The Bible: Unreliable vs. Reliable

In Mormonism, the Bible is often seen as a flawed or incomplete document, while the Book of Mormon is held as the key to understanding God’s full revelation. However, in biblical Christianity, the Bible is not only sufficient but entirely trustworthy, preserved through history in ways that ensure its message remains intact. The difference isn’t just in how we view these texts—it’s in understanding who Jesus is, what he has done, and whether we can fully trust his salvation.

In this article, we’ll discuss why the Bible is reliable and why you can trust it as God’s full revelation.

The Bible is one of the most scrutinized and debated books in history. However, its very complexity has given rise to a host of myths and misunderstandings about how it came to be the book we have today. Many well-meaning Christians often respond to these challenges with personal testimonies, such as the Bible’s “ring of truth” or the sense that “the Holy Spirit convinced me in my heart.” While these subjective experiences are valuable and certainly convincing for the individual, they don’t necessarily satisfy the deeper questions about the Bible’s reliability. Others defer to faith, saying, “We don’t need to prove the Bible’s trustworthy; that’s why it’s called faith,” suggesting that we cannot fully know if the Bible is reliable and must accept it by faith. While faith is essential and wonderful, there is a lot more to be said about the Bible’s reliability.

In reality, Christianity is a religion rooted in history, and the Bible is our connection to that history. It describes real people in real historical circumstances doing things that really happened. If they did not, then our faith is futile. As the apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15, “If Christ has not been raised from the dead, then our preaching is useless and so is your faith” (1 Corinthians 15:14). The reliability of the Bible, therefore, matters greatly.

Yet, many common objections persist, most explicitly promoted by the LDS church. Are we really dealing with “copies of copies of copies” where errors have crept in over time? Why do we have so many different translations? How can we be sure we have the right books, not others, like those in the Apocrypha? And why was the Bible closed, with no new books being added today? Questions about the canon, translation, and preservation are at the heart of this debate and deserve to be addressed with clarity and care.

Copies of Copies of Copies

One of the most common objections to the reliability of the Bible is the claim that we do not have the original manuscripts—the actual documents written by the biblical authors. Instead, we only have copies of copies made over centuries, leading many to wonder if these texts could have been corrupted over time. How can we be sure that what we have today is what was originally written?

While it’s true that we don’t have the autographs (the original manuscripts), we do have something equally remarkable: an overwhelming number of ancient copies. Our earliest fragment is known as “Papyrus 52” (P52), a fragment of the Gospel of John, which dates to the early 100s, within a few decades of the original writing. P52 is likely only one or two stages removed from the original! Other critical early manuscripts include “Papyrus 46” (P46), a collection of Paul’s epistles from the late 100s/early 200s, and entire New Testaments with fancy titles like Codex Sinaiticus (Alef), Codex Vaticanus (B), and Codex Alexandrinus (A). Those three date to the 300s and 400s. These documents and many others form a vast library of early biblical texts. 

Scribes’ copies would be used for decades, perhaps centuries! Producing a copy of the Bible was very costly, so much care went into ensuring its quality. Even later manuscripts, some dating from the 600s/700s or beyond, are often thought to have been copied from much earlier sources (200s/300s), preserving the text faithfully.

However, the real strength of the Bible’s manuscript tradition lies in the age of these documents and their sheer number. The Bible stands alone in manuscript evidence compared to other historical documents from antiquity. For example, we have approximately 5,000 New Testament Greek manuscripts alone. While not all of these contain the entire New Testament—some might only have one or two books, only the Gospels, or even mere fragments—the volume is staggering compared to other ancient writings. In perspective, we have fewer than ten good copies of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars and about twenty for the historian Tacitus. No other ancient text comes close to the manuscript evidence we have for the Bible.

You may be used to thinking that having only one version of a text is more trustworthy than having many, as is the case with the Book of Mormon. This is understandable, but think about it this way: in a courtroom, which story is more reliable, the one told by just a single witness or the one told by many witnesses? If five different people tell the same story about what happened, that story is much more trustworthy. With the Bible, it is like we have 5,000 individual witnesses worldwide, all telling the same story, whereas with the Book of Mormon, it is a single witness.

Of course, with so many manuscripts, there are also some differences. These are called “textual variants.” That means that one manuscript might have a slightly different wording for a passage than another. When you first hear that there are “variants” in the biblical text, you might naturally be a little disturbed! Interestingly, having so many different manuscripts—far from confusing—helps scholars determine the original text with greater accuracy. More witnesses mean more opportunities to cross-check variations and ensure the authenticity of the wording. It’s like having multiple angles in a photograph; the more perspectives you have, the more precise the original image becomes.

There are hundreds of thousands of variations among biblical manuscripts, but this number is often misunderstood. The Biblical texts were quite reliably transmitted throughout history.  The vast majority of these differences (95–99%) are minor and pose no serious challenge to the meaning of the text. Most are simple and obvious spelling mistakes like a single letter being swapped or dropped. If you had two versions of a bible verse, 1) “I am the way and the truth and the life” and 2) “I am the way adn the trth and the life,” is there any doubt about what was written?

Other variants occur when a scribe updates or changes a word to reflect the language of their time, much like how we modernize translations today. In the King James Version, Matthew 20:1–16 tells a parable about workers in a vineyard who get paid “for a penny a day.” “Penny” in the 1600s meant something different than it does today. So modern translations often say “denarius,” the currency’s name in Jesus’ day.

Sometimes, a scribe may have accidentally skipped a few words due to a similar phrase appearing later in the text. For example, in Matthew 5, Jesus repeats the phrase “blessed are” many times. When a scribe turns from his copy back to the original, his eyes might jump to a later “blessed are” and thereby miss a verse. All of these examples are apparent mistakes and easy to solve.

Of the tiny percentage of variants—less than 1%—that are more challenging, none affect essential Christian doctrines or theological truths. For example, some manuscripts might read “Lord Jesus Christ,” while others simply say “Jesus Christ.” While this is technically a variant, it doesn’t change the meaning of the passage or cast doubt on core Christian beliefs. There are a few more significant variants, but they are scarce and don’t deal with essential truths.

In summary, while we don’t possess the original manuscripts, the wealth of early copies, the vast number of manuscripts, and the meticulous study of textual variants provide strong assurance that the Bible we read today is a faithful representation of what the biblical authors originally wrote. You can trust that what you are reading is what God wanted you to read!

Why so many different translations? Can we really know?

Another common challenge to the Bible’s reliability involves the issue of translation. Some might say, “Maybe we can know what the original authors wrote, but they wrote in ancient languages—Hebrew and Greek. Can we really understand what they were trying to say when we’re so far removed in time and culture?” Others ask, “Even if translation is possible, why are there so many English translations, and why do they seem so different? How can we know which one is correct?” Still, others might say, “True translation can only happen with God’s intervention! Anything humans might try will always be inadequate.”

These are legitimate concerns, but as we’ll see, translation is not only possible—it’s something we can be confident about. The existence of different translations, rather than being a problem, is actually a great blessing!

Translation Is Possible

First, let’s tackle the idea that translating from Hebrew and Greek to English is impossible or unreliable. Imagine someone who is fluent in two languages—perhaps Spanish and English. If they tell you about something that happened to them in English, they might say it slightly differently when telling the story to their family in Spanish, but the meaning is still the same. They might use more words or rephrase things, but they can easily communicate the same idea in both languages. This is because translation between languages is absolutely possible, even though each language might have its own unique phrases or idioms.

The same is true for translating the Bible. Hebrew, Greek, and English are certainly different, but they’re not so different that we can’t convey the meaning. It just takes care and precision. We also have hundreds of extra-biblical Greek writings spread over thousands of manuscripts from the same time as the New Testament that help us understand how people used the language. This gives scholars a lot of context and helps them accurately translate tricky words or phrases. Even for Hebrew, which was spoken by fewer people over time, there are ways to work through difficult passages. For example, Hebrew poetry, like we see in the Psalms, often repeats the same idea in two different ways. This is called “parallelism.“ So, if we come across a rare word, we can determine its meaning by looking at its paired word. For example, Psalm 68:14 has a difficult Hebrew word, “haruts.” It is translated as “gold” in most English translations. It is only used a handful of times in the Bible, but it is always parallel with the common word for “silver” and generally describes the incredible value of something. So, we can conclude that “haruts” refers to some kind of precious metal, most likely gold, since it is often paired with silver. Even if we cannot narrow down the definition of “haruts,” we can understand the meaning it is trying to convey.

Translation: Part Art, Part Science

When translating the Bible, scholars must choose how best to represent the original languages in modern languages like English. You might think this is an exact process that will always yield the same result, but that isn’t quite the case. There are many decisions the translator has to make when rendering a sentence in English. The two main approaches for these decisions are formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence.

Formal equivalence is sometimes called “word-for-word” translation. This approach tries to stick as closely as possible to the original language’s exact wording and sentence structure. The idea is to preserve the literal meaning of each word, even if the translation sounds stiff or unnatural in English.

Dynamic equivalence, on the other hand, is more of a “thought-for-thought” translation. Instead of focusing on each individual word, this approach tries to capture the overall meaning of a passage and express it in a way that’s easier for modern readers to understand. It might not stick to the exact wording of the original, but it tries to convey the same idea in a more readable way. Under this approach, the translator might take tricky cultural idioms or historical references and convert them into modern equivalents.

Both of these approaches have their pros and cons. For instance, in biblical Hebrew, there’s a phrase that literally translates to, “It is hot for me.” But this is an idiom for “I’m angry.” A formal equivalence (word-for-word) translation might give you the literal words, “it is hot for me,” which would confuse modern readers. However, a dynamic equivalence (thought-for-thought) translation would simply say, “I’m angry,” which communicates the intended meaning more clearly. So, which is more correct? Both are valid, but they prioritize different aspects of translation—accuracy to the words vs. clarity of the meaning.

English translations of the Bible fall at different points on this spectrum between formal and dynamic equivalence. Some, like the King James Version (KJV) or the English Standard Version (ESV), lean toward the formal side, while others, like the New International Version (NIV) or New Living Translation (NLT), lean more toward dynamic equivalence. Each translation has its benefit, depending on the type of reader you are and what you want to focus on when reading Scripture.

Many Translations: A Blessing, Not a Curse

Now, we get to one of the great blessings of having so many different translations: it allows us to compare different versions and better understand the original meaning. We can get a better sense of the text by looking at how different translators approach the same passage, even if we don’t know Greek or Hebrew ourselves.

Let’s take a simple example: Romans 8:28 in three different English translations.

• ESV: “And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.”
• NIV: “And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.”
• KJV: “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.”

These translations are all slightly different in wording, but is it unclear what the original was saying? God works for the good of those who love him! By comparing these translations, you can get a fuller picture of what the original Greek is communicating. So, the existence of multiple translations shouldn’t make us doubt the reliability of the Bible—it should give us even more confidence that we can know what the original authors intended to say.

Having the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and so many quality translations has an added benefit: it enables people to check the work themselves. We aren’t beholden to an individual’s promise that he/she translated the words correctly; we can read the original words ourselves and come to our own conclusions. Even if you don’t have the time to learn Greek or Hebrew, you can still confirm for yourself that what people are telling you God said is, in fact, actually what he said by using the comparison method detailed above. God doesn’t want you to accept things blindly; he wants you to dig into his word and read the truth for yourself!

In summary, while it’s true that the Bible was written in ancient languages, translation is not only possible but reliable. The differences in English versions are due to different approaches to translation, and far from being a problem, these many translations help us better understand the original message. Rather than creating confusion, the variety of translations gives us more tools to study and uncover the meaning of the Bible.

Why these books and not others?

This is perhaps the biggest question people have about the reliability of the Bible, at least in recent decades. There has been an explosion in myths, rumors, and half-truths that lead people to wonder. After all, there were many writings floating around in the early centuries, so how did we end up with the specific 66 books we have in the Bible today? Could there be a missing piece that would require having the gospel ‘restored’ later? The answer lies in something called the “canon.”

What Is the Canon? The term “canon” comes from a Greek word that means “rule” or “standard.” When applied to the Bible, it refers to the specific books considered authoritative and inspired by God. The canon was not invented overnight; it was recognized over time as God’s people saw which books bore the marks of divine inspiration. This idea of “recognition of the canon” rather than “creation of the canon” touches on one of the most common myths about the New Testament.

The Myth: At the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, a group of powerful Christian bishops, led by the Roman Emperor Constantine, arbitrarily chose which books would be in the Bible. According to this story, they selected some books and suppressed others in an attempt to control the message of Christianity. This idea has been popularized by books like The Da Vinci Code, but the problem is—it’s not true at all!

The Council of Nicaea didn’t even discuss the biblical canon. We have the “minutes” of the meeting, so to speak, so we know exactly what they discussed. Their main concern was wrestling with how Scripture talks about Jesus. There were no debates over which books belonged in the Bible. This myth persists because it’s been repeated so often, but it’s just that, a myth, not a historical fact.

The Truth: The 27 books of the New Testament were already widely recognized as Scripture long before the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Early Christians in the 100s and 200s quoted from these books and treated them as authoritative.

For example, Polycarp, a bishop in the early 100s and a disciple of the apostle John, quoted from many New Testament books as Scripture. The Epistle of Barnabas and the writings of Papias (early Christian leaders) also reference New Testament writings as authoritative. Perhaps most famously, Irenaeus, writing in the late 100s AD, clearly refers to a collection of New Testament books that he regarded as Scripture. The only books he did not list were a handful of letters we will discuss below. These early church fathers didn’t “invent” the canon; they simply recognized what had already been accepted by the majority of Christians.

At this point, you might be wondering, “Were all the books of the New Testament universally accepted?” The answer is no, not at first. Some books were accepted without question by all churches—these are called the homologoumena. But a few books (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation) were antilegomena, meaning “spoken against” by some. However, this doesn’t mean they were rejected; it just means that some groups hesitated or debated their inclusion. Over time, these books were recognized as clearly belonging to the canon, even though they weren’t universally accepted at the outset.

One of the significant reasons the early church felt the need to gather together and “formalize” the canon was because false teachers kept popping up, claiming to have “new” Scripture. One early example was a man named Marcion from the 140s AD. He rejected all of the Old Testament. The only books he viewed as canonical were a mutilated version of Luke and ten altered versions of Paul’s letters. He cut and changed the canon so much because it didn’t agree with what he wanted to teach!  With these kinds of false teachers around, there was a need for the early Christians to sit down and formally declare which books they recognized as Scripture.

These kinds of discussions happened in local meetings and more national conventions throughout the first centuries of Christianity. So, how did early Christians recognize which books belonged in the New Testament? They followed four basic standards:

• Apostolic Origin: Was the book written by an apostle or a close associate of an apostle? This ensured a direct link to Jesus’ original followers.
• Antiquity: Was the book old, written before 100 AD? Any book written later was considered too far removed from the time of Jesus and the apostles.
• Orthodoxy: Did the book agree with the teachings already recognized as true? If a book contradicted the core beliefs of Christianity, it was rejected.
• Widespread Acceptance: Was the book universally accepted by the early Christian communities? This meant it had to be recognized across various regions of the church, not just in isolated communities.

These standards helped the early church identify (not “decide”) which books were divinely inspired and should be included in the canon. The homologoumena passed these four tests immediately and without contention. But the antilegomena (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation) had a little discussion before they passed (hence the designation “spoken against”). 

Now, you might ask, “What about all the other writings—like the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary?” These are often called apocryphal books, meaning they were not accepted as part of the canon. Let’s break down why these writings didn’t make the cut using the four basic standards above.

• Apostolic Origin: These books were not written by Jesus’ apostles or their close associates. In fact, many were written under false names, a practice known as pseudepigraphy. For example, the Gospel of Thomas wasn’t actually written by the apostle Thomas but by an unnamed individual who falsely attributed it to him.
• Antiquity: Many of these books were written well after the time of the apostles. Some were penned in the late 100s or even as late as the 400s or beyond. They were far removed from the events of the New Testament and didn’t have the same historical connection to Jesus and His followers.
• Orthodoxy: Many apocryphal writings contain teachings that conflict with what was already recognized as true Christian doctrine. For instance, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas contains strange stories about Jesus as a child, such as his resurrecting a playmate to prove he didn’t kill him. These kinds of stories are clearly fictional and don’t align with the teaching or tone of the canonical Gospels. Moreover, many of these books reflect Gnostic ideas—a heretical belief system vehemently opposed by early Christian writers like Paul in his letters to the Colossians and Timothy. An excellent way to tell if an apocryphal book should be canonical is to read it! You will find lots of fantastical and controversial statements and ideas, but nothing that is true to the New Testament.
• Widespread Acceptance: Apocryphal writings were often known only in small, isolated communities and didn’t have the widespread acceptance that the canonical books had. Many of these writings only survive in a few manuscripts, while the canonical books were copied and spread far and wide across the early Christian world.

Who counts as an “apostle”?

The word “apostle” is used in many different ways today, with different definitions, some broad and some narrow. Let’s take a moment to define it in the context of the canon and see who qualifies, in the strict sense, as an “inspired apostle.”

The true, inspired apostles are exclusively the twelve men who traveled with Jesus during his earthly ministry and then spread the gospel in the early church. They were all eye-witnesses of the risen Lord; each received a special, worldwide call to serve the church, each received special knowledge by the Holy Spirit to teach people, and each was empowered by Christ to perform miracles. These twelve men, or their close companions in the ministry, had the unique ability to write inspired scripture.

That being said, in the centuries and millennia that followed Christ’s death, many people have claimed that they saw the Lord and received special knowledge. God knew this would happen and instructed his church on how to deal with these claims. Let’s look at two of these warnings (there are others): one in the Old Testament and one in the New.

First, Deuteronomy 13:1–3 says,

“If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,  And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, “Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;” Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the LORD your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul.”

God warned the ancient Israelites that people would come claiming to be inspired prophets, but that does not mean it was true just because they claimed that title. Even if those prophets performed miracles, that still was not enough proof that they were from God. What mattered was the content of what the prophet taught. If it agreed with what the Israelites already knew, then that prophet was from the Lord. If not, then he was not. It was that simple! Listen to the prophet’s words and compare them with the confirmed scriptures you already have!

It is a similar but slightly different situation in the New Testament era. Galatians 1:8–9 says,

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than ye have received, let him be accursed.”

Anyone who teaches something different that what is contained in the Bible is not from God. As we will meditate on later at the end of the article, Christ is the final, full, and complete revelation of God! He is the fulfillment of the entire Old Testament, and his teaching is God’s final word to the church until he comes again!  What Christ taught is sufficient; we need nothing else. Everything that Christ and his twelve apostles taught is all that God wanted taught. Therefore, if someone claims to have additional, inspired revelation from God, he/she is, by definition, teaching a gospel other than the one we received, for we have the full gospel in the inspired writings we already have! Therefore, there cannot be any new inspired apostles after the time of Christ, for they necessarily would fail to meet the requirements to be an inspired apostle.

Much of what we have said so far applies primarily to the New Testament, so let’s take a moment and examine the Old. The Old Testament canon was well-established long before the time of Jesus. It was recognized by the Jewish people and divided into three main sections: the Torah (Law), the Prophets, and the Writings (sometimes referred to as the “Psalms” since that was the largest book in this section). This was the Bible that Jesus referred to and approved of during His earthly ministry. In Luke 24:44, Jesus refers to the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, affirming the Jewish canon as the authoritative Word of God.

The Old Testament canon was considered closed after the prophet Malachi, who wrote in the 400s BC. No new books were added after this period, and the Jewish Bible that Jesus used is still the same canon accepted by Jews today.

In summary, the canon of Scripture wasn’t the product of political scheming or a power grab by early Christian leaders. It was recognized over time based on clear standards of apostolic origin, antiquity, orthodoxy, and widespread acceptance. The apocryphal writings, while interesting, simply don’t meet these standards, and the Old Testament was already firmly in place by the time of Jesus. The Bible, as we have it today, is not a random collection of writings but a carefully recognized and preserved testimony to God’s revelation to humanity.

Why no new books?

A final challenge to the Bible’s reliability is the idea that new books could be added to the canon or that we might discover previously unknown writings that should be considered Scripture. This concern is understandable, especially in a world where archaeological discoveries and religious movements are constantly occurring. However, based on the standards the early church used to recognize Scripture and the finality of God’s revelation through Jesus Christ, we can confidently say that no new books will be added to the Bible.

We Have an Accurate Account

First, it’s important to remember that our Bible today provides an accurate account of what Jesus and his apostles taught. The New Testament was written by people who either personally knew Jesus (like the apostles) or were closely connected to his original followers (like Luke and Mark). As we’ve discussed, these writings have been passed down to us through thousands of manuscripts that are incredibly reliable. There is no gap in our understanding of Jesus’ message that would require the addition of new books. We know that Jesus taught truth and sent his disciples the Holy Spirit so that they would teach truth. This is not the case for other authors and later writings.

What If a New Book Were Discovered?

If someone were to write or discover a new book of Scripture today, it would fail the tests of canonicity that the early church used. Let’s consider why:

• Not written by an apostle: The apostles—those who personally knew and were taught by Jesus in the first century AD—are no longer alive. This means no new writings could meet the standard of apostolic origin.
• Not old enough: The canon was closed at the end of the first century, with the last apostle (John) likely writing Revelation around 90–95 AD. Any book written after this period would not meet the requirement of antiquity and would be too far removed from the events of Jesus’ life and the ministry of the apostles.
• Not orthodox: Many false teachings arose in the early centuries, and the church was diligent in rejecting writings that didn’t align with the core message of the gospel. Any new discovery today would face the same scrutiny. False teachers have always existed, and any new text would need to be tested against the truths already affirmed in Scripture. (Deuteronomy 13:1–3; Galatians 1:8–9)
• Not universal: One of the key marks of a canonical book was that it was widely accepted across various Christian communities. If a new manuscript were discovered today in some remote location, it would lack the universal recognition that the canonical books had in the early church. Just because a writing is old doesn’t mean it was considered authoritative by the early Christians.

Christ: The Fulfillment of All Revelation

But most importantly, no new book is needed because Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of all God’s revelation. The Bible is not an unfinished story that requires more chapters. Christ is the center and completion of the story of redemption! All of the Old Testament prophets and events pointed ahead to Christ, and all of the New Testament writings tell of Christ’s own message to the church! What more do we need? Christ is sufficient, and Christ is enough!

In John 14:6, Jesus himself says,

“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

Jesus is not just another prophet or teacher; he is the final and ultimate revelation of God’s truth.

Hebrews 1:1–3 puts it beautifully,

“In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.”

This passage tells us that while God spoke through prophets in the past, he has now given us his ultimate and perfect revelation in his Son, Jesus. There is no need for additional books because Christ has completed the revelation of God to humanity. He came to this world, provided purification for sins, and then sat down in heaven, for his work was complete! Nothing else is needed! Christ has given us everything!

Conclusion

We hope that this article has answered many of your questions! To sum up, we can trust the reliability of the Bible for several key reasons:

1. The copies of the Bible we have today are accurate, and the vast number of ancient manuscripts ensures that we can be confident in what the original authors wrote.
2. The Bible’s translation into multiple languages doesn’t weaken its message. On the contrary, it allows people worldwide to access God’s word in a way they can understand. Different translations enrich our understanding of the original text.
3. The books in the Bible were not chosen arbitrarily, nor were they the result of political decisions at the Council of Nicaea. The canon was recognized over time based on clear criteria of apostolic origin, antiquity, orthodoxy, and widespread acceptance.
4. No new books are needed because Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of all God’s revelation. The Bible tells the complete story of God’s plan for humanity, from creation to the coming of Christ, and no further additions are necessary.

The Bible is not merely an ancient book; it is the living word of God, reliable and trustworthy, pointing us to the ultimate truth found in Jesus Christ. Through its pages, we encounter the God who created us, redeemed us, and sustains us. And that is a truth we can confidently build our lives on!