May I introduce myself?

[richardinparadise]

Dear Friends, In Christ. . .

I am new to this board. You can learn more about me and read my story on my website: www.heavenandhellpage.com

On my website, you may download a free PDF version of my book, "Maybe God Isn't Such a Bad Guy After All," or you may request a paperback version of the book for free or for a donation.

I look forward to interacting with readers and posters on this discussion board. I consider myself to be an "evangelical" universalist and I passionately desire to share the wonderful "good news" of universal reconciliation with all who will listen.

If you have any questions for me, I will be happy to do the research, if necessary, and answer quickly.

Very truly yours, in Christ,

Richard Goyette

[Cardinal]

 :cloud9: Welcome..... :thumbsup:

[onlytruth]

Hi Richard
blessings :icon_king:

[SQ]

Hi good place here, checking your website I think it will be interesting. :thumbsup:

[WhiteWings]

Hi Richard,

Gonna browse your website later. I'm printing your book right now.
Welcome and enjoy your stay  :thumbsup:

[jabcat]

Welcome Richard.  I've enjoyed looking at your site so far.  I told my wife I could have written a lot of it myself (the doubts, struggles, experiences, etc.).  Be blessed.  James.

[eaglesway]

Hi Richard,
  Welcome to the forum. Just finished your page on aionian life and enjoyed it a lot. Peace, John

[WhiteWings]

According to II Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is God-breathed (inspired by God) and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." Here, Timothy was referring only to the Old Testament, as the New Testament canon had not yet been formulated. It is likely that Timothy was referring not only to the 39 books in the present Old Testament canon, but to the
Apocryphal books as well, which were included in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Bible which was most widely in use in Timothy's day. Today, the Apocryphal books are included in the Roman Catholic Bible but are regarded by most Protestants as spurious.

Above an interesting quote from Richard's book.
I would like some views on it....

[eaglesway]

I think, Paul meant "all scripture"- which may or may not have included the apocrypha and a few other scrolls that did not make it into the final cannon- but definitely included certain of Pauls letters, which were already recognized as scripture by Peter

2Pe 3:16  He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

For me,the definition of scripture is "God-breathed", and I believe God breathed on the current cannon. So, whether or not they had been breathed yet when Paul wrote to Timothy, Today, "All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness".

[jabcat]

I think, Paul meant "all scripture"- which may or may not have included the apocrypha and a few other scrolls that did not make it into the final cannon- but definitely included certain of Pauls letters, which were already recognized as scripture by Peter

2Pe 3:16  He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
For me,the definition of scripture is "God-breathed", and I believe God breathed on the current cannon. So, whether or not they had been breathed yet when Paul wrote to Timothy, Today, "All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness".

:thumbsup:   :thumbsup:

[WhiteWings]

Thanks for the answer. LXX is OT only. So that's what my question is about. Is there any proof LXX is of exceptional quality?
"All scripure" are a bit useless words for me. I'm sure the Greeks and Romans of that time had lot of scripture too. But obviously that was not part of  "all scripture"
LXX is translated from Hebrew. So I wonder how widely used the apocryphical books were during translation.

[eaglesway]

Yea, but I don't think the Romans and the Greeks had any of their own that were "God-breathed". Wiki has a pretty good history of the Septuagint.

[WhiteWings]

Yea, but I don't think the Romans and the Greeks had any of their own that were "God-breathed"

I wasn't trying to say that. My point was/is that there are varing opinions what it God-breathed.
Various denominations have various opinions on it.

If for example only Pharisees and Saducians used those books it may tell us something.... :dontknow:

[Cardinal]

I think, Paul meant "all scripture"- which may or may not have included the apocrypha and a few other scrolls that did not make it into the final cannon- but definitely included certain of Pauls letters, which were already recognized as scripture by Peter

2Pe 3:16  He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

For me,the definition of scripture is "God-breathed", and I believe God breathed on the current cannon. So, whether or not they had been breathed yet when Paul wrote to Timothy, Today, "All scripture is God breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness".

:cloud9:  :thumbsup:  Every revelation I have EVER gotten, He ALWAYS spoke at least one scripture to me to confirm the revelation He just gave me. There is no question in MY mind, that they are definitely, God breathed, because He is STILL breathing them, and that includes the (hated by some) OT. Blessings.....

[jabcat]

According to II Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture is God-breathed (inspired by God) and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." Here, Timothy was referring only to the Old Testament

Above an interesting quote from Richard's book.
I would like some views on it....

I've enjoyed reading your writing Richard, but I believe this would be something to look at a little further..Blessings, James.

[WhiteWings]

Richard, don't see it as an attack on your book. I'm halfway and that's the only thing that's questionble to me.
I question many things. Almost everything actually... :laughing7: That's my way of learning. I usually look for some proof for claims that are made. Maybe you have many pages of proof to support your claim. I just didn't find it in the first half of your book.

BTW: I like Hugh Ross too. I have almost all of his books


:Peace2:

[richardinparadise]

Whitewings, discussions regarding the inspiration of Scripture are not permitted on this board. Sorry.

[WhiteWings]

It is interesting that of all that I wrote in my book, my comments on 2 Tim. 3:16 should receive the greatest notice.

That's not true. As I wrote I'm halfway the book and only found one thing I have a question about. Questions are discussed. Agreements less often.
If you would have posted your book on an ET website hell would break loose. So I think you should not see my question as picking out single thing but more as 99% agreed and 1% discussed.

My views on the inspiration of the Scriptures do not rest on 2 Ti. 3:16 alone.
<...snipped...>

I agree with that Richard. But my question was not about inspired, authority or what the church should or shoudn't have done.
I'll try to clarify my question.
I agree 100% with 2Tim 3:16
But what is scripture? That's debated over the ages. As you correctly pointed out some denominations use books others reject.

It is likely that Timothy was referring not only to the 39 books in the present Old Testament canon, but to the Apocryphal books as well, which were included in the Septuagint,

Why is it likely? I'm not saying you are wrong. I honestly don't know.
During Jesus time there where sects Jesus strongly rebuked. Pharisees, Saducians) They also had scripture. Partly false scripture.
So that time was not free of false scripture.
I have a KJV with and without Apocryphal books. I also have Benton LXX with and without those books.
I like the LXX that's not the point. I just wonder if some people did and some did not use the Apocryphal books found in LXX.
If it's just your feeling I accept that. No problem.
But if you for example have website that digs in deeper into this matter I would like to read it.
:Peace:

[richardinparadise]

Message deleted by Richard