The Bible is absolute

I. Pro agrees with me, and disagrees with himself.In R4, Pro attempted to say that science was absolute and that no-one says otherwise. I then shared proof of how science is not considered absolute. Now, Pro is agreeing with my position that science isn't absolute but rather provides observational truths, as I previously pointed out while correcting him in R4. He's done nothing more than correct his position to agree with mine. Pro continues to claim the Bible is absolute immediately afterwards in an attempt to save face from fully agreeing me with in regards to the science claim. Once again, Pro has made this claim without any proof to back it up. I've yet to see proof of the Bible being absolute. The only thing Pro has accomplished throughout this debate in regards to proof is showing a method that can potentially reveal the Bible as absolute. The problem is that the method is still in the process of doing so, it has not completed the task yet. Essentially, Pro has shown no proof to back up his claim - but rather just a method to potentially achieve that proof someday. II. Multiple Interpretations.My opponent attempts to create a distinction between science and pure logic to show that while science relies on proof, logic doesn't require it. This is false. Logic and science are not one in the same, this is obvious - but both require proof. In pure logic, the premise and conclusion need to be both valid and sound. In order to prove the validity of something - proof is required. Otherwise, I could simply say whatever claims I'd like, without proof, and it'd be considered valid. For example, if I said:P1: The sky is blueP2: We live under the skyC: We live under a blue sky. If I said such a thing, I'd need to prove that the sky is blue and that we live under the sky in order for the conclusion to be considered both valid and sound. As you can see, pure logic requires proof. In addition, this example can also be seen as a scientific inquiry which might provide grounds for an observational truth. The example works both ways, and in both regards requires proof.Pro attempted to sneak this incorrect claim in to strengthen his, still unproven, position that the Bible is absolute while trying to show that it doesn't require proof. Fail. I feel like what Pro was really trying to say was that even though the Bible can't be fully shown to be absolute through testing, it is still absolute. This goes against everything we strive for as a human collective in our pursuit for objective knowledge. If the Bible cannot withstand simple tests to prove its absoluteness, how can we ever say with surety that it is absolute? We can't. Will we be able to someday? Perhaps, but that day isn't today, at-least not to a degree where everyone would agree that the Bible is absolute. As long as someone disagrees, we cannot accurately say the Bible is absolute, as that wouldn't be the case for everyone. "The fact that I already pointed out several doctrines which are supported by the Bible proves it's absolute."Pointing out several doctrines which are supported by the Bible proves nothing. We are not debating on certain doctrines, we are debating about the Bible as a whole. Pointing out several doctrines is nothing more than another step to achieving the ultimate goal of showing that the Bible is absolute, but it does not prove it in and of itself, it merely shows that we are making progress to proving that claim using the method shared by Pro. I would remind the audience and judges that if there is even one doctrine which is not shown to be absolute, then the Bible itself cannot be absolute. All of the parts must be intact for something to be total. In the case of the Bible, not all the parts are there - some are practiced by certain denominations while others are not. We cannot thus accurately say the Bible is absolute when we still have conflicting, unsupported, or favored doctrines and practices. III. ApocryphaPro claims he's shown why he didn't commit an Ad Populum fallacy. He's done no such thing. I've shown how he literally acknowledged that some people accepted the books as official doctrine and others did not. He then attempts to appeal to those who have not accepted it and then made the claim that "they were never included in the text" to which I replied with empirical evidence showing those books literally included in the same text as the books of the OT and NT. To save face, Pro now tries to claim that my argument doesn't hold because I haven't shown people of the 1st century who accepted it as doctrine. What Pro fails to realize is that the Bible wasn't even around in the 1st century. Seriously, the Bible was compiled sometime in the 3rd and 4th century. It was the 1st Council of Nicea in 325 AD that put together the Biblical doctrine some still practice today. So, Pro's claim fails as it is not intellectually accurate with popular history. There is no way anyone could have accepted it as official doctrine in the 1st century as there was no official doctrine in the 1st century. Pro has committed the error of misconstruing history in an attempt to validate a claim which isn't accurate. Anyone can look to see for themselves that there was no Official Bible in the 1st century. IV. Additional Rebuttals"Con claims that the Trinity is more accurate than other interpretations, but this is the equivalent of saying that it's absolute. Once we observe that there is linguistic reason to hold the logical proposition that God is triune in nature essentially establishes this as absolute doctrine."How on earth is stating that something is more accurate than another equivalent to saying that it is absolute?! That is absurd and an unwise stretching of terms in attempt to make a point. More accurate than another does not equal absolute, it literally just means that it has the potential for more validity than the other choice presented. One still needs to prove that it is the most accurate interpretation, not just more accurate than another. There could still be potentially more accurate views out there. Pro needed to prove that it was the most accurate interpretation of everything else out there. He did not do so, and therefore has no grounds to claim that it is absolute. "Absolute is different from being all-knowing. Absolute doctrine simply means that everyone can find it objectively."Okay, but can everyone find it objectively? NO. Which is yet another reason why the Bible is not absolute. Obviously people cannot find the doctrine objectively when there are thousands of denominations and each has their own ways of interpreting the text. This is literally the opposite of "finding it objectively" because each of these denominations are interpreting the texts subjectively, and usually apply the lessons relative to their own lives. None of it is objective by any means. "Con claims that denominations shows that the Bible is not absolute or objective, however this does not logically follow. If i tell you a falsehood in science (pseudoscience for example) does that then imply that science is not objective? Of course not."It absolutely follows when considering the fact that denominations rise out of disagreements while interpreting the text. I've already proven this by showing the differences in interpreting the Sabbath, differences in understanding how Baptism works, etc.Furthermore, if you shown me a falsehood in science, then I would not accept it as an observational truth. There is nothing objective about it. I believe Pro has misunderstood the difference between objective truth and observational truth. This is because I've never said science can provide objective truths, but rather observational truths. So, Pro is essentially making a point which holds no grounds intellectually and no basis due to me never making the claim he is now attempting to counter. In conclusion,I would like to thank Pro for starting this thought-provoking debate. There are a few issues though in regards to Pro. First, he dropped a few arguments and failed to provide rebuttals to those dropped, this is evident in round 3 and onwards within the Multiple Interpretations Contention I raised. Secondly, Pro has committed several fallacies throughout this debate including Ad Populum to justify a claim which has been soundly defeated. Thirdly, Pro has not once proven that the Bible is absolute, but rather has simply shown a method in which is might be proven someday. Pro has accomplished nothing except share a method which has potential to prove that the Bible is absolute. He acknowledges himself that this method is still in the process of finding the "original interpretations", and therefore unknowingly acknowledges that even he has no proof yet to show that the Bible is absolute. Pro has relied on tactics which include claiming I've said things I never did (which any judge can see for themselves in R3/R4), falsely interpreting history to claim that the authors knew about original doctrine when they themselves weren't alive when the "original doctrine" was compiled in the 3rd and 4th century, and create false correlations between the scientific method and the pursuit for Biblical absoluteness. On top of all that, I still have no access to a majority of his sources. In all, I believe that Pro has failed to maintain his BOP, failed to overcome several challenges I presented, and thus soundly loses this debate since it was his obligation to show beyond any doubt that the Bible is absolute. I am confident that he has failed to do so, and stand by my position that the Bible is not absolute. Maybe someday we'll be able to make that claim when the proof comes along, but that day isn't today.