God's Word never changes but the Bible clearly has. Either through additions to the text, omissions, Books accepted in the Cannon, Books rejected, some words mistakenly translated, and the list goes on.
But, we have enough data to deal with any and all apparent conflicts. Of course, like any group, we won't find complete unity when it comes to the Bible and seeing it as flawless. It is inerrant but then one has to carefully define what is meant by that.
But who makes the determination what is the authentic word of God in Scripture and which isn't?
When we look down through history we see that the Deuterocanonicals were generally widely accepted, at least as widely accepted (and often moreso) than the New Testament Antilegomena (Hebrews, James, Jude, the Apocalypse of John, etc); but modern Protestantism completely rejects the Deuterocanonicals but accepts the Antilegomena unquestioningly. And it does both of these things uncritically, with seemingly no bothering to ask the question
why? And the reason why there seems to be little critical thought is because the actual history of the Canon of Scripture, not to mention the large breadth and depth of Christian history, seems to be entirely absent from the religious formation of many modern Protestants (not just Protestants, it's a Catholic and Orthodox problem too).
In modern Protestant circles this seems to largely either feed into or otherwise perpetuate a dogmatic Bible-onlyism that is historically un-Christian and un-biblical. To challenge the a priori assumptions about the Bible is frequently interpreted as challenging the authority and/or integrity of Holy Scripture itself--which isn't the case.
The Bible can be authoritative without being magical. By magical I mean a host of different ideas about the Bible which are both biblically unsustainable and, historically, objectively false. For one, the modern concept of biblical inerrancy--by which I mean the idea that the Bible cannot err in any way, shape, or form; and that seemingly "scientific" statements in the biblical texts must be held as scientific and thus such interpretations must take precedence over the evidence-based rule of modern science as it pertains to understanding the mechanisms of the natural world. So that, for example, Genesis 1 must be read as a literal account of cosmic material origins, and this provides sufficient enough reason to reject the grand wealth of evidence uncovered by the scientific method concerning the antiquity of the earth and the universe, the mechanisms of natural selection as having explanatory power to address the vast diversity of life on the planet, and so on and so forth. By "magical" I mean this idea that the Bible is a pristine and perfect tome of divine revelation that that just seems to exist in situ, as though St. John of Patmos finished the last stroke of the pen and divine decree went forth that the Bible was finished--and Christians from thenceforth went around carrying Bibles around with them (at least until the big ol' mean Catholic Church took everyone's Bible away, as the popular narrative tends to go).
The actual story of the Bible is far more interesting, and does a lot more to show the integrity with which the people of God looked to their faith, and to the word which they heard and received. It probably will destroy modern day myths about the Bible, but that's a
good thing. Because by tearing down our golden calves we can actually approach the Scriptures honestly, and allow the Scriptures to form and inform our faith meaningfully, as we engage the Scriptures within the context of being the Christian Church, sharing in a legacy of faith that stretches back not just to the Apostles, but back to Abraham.
-CryptoLutheran