The Bible is absolute

Thank you truth_seeker. The resolution is clear: Pro is claiming that "The Bible is Absolute". I am arguing that the Bible is not absolute. Absolute is defined in the Oxford dictionary as: 1. Not qualified or diminished in any way; total. [1]1.2 (Of powers or rights) not subject to any limitation; unconditional. [1]I only share the second definition because my opponent stated that the Bible has powers similar to a super-weapon.[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... These definitions allow for two immediate challenges to be posed:1) Whether the Bible is or has ever been diminished in any way. Most will agree that the Bible we have today is not the original Bible but rather one that has gone through several changes including the inclusion and removal of specific texts, alterations to the actual wording used, and amount of differing versions of the Bible that are in use today. In fact, some scholars at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary have already found over 17,000 pages of variations. [2]2) Whether the Bible is taken unconditionally or not. I will be going into both these points later but first wish to define Bible since it has yet to be defined by Pro. [2] http://www.npr.org...Bible is defined in the Oxford dictionary as: 1. The Christian scriptures, consisting of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments. 1.1 (the Bible) The Jewish scriptures, consisting of the Torah or Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa or Writings. 1.3 A particular edition or translation of the Bible:the New English Bible. [3] [3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...What is interesting about the definition found under 1.3 is that even Oxford scholars acknowledge that there are differing editions or translations of the Bible. ArgumentsI. Apocrypha Books.The apocrypha is a selection of books which were published in the original 1611 King James Bible. These apocryphal books were positioned between the Old and New Testament in Protestant Bibles and interspersed between modern OT & NT books in the Roman Catholic Bibles. The apocrypha were even a part of the KJV for 274 years until being removed in 1885 A.D. [4] These texts have had a long history of being rejected and accepted, the former instance being found in the actions of the Protestants during the reformation and the latter by the Roman Catholic Council of Trent in 1546. [5] These are merely two cases among several others that can be seen throughout history, but this raises an important challenge to Pro...If a collection of books such as the Bible is to be deemed absolute, then first and foremost shouldn't we have no trouble coming to a consensus as to which books are actually part of this "absolute" bible? The fact that it was considered part of the Bible for nearly 2,000 years - only to be removed a little over 150 years ago most certainly raises some questions. A common challenge to the validity of these texts as being a part of the Bible or not is that some of the books cannot be found in their original Hebrew forms. This, however, has been shown to be incorrect as the Dead Sea Scrolls which date back to 70 A.D. contain some of these apocrypha books in their original Hebrew text. [4] So, again, why were these books removed? Was it not man who dictated if these books should be removed or not throughout history? How can such a book as the Bible be considered "absolute" when men are literally taking out whatever books they please? This alone goes against the very definition of Absolute - a definition that Oxford Theological Scholars stand by. [4] http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...[5] http://sacred-texts.com...II. The countless interpretations of the text.Last summer, I spent three months "investigating" the Mormon church. What I found most interesting about their interpretation of the Bible is that along with accepting the OT & NT as God's word, they also have an additional two books - The Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price. [6] If the Modern Bible is absolute, then why do the Mormons believe their version is the correct one? This problem goes for many different denominations in Christianity and even between the Christian Old Testament and the Jewish Torah. All of these denominations claim that the Bible is correct but only if it matches their interpretation of it. Again, this point clearly goes against the very definition of Absolute. Even if we go with the part of the Absolute definition which applies to totality, or if it is total or not. Which version is the total one? The Mormon interpretation? The roman catholic interpretation? The Protestant interpretation? The list can go on. Or perhaps the total version IS the one that is 80 books instead of the recently edited 66 book version (recent being within the last 150 years). Unfortunately, none of these interpretations of the Bible can be deemed Absolute. If one was, then the other denominations would instantly lose power to the one denomination that is practicing the teachings of the absolute bible. What is the point of having a non-absolute Bible? Clearly, the very reason there are so many interpretations and denominations is precisely due to the fact that the Bible is not absolute - but rather, open to differing interpretations. [6] http://en.wikipedia.org...III. The Bible is subject to limitation and is not unconditional. The latter half of this contention has already been explained in the previous argument. We can clearly see that there are numerous denominations of Christianity which all interpret the Bible differently. When posed with the question of 'Why are there so many denominations?' GotQuestions.org, a Christian website dedicated to answering questions for fellow Christians replied with, "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." [7]This gives a response to the question of whether the Bible is unconditional or not - the answer being that the Bible is clearly not unconditional. If it was, there would not be different denominations attempting to set the conditions of what Baptism is or represents. Yet another clear example showing why the Bible cannot be absolute, this time due to it not being unconditional. But is it subject to limitation?Most certainly! I've already shown this when sharing the history of the Bible's changes which include the removal of the apocrypha books. Let's look at one aspect of Christianity which varies in the limitations presented with it, the Sabbath. Is it Saturday or Sunday? My mother, who grew up in a Seventh Day Adventist household, would tell you that it is on Saturday. Whereas my father, who was a southern Baptist would say it is Sunday. This alone reflects that even tenets of the Bible including the Sabbath as the day of rest is subject to differing conditions and interpretations - the complete opposite of something supposedly absolute. Are we supposed to not do any kind of work on the Sabbath? Are we to wait until a specific time to eat? Different denominations have differing limitations they apply to their understanding of the Sabbath. Would such a concept as the Sabbath truly be allowed such differing limitations if it belonged to something which is absolute? I don't believe it would, and think that the reasons I've stated above will also show the audience the same conclusion I've come to in regards to whether the Bible is actually absolute or not. Rebuttals1) This claim is absurd. You share a claim made by one man who wrote a book I can't even access. Doctrine is defined as: a set of ideas or beliefs that are taught or believed to be true. [7] Pro is attempting to claim that the set of ideas or beliefs taught since the inception of the Bible haven't changed, this is completely inaccurate. Just to show how inaccurate Pro is, I will include a list of 10 outdated Christian beliefs from a wonderfully informative site known as listverse.com: http://listverse.com...Some examples given in the link above include Self-Flagellation, Selling Indulgences, and Lilith (Adam's first wife before Eve). [7] http://www.merriam-webster.com...2) Pro shares a method for analysis - there is nothing to rebut against as it is not an actual argument. I will say that there is some fault with the method itself, but this is of no relevance to the resolution we are debating. Pro also states that our interpretations can be resolved through using these principles - but it is in-fact these principles which allow us to create interpretations. My opponent does not see this fact though. 3) Pro begins to share methods for determining which denomination is 'right'. What is made evident by these attempts is that Pro fails to realize that the very fact that we have to do such things shows in itself that the Bible is not absolute, but rather open to interpretation and conditional. It seems that Pro is attempting to show, in general, that these denominations are incorrect in their interpretations and that the Bible in itself is absolute. I have taken it a step further by using the fact that there are so many differing denominations as proof that the Bible, which they all look towards for guidance, is not actually absolute, not unconditional, and not total in its original form. The fact that the Bible itself has gone through edits, alterations, and have had its books either supported or removed shows that it is the work of man (at-least nowadays) and not in fact absolute.