Yes, otherwise it wouldn't be God's Word.
Let's start off with the disagreements over what to include. Such arguments are very odd for a book established by God, but very understandable for a text compiled by men trying to understand God. Why use only the Masoretic canon when for centuries the Septuagint had been the standard Christian OT in the West? Why include the five books of the NT that were excluded from the Pesh**tta? (2 Peter is one of the books not in the Pesh**tta and it causes a number of other thorny issues because of its angelology, its cosmology and its quoting of the Book of Enoch.) For that matter which version of Daniel? (As I've indicated elsewhere, I don't consider the non-Aramaic portions of Daniel to be original and I'm highly doubtful they should be considered canon.)
Conversely the evidence for the Bible being "God's Word, complete and perfect" basically boils down to tradition, a tradition that for the Protestant Bible is only a quarter as old as Christianity itself.
Poll
