The Bible is absolute

Con fails to make a few distinctions. There's a difference between Christian scholars and Christian pastors. There's also a difference between scientists and the general public. There are disagreements within the Christian communities simply because of a) bias b) misinformation c) denial of the Truth d) Improper or no application of biblical hermenutics. None of these things have anything to do with the Bible's absoluteness. In science, there also exists that problem (1). However, we do not say because of that science is not absolute do we? Amateur scientists can come to wrong scientific conclusions, but we don't criticize science itself. "Interpretation shall determine interpretation? That part of the sentence makes no logical sense. " In science, you have to interpret data and observations in order to make a valid conclusion. "Once it's been discovered? Meaning it hasn't been discovered yet?! Pro acknowledges that such things haven't been discovered yet. " Even though the Bible is absolute, it does not imply that we as human beings know that as we are not all knowing. Using Con's logic, we would also have to conclude that science is not absolute (objective) as many discoveries have not been discovered yet, thus defeating his own argument. Con states that he cannot access my sources but that's no reason to discredit them. For example, one of my sources is Josephus "against Apion" which is found here: (http://www.ccel.org...). Thus we cannot use Con's claim to discredit my sources simply because he cannot access them. A errors made by Scribes can be found here: http://theresurgence.com... The explanation for the story of the Adulteress can also be found here: http://www.bible-researcher.com... Con claims that my rebuttal is completely off, but then focuses on the aftermath of Christs' death. He did not specify which points he wanted answered and claims that Mark's ending was not part of his argument. No matter, it has nothing to do with the discussion, we're concerned about interpretation, not about canon. Con makes a false accusation. Lets compare the Ad Populum fallacy taken from Con's source with my original argument 1. "Most people approve of X Therefore X is true" 2. "The Apocrypha and other extra-biblical writings were excluded and not seen as inspired by the Essenes and Josephus" Therefore the Apocrypha was not originally part of the Hebrew canon No where did i mention "most Jews held them to be non-canonical." "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," Con makes a logical error in saying that because they were in the protestant and catholic canon, they were there in the original canon. I will explain: 1. The Essenes and other Jews (those responsible for O.T manuscripts) didn't recognize the Apocrypha as canonical 2. The Council of Trent (many years after Christ) established the Apocrypha as canonical 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 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 " Con took what i said out of context. I was referring to the objective people alive now should have. "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" 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. In Science, you must go with the best explanation backed up by the most qualitative and quantitative evidence even though there are countless possibilities which is just how Biblical hermenutics works. With that, i already fulfilled my burden of proof. Rebuttals: "My opponent now attempts to provide rebuttals to arguments I've never even made" I stated "I'll answer some objections which might be made in advance", thus i did not claim that Con made them. 1. The reason i pointed that out was to help establish a more accurate interpretation, that was not all needed to conclude the Bible is absolute. 2. GotQuestions says this about denominations: "Denominations are used by man out of self-interest. There are denominations today that are in a state of self-destruction as they are being led into apostasy by those who are promoting their personal agendas." That's an example of bias. 3) I've already shown several instances beginning with Round 2 in which we briefly reached an objective conclusion (something which Con never directly addressed). We thus have evidence that the Historical Grammatical method works. 4) " If the Bible was in its absolute form there would be no right or wrong interpretations leading to the formation of differing denominations" Con makes a false conclusion, committing the fallacy of false dilemma in which he only considers two possibilities when more exist (2). As i explained before, different denominations arise from many different factors (incorrect conclusions, misinformed audience, bias, personal agendas, etc.). The fact that there are disagreements does not imply that the Bible is not absolute, simply that the Historical Grammatical method was not enforced. 5) "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. " The fact that i presented evidence for the Trinity, other interpretations, and disproved these outdated beliefs already proves the Bible is absolute by using inductive reasoning. 6) It's irrelevant whether or not humans place limits on it if it is no longer applicable to date. Sources: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com...