The Bible is absolute

I. "None of these things have anything to do with the Bible's absoluteness."My opponent tries to claim that I fail at making certain distinctions. This is false. In reality, the distinctions laid forth by Pro to build a connection between science and Christianity is far from accurate. Pro literally tries to say that pursuits of Biblical truth have the same problems that occur within Science and that because that is the case and we don't condemn science as not absolute - then we can't say the Bible isn't absolute. Pro needs to understand that people constantly say that science isn't absolute [1], so Pro is immediately mistaken in trying to claim that no-one says such things. If anything, science can provide us with observable truths, but no-one has ever claimed with accuracy that science provides absolute truths[2]. [1] http://www.gly.uga.edu...[2] http://undsci.berkeley.edu...II. Opponent fails to provide proof and defeats himself (cont.)"In science, you have to interpret data and observations in order to make a valid conclusion."This is what my opponent replied with when I presented a challenge about his R3 statement, "interpretations shall determine which interpretation..." Pro continues to miss my point. The point I was making is that he is acknowledging that humans are interpreting prior interpretations. None of it is absolute in any way, but rather just humans attempting to interpret what other humans meant. Such guesswork goes against the very nature of the term "absolute". Additionally, interpretations are not bound to the same concrete foundations as observable science. Pro is treating this like something which can pass through the scientific method when the reality is that if such a thing was able to make it through such a process it already would have. The Bible is not science, nor is interpreting past interpretations the same science as testing observable phenomenon to arrive at observational truths. "Even though the Bible is absolute, it does not imply that we as human beings know that - as we are not all knowing."My opponent continues to make claims about the Bible being absolute without any proof or evidence. Complete failure of BOP on his part. Furthermore, the latter half of this statement is literally acknowledging, once again, that humans don't have a means of proving that it is Absolute yet. As Pro said, "we are not all knowing". "Using Con's logic, we would also have to conclude that science is not absolute (objective)"Since isn't absolute. I've already shown this in source links [1] & [2]. Nor does "objective" and "absolute" mean the same thing. Unless my opponent can prove these two terms mean the same thing, or that science is absolute, these counter arguments are defeated.My opponent now shares 3 links in an attempt to balance his previous source links which are inaccessible books. He forgets completely to rebut the fact that these sources he's now sharing were used as part of an Ad Populum fallacy against my Apocrypha Contention. Pro said that because so and so didn't accept the Apocrypha as part of the original canon - that they never were part of the canon. I have shared several sources, including empirical evidence, that certain denominations including the protestants and roman-Catholics did accept it as part of the canon as recently as 1885 A.D. Pro is just attempting to use sources as a means to balance a much greater issue with his arguments- his ad populum defense.Pro drops the point about responding incorrectly to the multiple interpretations of Mark & John by saying that he isn't trying to focus on canon but rather interpretations. The entire point was on the multiple interpretations though, so Pro clearly fails to understand that I wasn't talking about canon but the interpretations this whole time. Either he acknowledges this or drops this argument as well. III. ApocryphaPro fails to understand how he committed the Ad Populum fallacy. Pro shared four cases of groups which didn't support the Apocrypha as part of the original canon. Right after that, Pro literally says, "Thus the Apocrypha was never included in the canon of the 66 books originally considered to be divinely inspired." 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. My point thus still stands that the Bible is not absolute, in this case, based on the fact that we can't even come to a consensus on which books were in the original canon or not. By there being different denominations which accepted different forms of the Bible as truth, it is wholly obvious that the Bible is not absolute. Keep in mind, the term Absolute includes "that which is total" ... so which form of the Bible is the total one? The 66 book canon, or the 80 book one? As long as this question remains with cases supporting both sides, the Bible can never be considered absolute as it is not objectively total but rather only relative dependent on which sect, group, or denomination you belong to. "Thus it cannot be concluded that the original authors saw the Apocrypha as canonical. Neither Protestant or catholic denominations make up what the original authors believed."Pro keeps tossing around what the original authors believed, without ever showing what those beliefs are. This is due to his lack of knowledge on what there beliefs were. Hence why we are re-interpreting the Bible once more according to Pro, in order to found out the "original" interpretations as meant by the "original" authors. The fact that the Apocrypha was adopted as original canon, when others didn't view it as original canon does nothing but reflect the fact that the Bible is not total, and clearly subject to limitation. Both of which goes against the very nature of that which is absolute. Pro also continues to fail to realize that the "original" authors had no idea of what the canons were at the times of them writing these books as they weren't compiled together to make the Bible until after they died. He has yet to rebut this point as well. IV. Multiple Interpretations"Con just admitted that the Bible is absolute as the Trinity is well supported by the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and that's coming from a non-Christian."What I actually said was, and I quote:"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."I literally said, "as more accurate". Not once did I say the Bible is absolute. Please scroll up to the previous round to verify my claim.This is just a case of Pro selecting certain parts of my statement and trying to manipulate the audience into believing I said something I did not. Once the judges see that I am telling the truth, I hope they consider this manipulation by Pro as an act of poor conduct.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. V. Misc. Rebuttals1. The point still stands that because they haven't come to an objective consensus yet = the Bible is not absolute. You've done nothing to show otherwise.2. Okay, so you've shown how bias can exist within Denominations. My point still stands that denominations form due to differentiating interpretations of the Bible. Which again reflects how the Bible is not absolute. 3. You've shown no such conclusion. You've only stated that the method works at reach objective conclusions, but I've yet to see any proof for that claim. I claimed that the method is one that has potential for reaching the conclusion they seek, but that it hasn't reached that conclusion yet since there are still multiple interpretations being practiced. As long as there are mult. interpretations, you cannot say the Bible is absolute. Your method is a means to an end, but not the end all itself. 4. I committed no such fallacy as I never presented two possibilities. I only presented one. One in which the Bible is indeed absolute and is thus not challenged by multiple interpretations. Furthermore, it's not a case of the Method not being enforced - it's a case of the method having yet to complete its work in the first place. As you said, it's a method still being put to work, as in, it hasn't yet finished it's task but is rather in the process. 5. 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. 6. 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? In Conclusion, Pro fails to correct his fallacies, fails to maintane his BOP/needs to provide proof to several claims, and respond to several dropped arguments. I now return the floor to Pro, thank you