Can the Bible be the word of God, when there are multiple versions of it?

Question

I recently found out on quora that the Catholic Bible has 73 books; the Orthodox Bible contains 76 or 77 books; the Protestant 66; and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo (Amharic) has 81 books. With these differences, how can all these Bibles be the word of God; if there is no standard version? How does one convince a non-Christian that the Bible is the infallible word of God, when there is no agreement as to what books make up the Bible?

Answer 1

Let's say I have a stack of manuscripts that claim to be written by Shakespeare. Some of them certainly are genuine works of Shakespeare, but some might be forgeries (or maybe none are!). To your summary Question ("Can the Bible be the word of God, when there are multiple versions of it?"), the existence of forgeries however does not somehow make the genuine works not-genuine. Note, however, that it's more accurate to say that "the Bible" contains the Word of God. Depending on which "Bible" we're asking about (and on your own beliefs), it may or may not contain additional text that is not the Word of God... but such inclusions don't somehow invalidate those portions that are the Word of God.

Mind the corollary, however. "How can all these Bibles be the word of God?" The answer here is that many Christians believe that these "extended" Bibles aren't (entirely) the Word of God, though they would still say that they contain the Word of God to the extent that they overlap with what that sect believes to be the Word of God.

As to how I might go about convincing someone else that they are genuine? Well, first off, that problem doesn't really relate to how I explain the forgeries. "How do we know that e.g. Matthew is the Word of God" is a separate Question. As it pertains to your question about versions, however, I would probably take the lowest common denominator (i.e. the Protestant Canon) and say that that is (almost certainly) the Word of God, and that other things may or may not be additional Word of God. (If I take a book by such-and-such author, and rip out a bunch of pages, what's left is still written by the same author.)

Answer 2

This question questions the canon of scripture. The various canons have differing numbers of small books that, together comprise what is called "the Bible". Those, however, do not make up "multiple versions" of the Bible - for that, one needs to examine the multiple translations that abound today.

The question seeks to know how we can determine what is "the word of God" when different printed copies of the Bible have differing numbers of small books comprising the whole. The history of the development of determining the canon of the Hebrew scriptures, then that of the Greek scriptures is revealing, but still would not answer the question as to determining what is "the word of God". The reason for that is that the various canons came after the Hebrew and Greek writings had been completed.

So, to tackle the problem of differing canons is to put the cart before the horse, so to speak. The inspired scriptures came first, and were known, first to the Jewish people who revered the collection of inspired writings entrusted to their care for centuries, then to the first century Christians who held to those plus the writings penned by Christians in that first century. Examining the decisions of the Jewish Council of Rabbis at Jamnia in 100 A.D. would show how they differentiated between holy scripture and other writings that were revered by them but not said to be the word of God. It was not until A.D. 363 that the Council of Laodicea stated that only the Old Testament, along with what are called 'the Deuterocanonicals'(by others as 'the Apocrypha'), plus 27 books of the New Testament were to be read in churches. That is the same 27 we have today.

There is an interesting explanation of how the biblical canon developed from 360 onward, from the Catholic point of view, at http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap030700.htm One interesting quote is:

"The final infallible definition of canonical books for Roman Catholic Christians came from the Council of Trent in 1556 in the face of the errors of the Reformers who rejected seven Old Testament books from the canon of scripture to that time."

Protestants would beg to differ, of course, and you can read explanations, for example, at these links: http://www.gotquestions.org/apocrypha-deuterocanonical.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/proof-inspiration-Bible.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/God-breathed.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-inspired.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html

The answer to the question is that, Yes, the Bible can be the word of God, despite differing canons as to what small books should comprise it. That is because God's Holy Spirit inspired all the writers to write what he was communicating to humans, so that the autographs of those were 100% the infallible word of God. Thereafter, it should not surprise anybody that the arch-enemy of God would do everything possible to undermine that holy word, including questioning the Bible's legitimate contents, to giving rise to an almost free-for-all production these days of various versions of it. A much more subtle subversion is saying that the Bible we have today "contains the word of God" but is not, in its entirety, the word of God. That should give rise to further questions.

Answer 3

How does one convince a non-Christian that the Bible is the infallible word of God, when there is no agreement as to what BOOKS MAKE UP THE BIBLE?

You're putting the cart before the horse. To someone who doesn't believe in God, the claim that the Bible is the infallible word of God is simply nonsense, and trying to convert them that way is doomed to failure.

There are also non-trivial numbers of Christians who regard the Bible as a human-written set of documents, inspired by God, whatever that means to them, but not dictated by him. I don't have numbers for the proportions.

Answer 4

One piece of evidence for the validity of the Bible is that "the Catholic Church says so". Christianity does not come from the Bible, but rather, the Bible comes from the Church that was founded by Jesus way back in 33 AD. The Church's claim to authenticity is the unbroken chain of apostolic succession -- the first 11 apostles received authority and a mandate from Jesus, they passed it on to other apostles such as Matthias and Paul, who passed it on to others such as Timothy and Titus (all named in the New Testament), and this succession continues to the Catholic bishops of today.

Despite various conspiracy theories (usually about emperor Constantine) there is no historically recorded "break" in Church history where the apostles were replaced with imposters and the scriptures were changed. The continuity of Church history, by which we know that it is the same institution and it carries on the same teachings from the first century to the twenty-first, gives us a reason why we can trust its claims.

The Church was there in the first century when Jesus taught from the Old Testament, and later in that century when the New Testament was written; it was there in the fourth century when the scriptures were translated and selected to make up a Bible; and it still has the same books in its Bible today. So, this kind of argument puts a burden of proof on the skeptic: At what point in time, you may ask him, could the scriptures have been changed, and no one, not even the Church's enemies, made note of it?

In summary, the historical provenance of the Bible, as proven by the historical continuity of the institution that created and promulgated it, is a strong argument for the validity and authority of its contents.

Answer 5

Short Answer Concerning Canonicity
To answer this important question we note that we are dealing with the study of canonicity, not just translations of the Bible.

Next note that the basic number of books in the Hebrew Bible of the Jews is accepted by all (Tanach): Genesis to 2 Chronicles (or Genesis to Malachi, in a different order).

And note that the over-whelming majority of New Testament books are accepted by all the different Christian religions (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodoxes).

With these books, we have the basic Holy Bible of Christianity. They present the Good New of the appearance of the Messiah, and the completion of His redemptive work for mankind. This is the "Word of God" in essence. It is able to bring a man to salvation, to provide spiritual food to the hungry soul, and to bring man into fellowship with the most Holy and Loving God.

The Rest of the Books
Different streams of Christianity have indeed additional books for use in religious ceremony, additional historical information, and personal edification in private devotion.

Whether a Church accepts any one of these additional books, has not been considered a matter of salvation, nor a requirement for entrance into heaven. Although, a particular Branch may be adamant about including them in their Canon.

The Core
We all can rest assured that the undisputed core Books of the Biblical canon are inspired, and a clear lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path in our walk with God.

Answer 6

I'm going to provide an answer that differs from the others and from general though, just to be contrary (and hopefully nudge some brain gears into movement with a frame challenge).

Let me kick off with the following 2 quotes:

In the beginning [before all time] was the Word (Christ), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God Himself. (John 1:1, Amplified Bible)

He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. (Revelation 19:13, Amplified Bible)

My takeaway: the "Word of God" is not a book, or a collection bound into one book. It is Christ. Christ came to earth with Gods message (or gospel: salvation in Christ, as opposed to damnation by the law). That message was written down in multiple ways, in multiple writings - we now have "multiple redundancy" of that message in the Bible (whatever the canon), and the message can be heard even from a fragment of one of the writings, and be believed by the hearer, and thus cause the hearer to be saved.

Where it gets more tricky is of course that the writings give more details (from various perspectives) surrounding the message, as well as various other things useful to the life and conduct of the believer. What is authoritative and what not? This is were the various canons come in. The danger I see here is that people revert back to literal legalism and intellectual learning in lieu of faith, in the process also doing damage to another believer's faith.

Answer 7

The question you raise touches on the beautiful complexity of our faith traditions. God's revelation comes to us not only through Scripture but also through the living tradition of the Church. The variations in biblical canons among different Christian traditions reflect the historical processes through which communities of faith have discerned God's word.

While these differences may seem challenging, they also remind us of the rich diversity within the Christian family and the importance of ecumenical dialogue. Each tradition brings its own insights and understandings to the interpretation of Scripture, enriching our collective understanding of God's message.

The infallibility of Scripture, as we understand it in the Catholic tradition, does not depend on a uniform canon across all Christian denominations. Rather, it lies in the truth of salvation that God communicates through these sacred texts, guided by the Holy Spirit.

To a non-Christian, I would suggest approaching the Bible not as a single, monolithic text, but as a collection of powerful spiritual insights that have shaped human consciousness for millennia. The power of these texts lies not in their literal uniformity, but in their ability to speak to the deepest levels of human experience across diverse cultures and times.

• Berman, S. (2017). Translation shifts and the improvement of Bible translations: the case of Ruth 4:13 in the Setswana versions. Journal for Semitics, 24, 470–483.
• OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS PRICE, I. M. The Ancestry of Our English Bible: An Account of the Bible Versions, Texts and Manu-. (2008).
• Catholic vs. “Christian” Bible: What’s the difference? | Christian Pure