Christians: Is the Bible complete and perfect?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

With the answers so far, it's beginning to look like the brand I was taught was very fringe. Even so, even we understood that not everything everything was to be taken literally. Most things, however, certainly were.

Keep in mind that this forum doesn't attract many religious traditionalists.  Even the believers here tend towards the liberal end of the theological spectrum.  Context matters.  Of the two churches I attend most, at one I'm one of the most liberal people there and at the other I'm one of the most conservative people there.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, otherwise it wouldn't be God's Word.

And there you have the reason I'm not a fundamentalist. Despite the abundant evidence that it was written by fallible men about God they cling to the simplifying assumption that the Protestant Bible is God's Word.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, otherwise it wouldn't be God's Word.

And there you have the reason I'm not a fundamentalist. Despite the abundant evidence that it was written by fallible men about God they cling to the simplifying assumption that the Protestant Bible is God's Word.

What evidence?  It may have been written by men, but it was inspired by God.  I don't really consider myself a "fundamentalist" in the traditional sense, but I do agree with them on that.

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.