The Bible is absolute

I agree with Con that science isn't absolute and that science has observable truths, but the Bible also has that level of objectivity. The difference is that science is changing and the Bible is absolute. Interpretation: Con claims that humans interpret prior human interpretations, however i believe Pro underestimates language. There is a distinction between pure logic and science. Pure logic can be true but not necessarily proven whereas science relies on experiments to test hypotheses on the physical realm. When it comes to the Trinity for example, we are not dealing with something physical, but metaphysical. We can know the relationship between the three person Godhead and that they are all one, but anything that is not found in the text is unknown. Do we have to know all there is about God? No. We simply must understand what we are able to understand. This doesn't imply that everything in the Bible cannot be tested. It simply requires wisdom. The fact that i already pointed out several doctrines which are supported by the Bible proves it's absolute. I already refuted Con's claim that i was using the Ad Populum fallacy and proved that the original authors probably did not have the canon. "I've already shown cases where they were accepted as part of the original canon (including empirical evidence) and Pro himself acknowledged that certain denominations did in fact accept those books. Some people accepted it as the original canon, others did not. By Pro appealing to those who "did not accept it as original canon" in order to make the claim that they "never were there in the first place" is most certainly an Ad Populum fallacy. " Con gave evidence for the catholic church and protestant churches many years later accepting the Apocrypha but never gives evidence from around the 1st century that the original authors likely did. As i stated, Josephus himself stated that the 66 books were divinely inspired and make up the Tanakh. 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. "Pro then attempts to state how the scientific method is "just how" Biblical hermeneutics works (a claim which has yet to be proven). While it is evident that a method is necessary to determine which interpretation of the Bible is the most accurate, I would remind Pro that the very fact that we even need to find a method of interpretations shows how the Bible is not absolute. If it was absolute, we would not need to search for these "correct" interpretations. " Absolute is different from being all-knowing. Absolute doctrine simply means that everyone can find it objectively. More Rebuttals: Con claims that denominations shows that the Bible is 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. You essentially did present two possibilities implicitly either 1) It's absolute and all have one single doctrine or 2) It's not absolute and there are many different doctrines. "You've presented no such evidence for the Trinity nor have you for "other interpretations". Please show directly where this evidence is, if you have. You also have disproved nothing, but rather shown alternative origins for these "outdated" beliefs. " You admitted earlier that the Trinity is more accurate than other interpretations based on the method of biblical hermenutics which relies on various readings of the O.T manuscripts and N.T as well. " Pro states something completely illogical. I've shown how the differing limitations placed on the Sabbath goes against the very definition of Absolute that I shared in Round 2. Now Pro is saying that is irrelevant because it is "outdated"? How is the Sabbath "outdated" when it is still practiced today by Millions of Christians and other Abrahamic religions? " Just because it's practiced among many, doesn't mean the Bible says it's applicable to this day. I gave an explanation earlier. Conclusion: The Bible is absolute to those who find it. Just because some deny it, doesn't imply that it's not absolute or objective.