .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They share the world we live in only because we allow it.
They can be removed.
Their god would be well advised to stay out of our way.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611917</id>
	<title>Re:Potential for translations</title>
	<author>Hognoxious</author>
	<datestamp>1246995960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those aren't discrepancies.</p><p>It's just a fork.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those are n't discrepancies.It 's just a fork .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those aren't discrepancies.It's just a fork.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613039</id>
	<title>Re:First Post?</title>
	<author>Jurily</author>
	<datestamp>1246957440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.</p><p>
&nbsp; 2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.</p><p>
&nbsp; 3 And God said, "First Post!".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth .
  2 And the earth was waste and void ; and darkness was upon the face of the deep : and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters .
  3 And God said , " First Post !
" .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
  2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
  3 And God said, "First Post!
".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611907</id>
	<title>Re:Bible 0.1.1-beta</title>
	<author>kappa962</author>
	<datestamp>1246995960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, these newly released manuscripts shed no new light on the subject. I don't think it has ever been disputed that the contents of the New Testament were canonized "by committee." Furthermore, it is generally assumed that "fallible men" were not only involved in the canonization, but also the actual writing. These things have never been contradictory to orthodox Christian belief.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , these newly released manuscripts shed no new light on the subject .
I do n't think it has ever been disputed that the contents of the New Testament were canonized " by committee .
" Furthermore , it is generally assumed that " fallible men " were not only involved in the canonization , but also the actual writing .
These things have never been contradictory to orthodox Christian belief .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, these newly released manuscripts shed no new light on the subject.
I don't think it has ever been disputed that the contents of the New Testament were canonized "by committee.
" Furthermore, it is generally assumed that "fallible men" were not only involved in the canonization, but also the actual writing.
These things have never been contradictory to orthodox Christian belief.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611653</id>
	<title>Table of Contents</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246995060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the more interesting aspects is the Biblical canon. It includes several books in modern Catholic Bibles but not Protestant Bibles. And several books not in either!</p><p>http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/codex/content.aspx</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the more interesting aspects is the Biblical canon .
It includes several books in modern Catholic Bibles but not Protestant Bibles .
And several books not in either ! http : //www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/codex/content.aspx</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the more interesting aspects is the Biblical canon.
It includes several books in modern Catholic Bibles but not Protestant Bibles.
And several books not in either!http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/codex/content.aspx</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28614481</id>
	<title>Re:Potential for translations</title>
	<author>Langalf</author>
	<datestamp>1246963080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One of the best comparisons I have heard is the writings left out of the canon were "fan fiction". Sure, they talked about the same story, but they just did not quite fit, and did not ring true with the official script.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One of the best comparisons I have heard is the writings left out of the canon were " fan fiction " .
Sure , they talked about the same story , but they just did not quite fit , and did not ring true with the official script .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of the best comparisons I have heard is the writings left out of the canon were "fan fiction".
Sure, they talked about the same story, but they just did not quite fit, and did not ring true with the official script.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611601</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611847</id>
	<title>Re:Bible 0.1.1-beta</title>
	<author>davegravy</author>
	<datestamp>1246995780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Good luck proving to a believer that any "errors" made were not intended by God.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Good luck proving to a believer that any " errors " made were not intended by God .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good luck proving to a believer that any "errors" made were not intended by God.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612223</id>
	<title>Re:Inferior translated holy works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246997340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...Mock all you want...</p><p>--------</p><p>Not that I need your permission, but I mock the Qur'an and any other religious text any chance I get, as they are all based on the same absurd premise, namely omnipotence.<br>You are comparing ONE work of ONE person in "completeness" to the bible, of which the youngest parts are a few centuries older, by several authors, originally in several languages.</p><p>But that's not your point. You bizarrely agree that chopping off hands is fair, in the same post where you claim that your god is the "truest"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p>I live in Denmark, and I'm extremely proud that the gov'ment didn't bow to the pressure and apologise for what a private newspaper printed, or even punished them. This was after massive<br>protests and demands from countries that didn't quite understand the idea that freedom of expression isn't up for discussion, and the government was indeed powerless to punish something<br>that wasn't illegal.</p><p>I've seen religion destroy so much it pains me.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/end rant</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Mock all you want...--------Not that I need your permission , but I mock the Qur'an and any other religious text any chance I get , as they are all based on the same absurd premise , namely omnipotence.You are comparing ONE work of ONE person in " completeness " to the bible , of which the youngest parts are a few centuries older , by several authors , originally in several languages.But that 's not your point .
You bizarrely agree that chopping off hands is fair , in the same post where you claim that your god is the " truest " : ) I live in Denmark , and I 'm extremely proud that the gov'ment did n't bow to the pressure and apologise for what a private newspaper printed , or even punished them .
This was after massiveprotests and demands from countries that did n't quite understand the idea that freedom of expression is n't up for discussion , and the government was indeed powerless to punish somethingthat was n't illegal.I 've seen religion destroy so much it pains me .
/end rant</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Mock all you want...--------Not that I need your permission, but I mock the Qur'an and any other religious text any chance I get, as they are all based on the same absurd premise, namely omnipotence.You are comparing ONE work of ONE person in "completeness" to the bible, of which the youngest parts are a few centuries older, by several authors, originally in several languages.But that's not your point.
You bizarrely agree that chopping off hands is fair, in the same post where you claim that your god is the "truest" :)I live in Denmark, and I'm extremely proud that the gov'ment didn't bow to the pressure and apologise for what a private newspaper printed, or even punished them.
This was after massiveprotests and demands from countries that didn't quite understand the idea that freedom of expression isn't up for discussion, and the government was indeed powerless to punish somethingthat wasn't illegal.I've seen religion destroy so much it pains me.
/end rant</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611129</id>
	<title>Crowdsource it</title>
	<author>Viadd</author>
	<datestamp>1246993260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But is it wiki'd so that people can make corrections to it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But is it wiki 'd so that people can make corrections to it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But is it wiki'd so that people can make corrections to it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611443</id>
	<title>Making the most of it</title>
	<author>Spencerian</author>
	<datestamp>1246994340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This work should be helpful in the translation issues that some scholars and theologians have faced, or worse, perpetuate.</p><p>IMO, the most difficult problems in Bible translations is (1) bias based on a reader's idea of what things say and (2) literallist POVs that don't consider that idiom and metaphors in the text shouldn't be taken (ahem) as gospel. One example from a Catholic apologist is the modern statement "it's raining cats and dogs." We today know that means "it's raining very heavily." Write that down in a book, bury it for 2,000 years. What would people then think that phrase means. A literalist will honestly think that cats and dogs fell from the sky. A person skilled not only in translation but in the culture of the time knows it to be a figure of speech--and will NOT change the wording despite that understanding.</p><p>And that, in an oversimplified example, is why humankind went from one Christian church to over 23,000. It's become a matter of bad translation and/or interpretation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This work should be helpful in the translation issues that some scholars and theologians have faced , or worse , perpetuate.IMO , the most difficult problems in Bible translations is ( 1 ) bias based on a reader 's idea of what things say and ( 2 ) literallist POVs that do n't consider that idiom and metaphors in the text should n't be taken ( ahem ) as gospel .
One example from a Catholic apologist is the modern statement " it 's raining cats and dogs .
" We today know that means " it 's raining very heavily .
" Write that down in a book , bury it for 2,000 years .
What would people then think that phrase means .
A literalist will honestly think that cats and dogs fell from the sky .
A person skilled not only in translation but in the culture of the time knows it to be a figure of speech--and will NOT change the wording despite that understanding.And that , in an oversimplified example , is why humankind went from one Christian church to over 23,000 .
It 's become a matter of bad translation and/or interpretation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This work should be helpful in the translation issues that some scholars and theologians have faced, or worse, perpetuate.IMO, the most difficult problems in Bible translations is (1) bias based on a reader's idea of what things say and (2) literallist POVs that don't consider that idiom and metaphors in the text shouldn't be taken (ahem) as gospel.
One example from a Catholic apologist is the modern statement "it's raining cats and dogs.
" We today know that means "it's raining very heavily.
" Write that down in a book, bury it for 2,000 years.
What would people then think that phrase means.
A literalist will honestly think that cats and dogs fell from the sky.
A person skilled not only in translation but in the culture of the time knows it to be a figure of speech--and will NOT change the wording despite that understanding.And that, in an oversimplified example, is why humankind went from one Christian church to over 23,000.
It's become a matter of bad translation and/or interpretation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612023</id>
	<title>Does it mean there is no original bible extant?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246996440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A translation can't be trusted, now can it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A translation ca n't be trusted , now can it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A translation can't be trusted, now can it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28616289</id>
	<title>Re:Inferior translated holy works</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1246974120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a human being, I was proud that some where there is a papers that won't bow to religious zealots.</p><p>Kudos to Denmark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a human being , I was proud that some where there is a papers that wo n't bow to religious zealots.Kudos to Denmark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a human being, I was proud that some where there is a papers that won't bow to religious zealots.Kudos to Denmark.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612223</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611837</id>
	<title>Be on the alert!</title>
	<author>TigerPlish</author>
	<datestamp>1246995720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unconfirmed reports suggest that a half-japanese, half-english woman is making tremendous speed towards the British Library right now, and other reports further suggest this woman's sole interest is this bible.</p><p>Her appearance was given as short, well-built, blue-eyed, long shaggy unkempt black hair, rather mannish-looking squarish glasses, and an ability to manipulate paper in remarkable ways.</p><p>If spotted ring up the Paper Sisters Detective Co.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unconfirmed reports suggest that a half-japanese , half-english woman is making tremendous speed towards the British Library right now , and other reports further suggest this woman 's sole interest is this bible.Her appearance was given as short , well-built , blue-eyed , long shaggy unkempt black hair , rather mannish-looking squarish glasses , and an ability to manipulate paper in remarkable ways.If spotted ring up the Paper Sisters Detective Co .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unconfirmed reports suggest that a half-japanese, half-english woman is making tremendous speed towards the British Library right now, and other reports further suggest this woman's sole interest is this bible.Her appearance was given as short, well-built, blue-eyed, long shaggy unkempt black hair, rather mannish-looking squarish glasses, and an ability to manipulate paper in remarkable ways.If spotted ring up the Paper Sisters Detective Co.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28617401</id>
	<title>Re:Celibacy was not the intent</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246984380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If you look into 1 Timothy, chapter 3 -</p><p> <i>"2: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, "</i> </p><p>you will see that it was not the intention of the church founders that priests should be celibate.</p></div><p>And monogamous only if aspiring to be a Bishop.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you look into 1 Timothy , chapter 3 - " 2 : A bishop then must be blameless , the husband of one wife , " you will see that it was not the intention of the church founders that priests should be celibate.And monogamous only if aspiring to be a Bishop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you look into 1 Timothy, chapter 3 - "2: A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, " you will see that it was not the intention of the church founders that priests should be celibate.And monogamous only if aspiring to be a Bishop.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611887</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611279</id>
	<title>me too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246993740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>shitdick asspussy cock fuck</htmltext>
<tokenext>shitdick asspussy cock fuck</tokentext>
<sentencetext>shitdick asspussy cock fuck</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612013</id>
	<title>Re:Potential for translations</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1246996440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Actually I plan on pointing out the major discrepencies as a sign that the bible is in fact fallible and has been manipulated to change it's message over the centuries.</i></p><p>DUH.   Humanity is at it's core selfish and evil.  if someone can bend the belief of another to do what they want they will do it in a second.</p><p>It's why people tailgate on the highway they are trying to intimidate you to move ro speed up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I plan on pointing out the major discrepencies as a sign that the bible is in fact fallible and has been manipulated to change it 's message over the centuries.DUH .
Humanity is at it 's core selfish and evil .
if someone can bend the belief of another to do what they want they will do it in a second.It 's why people tailgate on the highway they are trying to intimidate you to move ro speed up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I plan on pointing out the major discrepencies as a sign that the bible is in fact fallible and has been manipulated to change it's message over the centuries.DUH.
Humanity is at it's core selfish and evil.
if someone can bend the belief of another to do what they want they will do it in a second.It's why people tailgate on the highway they are trying to intimidate you to move ro speed up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612353</id>
	<title>Re:Finally</title>
	<author>m.ducharme</author>
	<datestamp>1246997820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes.<br>Yes, yes.<br>Yes.<br>Nope.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes.Yes , yes.Yes.Nope .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes.Yes, yes.Yes.Nope.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611507</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612543</id>
	<title>Serverfehler in der Anwendung /. Der Objektverweis</title>
	<author>ShadowBlasko</author>
	<datestamp>1246998480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I dont know exactly what that means, but I think<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. just got cussed out in Aramathean, which was translated to German, via<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I dont know exactly what that means , but I think / .
just got cussed out in Aramathean , which was translated to German , via .net .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dont know exactly what that means, but I think /.
just got cussed out in Aramathean, which was translated to German, via .net.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611685</id>
	<title>Re:Potential for translations</title>
	<author>JustOK</author>
	<datestamp>1246995240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>or "Thanks for all the fish."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>or " Thanks for all the fish .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>or "Thanks for all the fish.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611571</id>
	<title>Re:Potential for translations</title>
	<author>RobotRunAmok</author>
	<datestamp>1246994820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Actually I plan on pointing out the major discrepencies as a sign that the bible is in fact fallible and has been manipulated to change it's message over the centuries.</i></p><p>And...?  I mean, your point being...?</p><p>There's many, many Christian denominations which recognize the Bible as being fallible and contradictory  (One of them got to be pretty big, actually:  They call themselves the Roman Catholic Church).  These denominations rely upon theologians a lot smarter than you or I to tie the last 2000 years of Christian writings together.</p><p>But keep talking and carrying on as if Christians care about your ill-informed rants.  I understand that Psychobabble is one of the Atheist Fundamentalist sacraments, and you've got freedom to practice your (rather strident and bigoted) religion same as anyone else.  But please, don't believe the Christians think of you as a "heretic."  Most likely they're not thinking of you at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually I plan on pointing out the major discrepencies as a sign that the bible is in fact fallible and has been manipulated to change it 's message over the centuries.And... ?
I mean , your point being... ? There 's many , many Christian denominations which recognize the Bible as being fallible and contradictory ( One of them got to be pretty big , actually : They call themselves the Roman Catholic Church ) .
These denominations rely upon theologians a lot smarter than you or I to tie the last 2000 years of Christian writings together.But keep talking and carrying on as if Christians care about your ill-informed rants .
I understand that Psychobabble is one of the Atheist Fundamentalist sacraments , and you 've got freedom to practice your ( rather strident and bigoted ) religion same as anyone else .
But please , do n't believe the Christians think of you as a " heretic .
" Most likely they 're not thinking of you at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually I plan on pointing out the major discrepencies as a sign that the bible is in fact fallible and has been manipulated to change it's message over the centuries.And...?
I mean, your point being...?There's many, many Christian denominations which recognize the Bible as being fallible and contradictory  (One of them got to be pretty big, actually:  They call themselves the Roman Catholic Church).
These denominations rely upon theologians a lot smarter than you or I to tie the last 2000 years of Christian writings together.But keep talking and carrying on as if Christians care about your ill-informed rants.
I understand that Psychobabble is one of the Atheist Fundamentalist sacraments, and you've got freedom to practice your (rather strident and bigoted) religion same as anyone else.
But please, don't believe the Christians think of you as a "heretic.
"  Most likely they're not thinking of you at all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613887</id>
	<title>Re:Bible 0.1.1-beta</title>
	<author>crono\_deus</author>
	<datestamp>1246960740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Compare that with Uthman Ibn Affan, who decided which copy of the Qur'an would be canonical, then gathered together and burning all other copies that differed from the official version.  Christianity has nothing like that.</p></div><p>
You were doing great up until this point, friend. You make it sound like Uthman moved unilaterally and without consulting anyone, whereas nothing could be further from the truth. Even before Uthman, in the time of Abu Bakr's caliphate, there were complete copies of the Qur'an. The order of the chapters, however, differed from copy to copy. What Uthman did was gather those who'd learned the Qur'an from the Prophet himself into a committee and ask them to come up with a standardized order. The committee consulted with other people who'd memorized the Qur'an, as well as with other copies of the text, to make sure there was no discrepancy, and then created the authoritative text of the Qur'an. <br> <br>

You'll note that unlike the Bible, there are no alternate versions or editions of the Qur'an, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur'an#Making\_Mus.27haf" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">no amount of research has produced noteworthy differences between copies.</a> [wikipedia.org] In fact, most scholars, western and eastern, believe that the Qur'an contains the exact words as spoken by the Prophet with little variation at all. I doubt the same can be said for the Bible.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Compare that with Uthman Ibn Affan , who decided which copy of the Qur'an would be canonical , then gathered together and burning all other copies that differed from the official version .
Christianity has nothing like that .
You were doing great up until this point , friend .
You make it sound like Uthman moved unilaterally and without consulting anyone , whereas nothing could be further from the truth .
Even before Uthman , in the time of Abu Bakr 's caliphate , there were complete copies of the Qur'an .
The order of the chapters , however , differed from copy to copy .
What Uthman did was gather those who 'd learned the Qur'an from the Prophet himself into a committee and ask them to come up with a standardized order .
The committee consulted with other people who 'd memorized the Qur'an , as well as with other copies of the text , to make sure there was no discrepancy , and then created the authoritative text of the Qur'an .
You 'll note that unlike the Bible , there are no alternate versions or editions of the Qur'an , and no amount of research has produced noteworthy differences between copies .
[ wikipedia.org ] In fact , most scholars , western and eastern , believe that the Qur'an contains the exact words as spoken by the Prophet with little variation at all .
I doubt the same can be said for the Bible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Compare that with Uthman Ibn Affan, who decided which copy of the Qur'an would be canonical, then gathered together and burning all other copies that differed from the official version.
Christianity has nothing like that.
You were doing great up until this point, friend.
You make it sound like Uthman moved unilaterally and without consulting anyone, whereas nothing could be further from the truth.
Even before Uthman, in the time of Abu Bakr's caliphate, there were complete copies of the Qur'an.
The order of the chapters, however, differed from copy to copy.
What Uthman did was gather those who'd learned the Qur'an from the Prophet himself into a committee and ask them to come up with a standardized order.
The committee consulted with other people who'd memorized the Qur'an, as well as with other copies of the text, to make sure there was no discrepancy, and then created the authoritative text of the Qur'an.
You'll note that unlike the Bible, there are no alternate versions or editions of the Qur'an, and no amount of research has produced noteworthy differences between copies.
[wikipedia.org] In fact, most scholars, western and eastern, believe that the Qur'an contains the exact words as spoken by the Prophet with little variation at all.
I doubt the same can be said for the Bible.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612603</id>
	<title>Inflammatory?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246998720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It is thought to have survived because the desert air was ideal for preservation and because the monastery, on a Christian island in a Muslim sea, remained untouched, its walls unconquered."</p><p>Wow... What about that Muslims in the past were often quite accepting of Christians and Jews -- yes, all 3 of these faiths fought each other too, but many tolerated each other as well...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It is thought to have survived because the desert air was ideal for preservation and because the monastery , on a Christian island in a Muslim sea , remained untouched , its walls unconquered. " Wow.. .
What about that Muslims in the past were often quite accepting of Christians and Jews -- yes , all 3 of these faiths fought each other too , but many tolerated each other as well.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It is thought to have survived because the desert air was ideal for preservation and because the monastery, on a Christian island in a Muslim sea, remained untouched, its walls unconquered."Wow...
What about that Muslims in the past were often quite accepting of Christians and Jews -- yes, all 3 of these faiths fought each other too, but many tolerated each other as well...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611507</id>
	<title>Finally</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246994580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Took em long enough.</p><p>Can we now finally come to the conclusion religion is not all bad?</p><p>Can we now acknowledge some people need belief to help them in hard times? Or just give them direction or purpose?</p><p>Can we agree belief is not easily swept aside?</p><p>Can we believe that maybe there is a greater power out there?</p><p>If we can hopefully those ****ers can understand to value human life? And not fight wars in the name of The One, The True or whatever name is "hip" now. All religions in their purest from teach human live is precious and needs to be respected. ****ing act like it.</p><p>Yes I'm looking at you Iran, Israel, Europe, US and every other god-damn place. Just agree to disagree already. there are much more important issues that need solving.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Took em long enough.Can we now finally come to the conclusion religion is not all bad ? Can we now acknowledge some people need belief to help them in hard times ?
Or just give them direction or purpose ? Can we agree belief is not easily swept aside ? Can we believe that maybe there is a greater power out there ? If we can hopefully those * * * * ers can understand to value human life ?
And not fight wars in the name of The One , The True or whatever name is " hip " now .
All religions in their purest from teach human live is precious and needs to be respected .
* * * * ing act like it.Yes I 'm looking at you Iran , Israel , Europe , US and every other god-damn place .
Just agree to disagree already .
there are much more important issues that need solving .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Took em long enough.Can we now finally come to the conclusion religion is not all bad?Can we now acknowledge some people need belief to help them in hard times?
Or just give them direction or purpose?Can we agree belief is not easily swept aside?Can we believe that maybe there is a greater power out there?If we can hopefully those ****ers can understand to value human life?
And not fight wars in the name of The One, The True or whatever name is "hip" now.
All religions in their purest from teach human live is precious and needs to be respected.
****ing act like it.Yes I'm looking at you Iran, Israel, Europe, US and every other god-damn place.
Just agree to disagree already.
there are much more important issues that need solving.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611705</id>
	<title>Koine Greek huh?</title>
	<author>BitwiseX</author>
	<datestamp>1246995240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The New Testament of the Codex Sinaiticus appears in Koine Greek, the original vernacular language, and the Old Testament in the version, known as the Septuagint, that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians.</p></div><p>

I just hope they aren't using <a href="http://recaptcha.net/" title="recaptcha.net" rel="nofollow">Recaptcha</a> [recaptcha.net] to digitize the text....My Koine Greek is a little rusty, and I'd like to be able to join forums..</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The New Testament of the Codex Sinaiticus appears in Koine Greek , the original vernacular language , and the Old Testament in the version , known as the Septuagint , that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians .
I just hope they are n't using Recaptcha [ recaptcha.net ] to digitize the text....My Koine Greek is a little rusty , and I 'd like to be able to join forums. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The New Testament of the Codex Sinaiticus appears in Koine Greek, the original vernacular language, and the Old Testament in the version, known as the Septuagint, that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians.
I just hope they aren't using Recaptcha [recaptcha.net] to digitize the text....My Koine Greek is a little rusty, and I'd like to be able to join forums..
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613503</id>
	<title>Re:Inferior translated holy works</title>
	<author>billius</author>
	<datestamp>1246959240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The Qur'an wasn't originally written but rather recited.  Qur'an, after all, means "the recitation."  It survived through oral tradition until Uthman, the third Caliph of the Muslims, ordered for a standardized text to be compiled.  While it is impressive that the text has survived more or less in its original form, it hasn't saved the Muslim world from having some majors divisions and differences of opinion.  "God's will" was sufficiently unclear that a mere 50 years after the death of Muhammad, the Muslim world was so torn apart by questions of succession that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle\_of\_Karbala" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">The Battle of Karbala</a> [wikipedia.org] erupted and forever cemented the rift between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims.  Later mysticism would come to influence Islamic religious traditions and Sufi schools would open and promote teachings considered heretical and blasphemous by other Muslims.  You've also conveniently forgotten to mention the Hadith, which feature a dizzyingly convoluted system of attribution to "prove" the accuracy of customs and sayings attributed to Muhammad.  Oh, and you also forgot the part where this whole thing was revealed to a single person in a cave by an angel that no one else saw.  You're free to believe what you like, but don't tell me that your magic book and invisible man are any more "real" or "reasonable" than their Christian equivalents.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The Qur'an was n't originally written but rather recited .
Qur'an , after all , means " the recitation .
" It survived through oral tradition until Uthman , the third Caliph of the Muslims , ordered for a standardized text to be compiled .
While it is impressive that the text has survived more or less in its original form , it has n't saved the Muslim world from having some majors divisions and differences of opinion .
" God 's will " was sufficiently unclear that a mere 50 years after the death of Muhammad , the Muslim world was so torn apart by questions of succession that The Battle of Karbala [ wikipedia.org ] erupted and forever cemented the rift between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims .
Later mysticism would come to influence Islamic religious traditions and Sufi schools would open and promote teachings considered heretical and blasphemous by other Muslims .
You 've also conveniently forgotten to mention the Hadith , which feature a dizzyingly convoluted system of attribution to " prove " the accuracy of customs and sayings attributed to Muhammad .
Oh , and you also forgot the part where this whole thing was revealed to a single person in a cave by an angel that no one else saw .
You 're free to believe what you like , but do n't tell me that your magic book and invisible man are any more " real " or " reasonable " than their Christian equivalents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Qur'an wasn't originally written but rather recited.
Qur'an, after all, means "the recitation.
"  It survived through oral tradition until Uthman, the third Caliph of the Muslims, ordered for a standardized text to be compiled.
While it is impressive that the text has survived more or less in its original form, it hasn't saved the Muslim world from having some majors divisions and differences of opinion.
"God's will" was sufficiently unclear that a mere 50 years after the death of Muhammad, the Muslim world was so torn apart by questions of succession that The Battle of Karbala [wikipedia.org] erupted and forever cemented the rift between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims.
Later mysticism would come to influence Islamic religious traditions and Sufi schools would open and promote teachings considered heretical and blasphemous by other Muslims.
You've also conveniently forgotten to mention the Hadith, which feature a dizzyingly convoluted system of attribution to "prove" the accuracy of customs and sayings attributed to Muhammad.
Oh, and you also forgot the part where this whole thing was revealed to a single person in a cave by an angel that no one else saw.
You're free to believe what you like, but don't tell me that your magic book and invisible man are any more "real" or "reasonable" than their Christian equivalents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611127</id>
	<title>First Post?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246993260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Okay you can safely mod me down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay you can safely mod me down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay you can safely mod me down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613801</id>
	<title>Re:Bible 0.1.1-beta</title>
	<author>2short</author>
	<datestamp>1246960440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><br>"Your insistence that Christians must equate 'the literal word of God' with 'infallible transcriptions, every single time a book of the Bible is copied' is just plain wrong. That's not what most Christians believe."<br><br>If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.  I know Christians that claim to believe in the infallible, literal truth of the King James Bible.  There were clearly some transcription errors in the texts used to produce that version, and James' translators clearly introduced more, some of them intentionally.  I assume the Christians in question believe these changes were divinely inspired.  Hard to say, as they seem oddly uninterested in the origins of their infallible guide.<br><br>"Compare that with Uthman Ibn Affan, who decided which copy of the Qur'an would be canonical, then gathered together and burning all other copies that differed from the official version. Christianity has nothing like that."<br><br>There are a slew of events just like that, ranging from the Synod of Hippo (393 AD)  through the Council of Trent (1546).  The difference is that Uthman Ibn Affran was radically more successful.  He standardized the text a few years after it was first set down; the total divergence cannot have been anything on the Bible scale, and modern versions are exact copies of his text.  I'm neither a Christian nor a Muslim, I've got no horse in this race, but for actually caring about getting the supposed word of God right, Islam wins hands down.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Your insistence that Christians must equate 'the literal word of God ' with 'infallible transcriptions , every single time a book of the Bible is copied ' is just plain wrong .
That 's not what most Christians believe .
" If the shoe does n't fit , do n't wear it .
I know Christians that claim to believe in the infallible , literal truth of the King James Bible .
There were clearly some transcription errors in the texts used to produce that version , and James ' translators clearly introduced more , some of them intentionally .
I assume the Christians in question believe these changes were divinely inspired .
Hard to say , as they seem oddly uninterested in the origins of their infallible guide .
" Compare that with Uthman Ibn Affan , who decided which copy of the Qur'an would be canonical , then gathered together and burning all other copies that differed from the official version .
Christianity has nothing like that .
" There are a slew of events just like that , ranging from the Synod of Hippo ( 393 AD ) through the Council of Trent ( 1546 ) .
The difference is that Uthman Ibn Affran was radically more successful .
He standardized the text a few years after it was first set down ; the total divergence can not have been anything on the Bible scale , and modern versions are exact copies of his text .
I 'm neither a Christian nor a Muslim , I 've got no horse in this race , but for actually caring about getting the supposed word of God right , Islam wins hands down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Your insistence that Christians must equate 'the literal word of God' with 'infallible transcriptions, every single time a book of the Bible is copied' is just plain wrong.
That's not what most Christians believe.
"If the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it.
I know Christians that claim to believe in the infallible, literal truth of the King James Bible.
There were clearly some transcription errors in the texts used to produce that version, and James' translators clearly introduced more, some of them intentionally.
I assume the Christians in question believe these changes were divinely inspired.
Hard to say, as they seem oddly uninterested in the origins of their infallible guide.
"Compare that with Uthman Ibn Affan, who decided which copy of the Qur'an would be canonical, then gathered together and burning all other copies that differed from the official version.
Christianity has nothing like that.
"There are a slew of events just like that, ranging from the Synod of Hippo (393 AD)  through the Council of Trent (1546).
The difference is that Uthman Ibn Affran was radically more successful.
He standardized the text a few years after it was first set down; the total divergence cannot have been anything on the Bible scale, and modern versions are exact copies of his text.
I'm neither a Christian nor a Muslim, I've got no horse in this race, but for actually caring about getting the supposed word of God right, Islam wins hands down.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28615901</id>
	<title>Re:Bible 0.1.1-beta</title>
	<author>copponex</author>
	<datestamp>1246970760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The bible his been altered throughout history. There is no agreement even between Christians on what should be in the bible. That's why there were wars that destroyed Europe for hundreds of years after the reformation. So, you're right, the Christians have nothing like the burning of Qur'ans. They killed each other instead, over petty details, for centuries and centuries.</p><p>Furthermore, the Qur'an is far more accurate with earlier versions than any copy of the Bible, not in any small part because it's in the same language. But the whole "miracle" of being able to copy a book is one of the more pitiful claims of Christianity and religion in general. And in a contest, the Qur'an would beat the Bible - whichever version you'd like to pick - hands down for accuracy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bible his been altered throughout history .
There is no agreement even between Christians on what should be in the bible .
That 's why there were wars that destroyed Europe for hundreds of years after the reformation .
So , you 're right , the Christians have nothing like the burning of Qur'ans .
They killed each other instead , over petty details , for centuries and centuries.Furthermore , the Qur'an is far more accurate with earlier versions than any copy of the Bible , not in any small part because it 's in the same language .
But the whole " miracle " of being able to copy a book is one of the more pitiful claims of Christianity and religion in general .
And in a contest , the Qur'an would beat the Bible - whichever version you 'd like to pick - hands down for accuracy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The bible his been altered throughout history.
There is no agreement even between Christians on what should be in the bible.
That's why there were wars that destroyed Europe for hundreds of years after the reformation.
So, you're right, the Christians have nothing like the burning of Qur'ans.
They killed each other instead, over petty details, for centuries and centuries.Furthermore, the Qur'an is far more accurate with earlier versions than any copy of the Bible, not in any small part because it's in the same language.
But the whole "miracle" of being able to copy a book is one of the more pitiful claims of Christianity and religion in general.
And in a contest, the Qur'an would beat the Bible - whichever version you'd like to pick - hands down for accuracy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612199</id>
	<title>Re:Inferior translated holy works</title>
	<author>DutchUncle</author>
	<datestamp>1246997280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Other holy books go through revisions, get translated, have pages lost, etc etc - they can hardly be called the True Word of God at all.</p>  </div><p>
Even DNA has gone through revisions over time.  The very Earth has changed.  God's creation is, itself, mutable.  Any work of Man in interpreting and understanding God is inherently incomplete.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Other holy books go through revisions , get translated , have pages lost , etc etc - they can hardly be called the True Word of God at all .
Even DNA has gone through revisions over time .
The very Earth has changed .
God 's creation is , itself , mutable .
Any work of Man in interpreting and understanding God is inherently incomplete .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Other holy books go through revisions, get translated, have pages lost, etc etc - they can hardly be called the True Word of God at all.
Even DNA has gone through revisions over time.
The very Earth has changed.
God's creation is, itself, mutable.
Any work of Man in interpreting and understanding God is inherently incomplete.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399</id>
	<title>Bible 0.1.1-beta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246994160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>All these revisions ought to successfully reveal the "literal word of God" to be a pile of horsecrap.  The "literal word of God" was decided by many committees of fallible men many times over that originated from unoriginal tall tales passed down by oral tradition for thousands of years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>All these revisions ought to successfully reveal the " literal word of God " to be a pile of horsecrap .
The " literal word of God " was decided by many committees of fallible men many times over that originated from unoriginal tall tales passed down by oral tradition for thousands of years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All these revisions ought to successfully reveal the "literal word of God" to be a pile of horsecrap.
The "literal word of God" was decided by many committees of fallible men many times over that originated from unoriginal tall tales passed down by oral tradition for thousands of years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28617481</id>
	<title>Re:Bible 0.1.1-beta</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246985160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Compare that with Uthman Ibn Affan, who decided which copy of the Qur'an would be canonical, then gathered together and burning all other copies that differed from the official version.  Christianity has nothing like that.</p></div><p>Ever see Deliverance?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Compare that with Uthman Ibn Affan , who decided which copy of the Qur'an would be canonical , then gathered together and burning all other copies that differed from the official version .
Christianity has nothing like that.Ever see Deliverance ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Compare that with Uthman Ibn Affan, who decided which copy of the Qur'an would be canonical, then gathered together and burning all other copies that differed from the official version.
Christianity has nothing like that.Ever see Deliverance?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611601</id>
	<title>Re:Potential for translations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246994940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The additional books are typical for this period of church history. In the fourth century the church was hashing out the canon of Scripture as evidenced by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and the various letters that circulated from church leaders discussing the issue. What is more interesting is that Sinaiticus doesn't exclude any of the now recognized books, it only adds to the list. And never mind that certain Christians still hold that these other books are at least useful if not wholly inspired works. If you take the historical context into account your "discrepancies" and objections are not nearly as substantial, especially if you entertain the idea that God works through the processes of history.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The additional books are typical for this period of church history .
In the fourth century the church was hashing out the canon of Scripture as evidenced by Sinaiticus , Vaticanus and the various letters that circulated from church leaders discussing the issue .
What is more interesting is that Sinaiticus does n't exclude any of the now recognized books , it only adds to the list .
And never mind that certain Christians still hold that these other books are at least useful if not wholly inspired works .
If you take the historical context into account your " discrepancies " and objections are not nearly as substantial , especially if you entertain the idea that God works through the processes of history .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The additional books are typical for this period of church history.
In the fourth century the church was hashing out the canon of Scripture as evidenced by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and the various letters that circulated from church leaders discussing the issue.
What is more interesting is that Sinaiticus doesn't exclude any of the now recognized books, it only adds to the list.
And never mind that certain Christians still hold that these other books are at least useful if not wholly inspired works.
If you take the historical context into account your "discrepancies" and objections are not nearly as substantial, especially if you entertain the idea that God works through the processes of history.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611333</id>
	<title>Re:Potential for translations</title>
	<author>fuzzyfuzzyfungus</author>
	<datestamp>1246993920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, hosting images on the net is substantially easier than disseminating knowledge of Koine Greek, so that will be a largely theoretical benefit.<br> <br>

Don't get me wrong, a world where I could, with enough effort, check is better than a world where I can't check at all(and a world where I can check with less effort is better than one where I can check only with more effort); and I suspect that this will be a boon for any scholars who don't have the time, money, or access to go to the British Library, put on the white cotton document gloves, and see the thing in person. It just seems like one of those situations where the fact that "information" is far easier than "knowledge"(much less "understanding") becomes an issue.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , hosting images on the net is substantially easier than disseminating knowledge of Koine Greek , so that will be a largely theoretical benefit .
Do n't get me wrong , a world where I could , with enough effort , check is better than a world where I ca n't check at all ( and a world where I can check with less effort is better than one where I can check only with more effort ) ; and I suspect that this will be a boon for any scholars who do n't have the time , money , or access to go to the British Library , put on the white cotton document gloves , and see the thing in person .
It just seems like one of those situations where the fact that " information " is far easier than " knowledge " ( much less " understanding " ) becomes an issue .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, hosting images on the net is substantially easier than disseminating knowledge of Koine Greek, so that will be a largely theoretical benefit.
Don't get me wrong, a world where I could, with enough effort, check is better than a world where I can't check at all(and a world where I can check with less effort is better than one where I can check only with more effort); and I suspect that this will be a boon for any scholars who don't have the time, money, or access to go to the British Library, put on the white cotton document gloves, and see the thing in person.
It just seems like one of those situations where the fact that "information" is far easier than "knowledge"(much less "understanding") becomes an issue.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611727</id>
	<title>Re:The validity of this manuscript ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246995300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The oldest complete Old Testment dates to the medieval period. The oldest complete manuscripts of a single book are part of the Dead Sea Scrolls which date to the second or third century AD. There are pieces of OT books in artifacts that are from the BC period, but not much.</p><p>We, honestly, know a lot more about the NT than we do the OT because of the larger manuscript collection.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The oldest complete Old Testment dates to the medieval period .
The oldest complete manuscripts of a single book are part of the Dead Sea Scrolls which date to the second or third century AD .
There are pieces of OT books in artifacts that are from the BC period , but not much.We , honestly , know a lot more about the NT than we do the OT because of the larger manuscript collection .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The oldest complete Old Testment dates to the medieval period.
The oldest complete manuscripts of a single book are part of the Dead Sea Scrolls which date to the second or third century AD.
There are pieces of OT books in artifacts that are from the BC period, but not much.We, honestly, know a lot more about the NT than we do the OT because of the larger manuscript collection.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611383</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28614193</id>
	<title>Re:Bible 0.1.1-beta</title>
	<author>metriccq</author>
	<datestamp>1246961820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Were various councils such as the council of Chalcedon and the Council of Nicea not responsible for the fact that we do not have the gospel according to Thomas and the other gnostic and apocryphal documents in the bible? These councils chose from the selection the gospels that make up the new testament based on their knowledge of what Jesus was like, how accurate or subjective that was, I do not know.


Sure we still have these gospels to refer to, but the councils rejecting them was as good as burning them for the majority of the followers to come.


Unfortunately I'm no expert, just trying to piece together the information to understand the world around me.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Were various councils such as the council of Chalcedon and the Council of Nicea not responsible for the fact that we do not have the gospel according to Thomas and the other gnostic and apocryphal documents in the bible ?
These councils chose from the selection the gospels that make up the new testament based on their knowledge of what Jesus was like , how accurate or subjective that was , I do not know .
Sure we still have these gospels to refer to , but the councils rejecting them was as good as burning them for the majority of the followers to come .
Unfortunately I 'm no expert , just trying to piece together the information to understand the world around me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Were various councils such as the council of Chalcedon and the Council of Nicea not responsible for the fact that we do not have the gospel according to Thomas and the other gnostic and apocryphal documents in the bible?
These councils chose from the selection the gospels that make up the new testament based on their knowledge of what Jesus was like, how accurate or subjective that was, I do not know.
Sure we still have these gospels to refer to, but the councils rejecting them was as good as burning them for the majority of the followers to come.
Unfortunately I'm no expert, just trying to piece together the information to understand the world around me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611323</id>
	<title>Re:Potential for translations</title>
	<author>jwthompson2</author>
	<datestamp>1246993860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The text of Sinaiticus has been reviewed by scholars already and is part of the critical apparatus used to construct the UBS and NA modern Greek texts of the New Testament. Never mind that we also have manuscripts of individual books that predate even Sinaiticus by 200 years. This is an interesting development in terms of making the text more broadly available, but the impact of Sinaiticus on the actual translations we use today has already happened.</p><p>From the standpoint of textual criticism and biblical translation this is a non-story. From the standpoint of broad accessibility this is a great development. Remember that serious scholars have been able to get facsimiles for this text for years...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The text of Sinaiticus has been reviewed by scholars already and is part of the critical apparatus used to construct the UBS and NA modern Greek texts of the New Testament .
Never mind that we also have manuscripts of individual books that predate even Sinaiticus by 200 years .
This is an interesting development in terms of making the text more broadly available , but the impact of Sinaiticus on the actual translations we use today has already happened.From the standpoint of textual criticism and biblical translation this is a non-story .
From the standpoint of broad accessibility this is a great development .
Remember that serious scholars have been able to get facsimiles for this text for years.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The text of Sinaiticus has been reviewed by scholars already and is part of the critical apparatus used to construct the UBS and NA modern Greek texts of the New Testament.
Never mind that we also have manuscripts of individual books that predate even Sinaiticus by 200 years.
This is an interesting development in terms of making the text more broadly available, but the impact of Sinaiticus on the actual translations we use today has already happened.From the standpoint of textual criticism and biblical translation this is a non-story.
From the standpoint of broad accessibility this is a great development.
Remember that serious scholars have been able to get facsimiles for this text for years...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28618549</id>
	<title>Re:Bible 0.1.1-beta</title>
	<author>Tubal-Cain</author>
	<datestamp>1246995660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Um... What about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha" title="wikipedia.org">Apocrypha</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p>No seriously. What about it? It is there and it is real. This isn't a conspiracy theory. Why isn't that in the Bible?</p></div><p>I'll direct you to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org] for this one, but basically they have shortcomings. Things like questionable authorship and usefulness (i.e. there isn't a New Testament equivalent of Psalms), etc.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Why are the dead sea scrolls different from what we have today?</p></div><p>[citation needed]</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And why does the Orthodox and Western Bibles differ slightly since the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West\_Schism" title="wikipedia.org">schism</a> [wikipedia.org]?</p></div><p>Differing opinion of what is and is not Apocrypha, I presume. Even Catholicism and Protestantism <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maccabees\_(books\_of\_Bible)" title="wikipedia.org">disagree</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Secondly what remains of other religions of the time that we still have records of? Like Druidism which the Romans persecuted as much as the Christians. Of course they weren't destroyed on purpose, it is just that 2,000 has a toll on ancient documents (including fires of libraries) and that most people at the time didn't have a need to keep documents that weren't deemed official by the Church.</p></div><p>Of other religions, I don't know. But here are some numbers from <em>The Case for Christ</em> regarding other important historical works.</p><ul>
<li>Manuscripts of Tacticus' <em>Annals of Imperial Rome</em>, books 1-6: 1, from a copy made 734 years after the original.</li><li>Manuscripts of Josephus' <em>The Jewish War</em>: 10 or 11</li>
<li>Manuscripts of Homer's <em>Illiad</em>: 650</li><li>Biblical manuscripts written in Greek: 5,664</li><li>Non-greek biblical manuscripts: 24,000</li></ul><p><div class="quote"><p>Most people couldn't read bad then so they didn't know... The few people who could read and write started copying <b>the official versions when they came out in 400AD and from there the old copies were simply lost because of time problems.</b> </p></div><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester\_Beatty\_Papyri" title="wikipedia.org">Not</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus\_52" title="wikipedia.org">all</a> [wikipedia.org]. In fact, I'll deposit you <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_New\_Testament\_papyri" title="wikipedia.org">here</a> [wikipedia.org]. Sort the list by date. I'd estimate at least 3/5ths of that list is pre-400 AD.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Not to mention that for Europeans owning any non-approved paper work in the 1500 to 1600s were put to the stake so if they had any ancient heretical texts they most likely burned them at that time as well. Every now and then we find something like the dead seas scrolls and we find out differences.</p><p>It isn't a conspiracy, but Europe in general was a great place to store non-official religious texts long term for 2,000 years.</p></div><p>I'll leave this part alone.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Um... What about the Apocrypha [ wikipedia.org ] No seriously .
What about it ?
It is there and it is real .
This is n't a conspiracy theory .
Why is n't that in the Bible ? I 'll direct you to Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] for this one , but basically they have shortcomings .
Things like questionable authorship and usefulness ( i.e .
there is n't a New Testament equivalent of Psalms ) , etc.Why are the dead sea scrolls different from what we have today ?
[ citation needed ] And why does the Orthodox and Western Bibles differ slightly since the schism [ wikipedia.org ] ? Differing opinion of what is and is not Apocrypha , I presume .
Even Catholicism and Protestantism disagree [ wikipedia.org ] .Secondly what remains of other religions of the time that we still have records of ?
Like Druidism which the Romans persecuted as much as the Christians .
Of course they were n't destroyed on purpose , it is just that 2,000 has a toll on ancient documents ( including fires of libraries ) and that most people at the time did n't have a need to keep documents that were n't deemed official by the Church.Of other religions , I do n't know .
But here are some numbers from The Case for Christ regarding other important historical works .
Manuscripts of Tacticus ' Annals of Imperial Rome , books 1-6 : 1 , from a copy made 734 years after the original.Manuscripts of Josephus ' The Jewish War : 10 or 11 Manuscripts of Homer 's Illiad : 650Biblical manuscripts written in Greek : 5,664Non-greek biblical manuscripts : 24,000Most people could n't read bad then so they did n't know... The few people who could read and write started copying the official versions when they came out in 400AD and from there the old copies were simply lost because of time problems .
Not [ wikipedia.org ] all [ wikipedia.org ] .
In fact , I 'll deposit you here [ wikipedia.org ] .
Sort the list by date .
I 'd estimate at least 3/5ths of that list is pre-400 AD.Not to mention that for Europeans owning any non-approved paper work in the 1500 to 1600s were put to the stake so if they had any ancient heretical texts they most likely burned them at that time as well .
Every now and then we find something like the dead seas scrolls and we find out differences.It is n't a conspiracy , but Europe in general was a great place to store non-official religious texts long term for 2,000 years.I 'll leave this part alone .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Um... What about the Apocrypha [wikipedia.org] No seriously.
What about it?
It is there and it is real.
This isn't a conspiracy theory.
Why isn't that in the Bible?I'll direct you to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] for this one, but basically they have shortcomings.
Things like questionable authorship and usefulness (i.e.
there isn't a New Testament equivalent of Psalms), etc.Why are the dead sea scrolls different from what we have today?
[citation needed]And why does the Orthodox and Western Bibles differ slightly since the schism [wikipedia.org]?Differing opinion of what is and is not Apocrypha, I presume.
Even Catholicism and Protestantism disagree [wikipedia.org].Secondly what remains of other religions of the time that we still have records of?
Like Druidism which the Romans persecuted as much as the Christians.
Of course they weren't destroyed on purpose, it is just that 2,000 has a toll on ancient documents (including fires of libraries) and that most people at the time didn't have a need to keep documents that weren't deemed official by the Church.Of other religions, I don't know.
But here are some numbers from The Case for Christ regarding other important historical works.
Manuscripts of Tacticus' Annals of Imperial Rome, books 1-6: 1, from a copy made 734 years after the original.Manuscripts of Josephus' The Jewish War: 10 or 11
Manuscripts of Homer's Illiad: 650Biblical manuscripts written in Greek: 5,664Non-greek biblical manuscripts: 24,000Most people couldn't read bad then so they didn't know... The few people who could read and write started copying the official versions when they came out in 400AD and from there the old copies were simply lost because of time problems.
Not [wikipedia.org] all [wikipedia.org].
In fact, I'll deposit you here [wikipedia.org].
Sort the list by date.
I'd estimate at least 3/5ths of that list is pre-400 AD.Not to mention that for Europeans owning any non-approved paper work in the 1500 to 1600s were put to the stake so if they had any ancient heretical texts they most likely burned them at that time as well.
Every now and then we find something like the dead seas scrolls and we find out differences.It isn't a conspiracy, but Europe in general was a great place to store non-official religious texts long term for 2,000 years.I'll leave this part alone.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613689</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613397</id>
	<title>At least I have an excuse for not RTFA!</title>
	<author>zojas</author>
	<datestamp>1246958820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't read either form of archaic Greek, you insensitive clod!</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't read either form of archaic Greek , you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't read either form of archaic Greek, you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613013</id>
	<title>Re:Potential for translations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246957320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>[...]There's many, many Christian denominations which recognize the Bible as being fallible and contradictory  (One of them got to be pretty big, actually:  They call themselves the Roman Catholic Church). [...] </p></div><p>Um, not so much.  See <a href="http://www.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm#II" title="www.va">http://www.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm#II</a> [www.va] for the Roman Catholic position.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ... ] There 's many , many Christian denominations which recognize the Bible as being fallible and contradictory ( One of them got to be pretty big , actually : They call themselves the Roman Catholic Church ) .
[ ... ] Um , not so much .
See http : //www.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm # II [ www.va ] for the Roman Catholic position .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[...]There's many, many Christian denominations which recognize the Bible as being fallible and contradictory  (One of them got to be pretty big, actually:  They call themselves the Roman Catholic Church).
[...] Um, not so much.
See http://www.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm#II [www.va] for the Roman Catholic position.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612495</id>
	<title>even more amazing</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1246998360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>scholars have discovered that this bible bleeds when it rains</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>scholars have discovered that this bible bleeds when it rains</tokentext>
<sentencetext>scholars have discovered that this bible bleeds when it rains</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612037</id>
	<title>Re:Bible 0.1.1-beta</title>
	<author>Panzor</author>
	<datestamp>1246996560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(Citation needed)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( Citation needed )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(Citation needed)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28619459</id>
	<title>Re:Bible 0.1.1-beta</title>
	<author>mvdwege</author>
	<datestamp>1247051820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Erm. The doctrine of <em>literal</em> Word of God is unique to a bunch of fundamentalist Protestant crazies. Most of whom we Europeans managed to ship off to the colonies.</p><p>
Mart</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Erm .
The doctrine of literal Word of God is unique to a bunch of fundamentalist Protestant crazies .
Most of whom we Europeans managed to ship off to the colonies .
Mart</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Erm.
The doctrine of literal Word of God is unique to a bunch of fundamentalist Protestant crazies.
Most of whom we Europeans managed to ship off to the colonies.
Mart</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612709</id>
	<title>Re:Potential for translations</title>
	<author>0xdeadbeef</author>
	<datestamp>1246999140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>These denominations rely upon theologians a lot smarter than you or I</i></p><p>LOL, no.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These denominations rely upon theologians a lot smarter than you or ILOL , no .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These denominations rely upon theologians a lot smarter than you or ILOL, no.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611571</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611537</id>
	<title>It's all Greek to me</title>
	<author>192939495969798999</author>
	<datestamp>1246994700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From the images they have of the document, it gives "its all Greek to me" a whole new meaning, and it prompts important questions, spiritally meaningful questions, like: What year did we invent the spacebar anyhow?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From the images they have of the document , it gives " its all Greek to me " a whole new meaning , and it prompts important questions , spiritally meaningful questions , like : What year did we invent the spacebar anyhow ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From the images they have of the document, it gives "its all Greek to me" a whole new meaning, and it prompts important questions, spiritally meaningful questions, like: What year did we invent the spacebar anyhow?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611241</id>
	<title>/. is</title>
	<author>Sybert42</author>
	<datestamp>1246993620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>atheist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>atheist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>atheist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611735</id>
	<title>Re:Inferior translated holy works</title>
	<author>HikingStick</author>
	<datestamp>1246995360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'll take the flame bait: <a href="http://www.answerbag.com/a\_view/2564828" title="answerbag.com">http://www.answerbag.com/a\_view/2564828</a> [answerbag.com].<br> <br>Looking at them solely as literary works, there are more extant copies of Christian epistles dating to within as few as 50 years of Christ than there for any ancient historical work.  So, theology aside, there is greater likelihood that other texts are less corrupt than the Koran/Qur'an (the professed earliest texts of which are written in a dialect that did not appear in the historical record until at least 100 years after the texts were supposedly written).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll take the flame bait : http : //www.answerbag.com/a \ _view/2564828 [ answerbag.com ] .
Looking at them solely as literary works , there are more extant copies of Christian epistles dating to within as few as 50 years of Christ than there for any ancient historical work .
So , theology aside , there is greater likelihood that other texts are less corrupt than the Koran/Qur'an ( the professed earliest texts of which are written in a dialect that did not appear in the historical record until at least 100 years after the texts were supposedly written ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll take the flame bait: http://www.answerbag.com/a\_view/2564828 [answerbag.com].
Looking at them solely as literary works, there are more extant copies of Christian epistles dating to within as few as 50 years of Christ than there for any ancient historical work.
So, theology aside, there is greater likelihood that other texts are less corrupt than the Koran/Qur'an (the professed earliest texts of which are written in a dialect that did not appear in the historical record until at least 100 years after the texts were supposedly written).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28615265</id>
	<title>Re:Bible 0.1.1-beta</title>
	<author>greyhueofdoubt</author>
	<datestamp>1246966980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;the method God used to preserve the text was to have it copied quickly and widely before any single organization could control the process</p><p>I guess this is something I didn't know about. Are you saying that an all-powerful, all-knowing god had to scurry about in secret to get his word out? That although he could rain frogs from the sky and heal the blind, His Word was at the mercy of corrupt demagogues?</p><p>When I was growing up around christians, God was always about might and power and omniscience (and using those powers, often, right up until about say 100 A.D.). The older I get, the more I notice arguments rationalizing God's actions by making him sound like the underdog, the poor trampled deity just asking for a chance to make the world (that he created?) a little better, but everyone is too mean and too busy to pay him any attention. Aww. Yet people pray to this god that their football team will make the finals?</p><p>"God" created a universe where everything makes sense, where everything is ruled by the same basic order. Where effect follows a cause, where time moves always forward, where a broken teacup does not reassemble itself. Why is everything written about god in the christian canon so freaking illogical and arbitrary?</p><p>Gosh it looks like I ranted a little bit. Sorry.</p><p>-b</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; the method God used to preserve the text was to have it copied quickly and widely before any single organization could control the processI guess this is something I did n't know about .
Are you saying that an all-powerful , all-knowing god had to scurry about in secret to get his word out ?
That although he could rain frogs from the sky and heal the blind , His Word was at the mercy of corrupt demagogues ? When I was growing up around christians , God was always about might and power and omniscience ( and using those powers , often , right up until about say 100 A.D. ) .
The older I get , the more I notice arguments rationalizing God 's actions by making him sound like the underdog , the poor trampled deity just asking for a chance to make the world ( that he created ?
) a little better , but everyone is too mean and too busy to pay him any attention .
Aww. Yet people pray to this god that their football team will make the finals ?
" God " created a universe where everything makes sense , where everything is ruled by the same basic order .
Where effect follows a cause , where time moves always forward , where a broken teacup does not reassemble itself .
Why is everything written about god in the christian canon so freaking illogical and arbitrary ? Gosh it looks like I ranted a little bit .
Sorry.-b</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;the method God used to preserve the text was to have it copied quickly and widely before any single organization could control the processI guess this is something I didn't know about.
Are you saying that an all-powerful, all-knowing god had to scurry about in secret to get his word out?
That although he could rain frogs from the sky and heal the blind, His Word was at the mercy of corrupt demagogues?When I was growing up around christians, God was always about might and power and omniscience (and using those powers, often, right up until about say 100 A.D.).
The older I get, the more I notice arguments rationalizing God's actions by making him sound like the underdog, the poor trampled deity just asking for a chance to make the world (that he created?
) a little better, but everyone is too mean and too busy to pay him any attention.
Aww. Yet people pray to this god that their football team will make the finals?
"God" created a universe where everything makes sense, where everything is ruled by the same basic order.
Where effect follows a cause, where time moves always forward, where a broken teacup does not reassemble itself.
Why is everything written about god in the christian canon so freaking illogical and arbitrary?Gosh it looks like I ranted a little bit.
Sorry.-b</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612621</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612217</id>
	<title>Re:Potential for translations</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1246997340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You mean "original" as in, better than the bad remakes? Well, I hope it's a more fun little fictional story!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You mean " original " as in , better than the bad remakes ?
Well , I hope it 's a more fun little fictional story !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You mean "original" as in, better than the bad remakes?
Well, I hope it's a more fun little fictional story!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611621</id>
	<title>Re:Inferior translated holy works</title>
	<author>MightyMartian</author>
	<datestamp>1246995000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Qu'ran is over 500 years  younger than much of the New Testament, and well over a thousand years younger than the Old Testament.  That's like bragging that Macbeth is better than the Norse Sagas because we have a much better textual history for Shakespeare's plays than for Nordic mythology.  In other words, it's a moronic, childish argument.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Qu'ran is over 500 years younger than much of the New Testament , and well over a thousand years younger than the Old Testament .
That 's like bragging that Macbeth is better than the Norse Sagas because we have a much better textual history for Shakespeare 's plays than for Nordic mythology .
In other words , it 's a moronic , childish argument .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Qu'ran is over 500 years  younger than much of the New Testament, and well over a thousand years younger than the Old Testament.
That's like bragging that Macbeth is better than the Norse Sagas because we have a much better textual history for Shakespeare's plays than for Nordic mythology.
In other words, it's a moronic, childish argument.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611711</id>
	<title>Excellent news</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246995300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is excellent news.</p><p>I've always wondered what bullshit smells like when it's fresh from the anus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is excellent news.I 've always wondered what bullshit smells like when it 's fresh from the anus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is excellent news.I've always wondered what bullshit smells like when it's fresh from the anus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611757</id>
	<title>Re:Inferior translated holy works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246995420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> the real God who really exists</p></div><p>I'd like, no, love, to see you prove that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the real God who really existsI 'd like , no , love , to see you prove that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> the real God who really existsI'd like, no, love, to see you prove that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611693</id>
	<title>Re:Potential for translations</title>
	<author>camperdave</author>
	<datestamp>1246995240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Variants in the text are already noted in the footnotes of most bible translations.  As another poster mentioned earlier, this is a non-event as far as textual criticism goes.  Scholars have had access to photographic copies and to the genuine article for decades.  What makes this newsworthy is that now non-scholars have some access.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Variants in the text are already noted in the footnotes of most bible translations .
As another poster mentioned earlier , this is a non-event as far as textual criticism goes .
Scholars have had access to photographic copies and to the genuine article for decades .
What makes this newsworthy is that now non-scholars have some access .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Variants in the text are already noted in the footnotes of most bible translations.
As another poster mentioned earlier, this is a non-event as far as textual criticism goes.
Scholars have had access to photographic copies and to the genuine article for decades.
What makes this newsworthy is that now non-scholars have some access.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611329</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28616719</id>
	<title>Re:Potential for translations</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1246977660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wonder if Bablefish has a Koine Greek - English setting?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wonder if Bablefish has a Koine Greek - English setting ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wonder if Bablefish has a Koine Greek - English setting?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611601
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28614481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611383
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28616867
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611757
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612369
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28697987
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611907
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611887
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28617401
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28619459
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613689
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28618549
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611323
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611917
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28614193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28615601
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613503
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611735
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613013
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28614909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28615393
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28615265
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611849
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28616269
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612119
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611779
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612341
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613891
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28617481
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612037
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611571
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612709
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613519
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611435
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612647
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28616719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611847
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611507
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612509
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28616353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28620397
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612621
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28615901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611385
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611655
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611333
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611329
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613039
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28617077
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612223
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28616289
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_07_1715210_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1715210.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613727
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1715210.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611241
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1715210.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613857
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1715210.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611385
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611849
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611655
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1715210.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611507
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612509
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28615393
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28616867
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28616353
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1715210.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611899
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1715210.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611489
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611779
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611735
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28615601
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612223
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28616289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613503
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613891
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611757
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612229
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612119
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612477
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612341
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612199
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1715210.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611887
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28617401
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28697987
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1715210.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611383
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611727
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612327
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1715210.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611443
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1715210.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611129
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1715210.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611399
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611847
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612621
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613887
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28615901
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613801
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28615265
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613689
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28618549
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28617481
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28616269
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28614193
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28620397
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611907
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611803
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612369
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28619459
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1715210.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612603
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1715210.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611247
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1715210.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611127
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611279
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613039
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1715210.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611333
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611685
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28617077
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28616719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611329
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28614909
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611601
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28614481
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612013
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611693
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611571
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612709
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613013
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611917
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611323
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612217
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611435
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612647
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28613519
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28612115
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_07_1715210.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_07_1715210.28611537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
