" with this research, I would appreciate it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by   •    

 ::There are basically two ways to translate that verse: ""all scripture is inspired, and is profitable"" or ""every scripture that is inspired is also profitable"".  The first assumes a specific canon for ""scripture"" but doesn't tell you what that assumption is.  The second would account for non-canonical books that are not inspired.  Both, ultimately, beg the question: which books are inspired?  All Paul is saying, if anything, is that if something is inspired, then it's profitable for teaching, etc.  I can offer no theological opinion, of course.  But I can at least offer you this logical observation: ""scripture"" is undefined.  And now for one more historical observation: there are a LOT of books that didn't make it into the Septuagint.  In general, the New Testament quotes from the Hebrew Canon in it's Septuagint translation.  There are no indications of the Aprocryphal books being cited as ""scripture.""  Jesus does cite both the Torah and Psalms as ""scripture"" and even adds for a citation of the Psalms that ""it cannot be broken.""  His reference on the Sermon on the Mount to the Law and Prophets can reasonably be see as most or all of the Hebrew canon, and to this he says that not one stroke can pass away (Matthew 5:17).  Be careful, however, because Peter in one place seems to equate Paul's writings as scripture.  Again, I can offer no conclusions or theology here.  All I can offer are some caveats for your search.  I doubt you'll be able to nail anything down for anyone further than they already wish to go.   

 : What that verse means depends upon your theological bias. BTW, the current Catholic Canon excludes books that were used by Early Christians, and are still part of the Orthodox Christian Canon.   

 == Copyright == 

 The Bible is a non-copyrighted book, should we include this in the article?    

 : The copyright status of the Bible depends upon which version in which language by which translator/editor one is referring to.   

 :There is no way to incorporate that information into the article in a way that makes it sound pertinent. If Wikipedia is to mention the copyright status of the Bible, it should be done by mentioning the status of each individual translation, and only in articles about those individual translations. 

 :But before you start doing that, as yourself, how do I incorporate that information in the article about the KJV or the one about the NIV?, and why would people care? Blanchardb-••-timed  
 :: Don't get all hasty, I was just proposing it. I had no intentions on editing it in the first place. Please read the posts before you start making assumations.    
 :: First of all, see this.    

 ==First Paragraph== 
 The first paragraph of this article has the sentence: 

 The Christian Bible includes the same books as the Tanakh (referred to in this context as the Old Testament), but in a different order, together with specifically Christian books collectively called the New Testament. 

 I propose that we change ""but in a different order"" to ""but usually in a different order.""  There are groups who hold to the same Jewish order and Torah, Nebiim, Kethuvim divisions.  And in fact, there is some disagreement within the Jewish community as to the books of the Kethuvim.  Although the Orthodox generally hold one order, some, such as the Rabbis of Mechon Mamre, hold to a different one.    

 :Done. The first issue of a major French translation had the OT books in the Jewish order. I know of no scholar that finds a theological issue in book order. Blanchardb-[[User:Blanchardb|