> Anyway, I just felt that I should tell you a little more on who I am
> (you told who you are):
> I belong to a Baptist church here in Denmark - though not of the
> 'traditional' type - we beleive that God is alive and works in and
> through people... We regularly pray for people, prophecy, speak in
> tongues and all that :-)

I'll say thats not traditional! :)  I grew up in a Southern Baptist
church.  My memories are that they are very strong in their faith,
and very fundamental in the gospel, and calling sin: sin.  But I remember
there was sort of an outlook that Jesus has left, and we are here, and
the best thing to do is wait for Him. :)  But, I dont rank them as
apostate at all.  I dont know about over their, but over here we have
some denominations which have really gone apostate.  They resemble social
clubs and seem to be more focused on psychology than the Bible.  The
Presbytirains (sic) have been considering ordaining Lesbians, and
the Methodists seem to be going into a liberal interpretation.
We have a guy on tv here named Robert Schueller.  He is very famous
as a minister.  I cant say he is a bad guy, but, its just that whenver
I see him on tv, he is always talking about 'positive thinking', and
how you define your own reality.  He has famous guests come and speak
about how they 'suceeded'.  I never hear the Gospel.

> Concerning the view on the bible, I would probably identify myself with
> people like e.g. F.F. Bruce, Gordon Fee (who is a Pentecostal, as far as
> I know) and others like them.

I have heard ff. Bruce is Plymouth Brethren.(?)  Larry is Plymouth B,
and Darby was the founder of the Plymouth Brethren.  Maybe you will
like his Bible...(?).  There is a German one available from the
Netherlands too.

>[Have you read Fee's/Stuart's book: "How to
> Read the Bible for all its Worth"? I've benefited much from it.] At
> least I tend to agree with them when I read their books :-) Basicly, I
> beleive that the Bible is Gods word, and that it is reliable (and
> whatever number of other adjectives one would add here).

I havent read that, but I will look for it.  I enjoy reading things
like that.  As for the Bible, I am definitly 'Sola Scritura', Scripture
Only as the rule of truth.  I believe it is inerrant and infallible,
but dont pin me down on which translation. :)  I do not take as dim
of a view of the Bible as the German critics, but acknowledge there
are some areas which are uncertain.

> I don't beleive the TR is 'it' - but N26 probably isn't either. I think
> that we have to make decisions on what the most likely original
> rendering is (that's one of the reasons for me to learn greek), in the
> light of internal/external evidence and guided by God's light. However, I
> do not at all identify with most of the german theological scholars. In
> fact, we're trying in a sense to 'revive' some of the traditional
> churches that has too long been under the influence of this liberal
> stuff.

I just finished reading 'Historical Criticism of the Bible' by
Eta Linnemann.  She was a part of the German school of textual
critical methodology, and apparently got Born Again.  She left,
and wrote this book detailing the problems of criticism.  She is
very negative towards the school of critics.  It sounds as though
they are more concerned with writing papers and being recognized by
their peers, than knowing God.  The Bible to them is just a bunch
of old writtings, and not 'God Breathed'.  it is published by Baker,
and isbn #0-8010-5662-4

> > The NRSV is the New rsv.  It was done by the world council of
> > churches.  Most fundamentalist Christians are against it,
> > while liberals like it....
> I didn't knew all that. I'll stay away from that one - be assured!

Ive got one here, and have read some of it.  Overall it is not so bad,
but in 1 or 2 TI, where it says in the last days men will be (list of
attributes), the AV says unnatural affection and the NRSV says
uncaring.  On the surface that doesnt sound bad, but here in the
US we have a fair number of homosexuals who beleive they are
Christians, and they use the NRSV.  Just the fact that is was done
by the world council of Chruchs is enough for me.  The editor attempted
to remove as much of the masculine references to diety as he could to
please the feminists.

Thr rsv was also done by the world council of churchs (I think), but
they were nothing like they are today.  Basically, I tend to view
a translation by the folks who use it.  That may be a faulty method,
but in watching discussions, I tend to see the textual critics use
the rsv, the liberals use the nrsv.  So, I just sort of decided
I wasnt going to be using those.

And then there is the issue of dynamic equivalance vs. literalism.
I used to read the niv all the time and couldnt understand the kjv.
The niv read 'easier'.  After I started working with Larry, he
always denegrated the niv, and he made me *mad*. :)  But, when
I was putting Webster into electronic format, I read things I had
never seen before.  I would stop and compare it to the niv, and
some things were *very* different.  Not, just the questionable
verses like 1Jo5, but througout.  Things just jumped out at me.
I had never seen them, and when I compared the niv, I could see
why -- they changed the whole meaning.  I talked to Larry about it,
and he explained to me what dynamic equivalence is all about.

That was when I made the switch, and now I read AV, or NASB (which
I like very much).  I also use Darby now.  I guess I realized
that with Dyn. Equiv. their are no rules.  Someone just feels good
that this is the way was supposed to be read, so that is the way
it gets translated.  That is what seems to be the case with Heb 11:11.
I read what you sent, but, it seemed to me it was focused on what
the writer was 'trying to say', as opposed to what he wrote.
So, I have gotten to the point that I just want to see what they
wrote, exactly as they wrote it, as literal as possible, when
possible, and I will try to figure it out myself. :)

The niv is very popular over here, and I used to read it as my
only Bible.  But, I dont know, something got awakened in me, and
now I have a yearning to read the literal interpretations.
Darby is literal, and reads like NASB, and Youngs Literal is
so literal it reads a little 'dry'.

> > Darby actually did a new transaltion...
> >                     ... What I like about Darby is that he did not
> > just accept what the so-called scholars said, but investigated and
> > made decsions of his own.
> Seems good. I'll look forward to that translation, when it appears.
> > ...
> > You should send Larry a letter and tell him this...
> >          ...  It is difficult to complain about something that is
> > free, but it does seem like their could be some enhacements like this.
> >                    ...  Maybe you could offer to help with that.
> I will try to contact Larry. As far as I understand, he hasn't got an
> email address, so snail-mail will have to be the medium?

Yes, you have to send regular mail.  He is not on any email.