The Bible is absolute

I. Opponent fails to provide proof and defeats himself.Immediately in the first paragraph my opponent states that the Bible is absolute. He then tries to build a connection between the scientific method and the process that differing denominations go through in their search for "the truth". Unfortunately for my opponent, if the Bible was able to pass through the scientific method then he wouldn't be needing to admit there are disagreements about the absoluteness. You see, it would already be established that it is objectively absolute, just as the scientific method shows objective truths about that which we experience or observe. Furthermore, in the last sentence my opponent states:"Evidence and interpretation shall determine which interpretation was originally held by the authors of the Bible and once it's been discovered, there can no longer be any question as to what the Bible teaches."I've underlined two problems with this statement:1 - Interpretation shall determine interpretation? That part of the sentence makes no logical sense. 2 - Once it's been discovered? Meaning it hasn't been discovered yet?! Pro acknowledges that such things haven't been discovered yet. Therefore, my opponent has no proof to his claim that the Bible is absolute as it has yet to be discovered by his own admission. My opponent has defeated his own argument. My opponent then attempts to rebut my point about there being over 17,000 variations found by simply stating they are misleading and sourcing a book. Unfortunately I do not have access to this book, nor should he expect the audience to have unbridled access to this book. It is Pros burden to justify his position which entails providing proof. Saying that "most are in agreement, not affecting a single doctrine" is a claim that requires Pro needs to show how "most are in agreement", or how these 17,000 variations "don't affect a single doctrine". This is extended to sources 2-5 that Pro shared to rebut the point about John's book being altered to include a story about Jesus. Why he expects me to have access to these books is beyond me, and I do hope the judges take note of this. I've shared sources easily accessible to anyone, yet I cannot access any of his sources so far to verify any of his claims. My opponent attempts to rebut Mark's ending but his rebuttal is completely off. He speaks about a "long ending" without realizing that the point made in the article I shared was about Christ's rise 3 days after crucifixion and how it was added to better match with the other disciple's stories in the 2nd & 3rd century. He failed to touch this point at all. The article spoke of multiple endings as well as some forms of the manuscripts with no endings at all. Mark being in the original canon or not wasn't even part of my argument. Thus Pro is rebutting against nothing instead of actually rebutting my challenges. The fact that he can't rebut these is another failure on his part to maintain his BOP as it shows that the Bible is not absolute but in fact altered from its "original" form. This is a case of weak sourcing and failure to maintain the BOP for Pro. II. The ApocryphaMy opponent is committing the Ad Populum fallacy [1]. He acknowledges that some denominations have or previously had the Apocrypha as part of their canons and still claims that because others do not nor have ever acknowledged it, that therefore it was never included. This is horribly inaccurate and a weak justification at best for making such a claim. [1] http://www.nizkor.org...The links I shared in my previous round literally told of the locations where one could find the books now known as the Apocrypha in both Protestant and Roman Catholic Bibles that were in full use as recently as the 1800's. I'll even include a picture [2],[3] showing the books of the Apocrypha listed right along with the Old Testament and New Testament books from a King James Version of the Bible that was printed in 1611: [2] http://timotheosprologizes.blogspot.com...[3] http://www.israelitesunite.com...The links I've shared not only includes the image, but also an excellent recap of information that I already presented in my previous round. I've now shown empirical evidence of the books known as the apocrypha being included in the original canon which was recognized up until 1885 A.D. My opponent has done nothing but commit logical fallacies, thus this contention remains standing. We cannot say with accuracy that the Bible is absolute when there are times in our recent past where different forms of the Bible existed and were practiced by the church as official doctrine. III. Multiple InterpretationsPro says that, "The question should be "How did the authors of the Scriptures originally interpret the Bible?""This makes no sense. How would the authors of the scriptures interpret something that wasn't compiled yet at the time of them writing the scriptures? It is common knowledge that the scriptures were written at different times [4] and were later compiled together to make the Bible, so it only follows that some of those authors wouldn't even have knowledge of a Bible as it never existed in their time. Asking how they would have interpreted something which wasn't even known at the time is an impossible question to answer, regardless of a historical grammatical method. I hope Pro can see this issue. [4] http://www.gty.org... Furthermore, just because the Trinity is supported by Hebrew and Greek manuscripts doesn't mean it eliminates those alternative interpretations. All it means is that the trinity is to be considered as more accurate than other interpretations because it is supported by the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Having more weight does not eliminate other interpretations, is just makes them less supported. Also, refuting does nothing to defeat the fact that other interpretations are in practice, it just means that those practices are refutable. Christ's existence is refutable, yet it is still a practiced belief. Thus these refutations fail to defeat the fact that there are countless possible interpretations. The very fact that there are interpretations to begin with refutes the nature of absoluteness.IV. Objections to my potential argumentsMy opponent now attempts to provide rebuttals to arguments I've never even made. What he should have done was spend this space providing rebuttals to the points which remain standing unchallenged.1) I agree that studying the surroundings of the authors would lead to more accurate interpretations of their writings. The fact that we've been doing so already, and still cannot come to some objective consensus leads me to believe that the Bible is not absolute. Furthermore, this rebuttal does nothing to affirm your position, but instead expands on a potential method for better identifying the text as it was meant to be interpreted by the author. It is the means to an end, whereas you are required to present the proof of the end, not just a potential method to reach it. 2) The GotQuestion.org quote was, "denominations are based on disagreements over the interpretation of Scripture. An example would be the meaning and purpose of baptism. Is baptism a requirement for salvation or is it symbolic of the salvation process? There are denominations on both sides of this issue and have used the issue to separate and form denominations." I do not know where you got bias from. Not only are you providing a rebuttal to something I never said, but you are also now putting words into my mouth. I would refer judges to my previous round to confirm that I said no such thing regarding bias in relation to the GotQuestions.org point. 3) You stated that the historical grammatical method would help us identify the accurate interpretations, and I am saying that the very fact of their being multiple interpretations shows that the Bible is not absolute. Only once the proposed method actually finishes its job could we even begin to say that the Bible is absolute. Until those other interpretations are null and void, the Bible can't ever be considered absolute. All it is at this time is a possible solution to identifying the absolute form of the Bible, but that solution hasn't yet been reached. 4) If the Bible was in its absolute form there would be no right or wrong interpretations leading to the formation of differing denominations. It would be absolute in and of itself, and would be accepted across the board for its perfect nature by those who subscribe to the doctrine presented as the Bible. 5) Key word, outdated. Just because they are outdated doesn't mean that they were never accepted as truth. The link showed that denominations formed which practiced such things. I am not arguing that they are valid Christian beliefs, but merely showing the fact that the Bible is so easily susceptible to interpretations such as these that it cannot be absolute. You are showing why they are not valid doctrine which is great, we are one step closer to finding the absolute form of the Bible, but again, as evidenced by the very process you've shown - the Bible and it's absolute form has yet to be discovered. 6) In regards to the Sabbath. That point was to show that the Sabbath as a concept is susceptible to limitation. That is not a quality of something which is absolute per the definition that Oxford Dictionary provides. You've done nothing but share the history of the Sabbath instead of rebutting the fact that it is susceptible to limitations. Limitations that humans have placed on it based on their own interpretations of it. In Conclusion, My opponent has failed to provide rebuttals to several arguments, provided misguided rebuttals due to his own misunderstanding of my points, and has utilized sourcing which I cannot verify. I now return the floor to him.