The Bible is absolute

Thanks Blade Before i move on, i stated that the Bible is absolute, though there are disagreements, but they can resolved. Most would agree that science is objective and that if evidence and interpretation support a theory, scientists are thus obligated to accept it. Those who disagree, we disregard as credible sources. Similarly, the Bible works in the same way. Every denomination in a sense agrees to look at the Bible to derive it's truths (regardless of what they are). Evidence and interpretation shall determine which interpretation was originally held by the authors of the Bible and once it's been discovered, there can no longer be any question as to what the Bible teaches. 1. While yes, scholars have found thousands of variations, these are misleading (1). Most consist of minor errors and still most are in agreement, not affecting a single doctrine (I will explain the types of errors made later). In the source con gave, the story of the Adulteress is claimed to not be in the originals, however there is historical evidence proving otherwise. Jerome states it's found in many Greek and Latin manuscripts (2). Augustine said that it was removed as it contradicted the church's teaching concerning forgiveness (3). Nikon also testifies (4). The "Apostolic Constitutions" also gives evidence it was there in it's earliest manuscripts (5). It is the same with Mark's long ending. Just because it's omitted does not mean it was not original. In the N.T manuscripts, the scribes would typically begin writing a new book right after the ending but that's not what we find. We find a large blank space in which the long ending of Mark could fit in (photos are shown in the link). It's then argued that a later scribe found it unnecessary to include it (6). Some scholars argue that there are multiple witnesses cited to indicate that Mark originally belonged to the canon (7). What kinds of errors are there in the Bible? The book "Understanding Scripture: An Overview of the Bible's Origin, Reliability, and Meaning" outlines it: a. spelling and nonsense changes b. minor changes - addition or omission of the Greek definite article c. Changes such as "gospel of God" with "gospel of Christ" which essentially mean the same thing. As i cited early on, these errors have no affected a single doctrine in the Bible. 2. The Apocrypha While it's true that the DSS have the Apocrypha, multiple sources indicate that not even the Jews considered them to be canonical. According to the manual of disciple, only the 66 books (Torah, writings, psalms, prophets, etc.) were considered by the Essenes as divinely inspired (8). The Zadokite document also agrees (9). The Apocrypha and other extra-biblical writings were excluded and not seen as inspired (10). Josephus also cites the 66 books (11). Thus the Apocrypha was never included in the canon of the 66 books originally considered to be divinely inspired. 3. Interpretations The problem is that people focus on discovering "which interpretation is right? The Mormons? The Calvinists? etc." The question should be "How did the authors of the Scriptures originally interpret the Bible?" It can be systematically approached by using the historical grammatical method above. As i had stated, the trinity for example is supported by the Hebrew and Greek, therefore it eliminates many interpretations and refutes many doctrines who say otherwise. The numbers of interpretations are thus not "countless." Objections: I'll answer some objections which might be made in advance 1) Some say that because the authors are dead, the original interpretation cannot be found, however this reasoning is flawed. The purpose of writing is to preserve thoughts and ideas on paper. What those ideas are can be understood better by studying the surrounding culture of the author's day. 2) Con cites GotQuestions.org to say that denominations form because of bias, however bias is found in any field no matter how advanced, even in Science. The focus is not the fact that there is bias, but finding solutions to remove bias using strict methods as it's already agreed to objectively accept evidence presented. Yes, people can be biased but several factors ensure that no false doctrine is being taught: a. Looking at all Scriptures on the topic - If i only point out that baptism in a study is not needed for salvation based on one Scripture, i'm biased and vice versa. b. Being bias does not always equate to being false unless there's evidence disproving a claim which hasn't given all the facts. 3) Con claims that the historical grammatical method allows us to create interpretations, however that is how any method works or otherwise, we would not be able to expand our knowledge. The historical grammatical method serves in eliminating false interpretations and supporting interpretations upon the evidence presented. 4) Firstly, i never said that the methods determine which denomination is true, i specifically spoke about doctrine which is not what a denomination only consists of. On top of that, the Bible is too complex to be restricted to any denomination. Although some consider myself a protestant, i don't agree with many of their beliefs and don't consider the protestant movement to be necessarily "divine" in the same sense as the Bible was thousands of years ago. 5) Con brings up outdated doctrinal ideas and for character purposes, i will only address the ones he mentioned. Lilith - Lilith is a rabbinic legend in Jewish myth derived from Mesopotamian myths (12). It has no biblical origin. Self-Flagellation - Characterized by a need for penance and atonement of sins. This is unbiblical for the reason that a) No where is it commanded in the O.T b) God considers all sinners (Rom. 3:23) and righteous deeds to gain salvation as worthless (Isa. 64:6) c) Jesus is the only mediator between God and man for the forgiveness of sins (Acts 4:12, 1 Tim. 2:5, Gal. 2:21, Gal. 3:21, etc.) This also eliminates the doctrine of indulgences. Con lists the Sabbath as an example to set limits on the absoluteness of the Bible. I'll give a brief summary on it: It's vital to make a distinction between the extreme specifics on the commandment and what the Torah actually says. The rabbis in Jesus day were more concerned with how to observe the Sabbath (what day it's on, what's to be done, when to eat, etc.). There were 39 prohibited things on the Sabbath (13). Jesus was more concerned with the heart of the Sabbath. Theologically, the commandment to keep the Sabbath is to keep God's divine rest (Gen. 2) holy. The ten commandments had yet to appear until Exodus 16 (the Hebrew word for Sabbath observance Shabaton is 1st mentioned). The Pharisees attempted to condemn Jesus for "working" on the Sabbath but no where in the Torah does it forbid doing the works of God on the Sabbath. Spiritually, we enter God's original rest through faith in Jesus (Hebrews 3-4). Col. 2:16-17 explains how the Sabbath observance was a foreshadowing of Jesus. Sources: 1. Wallace, Daniel, "The Majority Text and the Original Text: Are They Identical?," Bibliotheca Sacra, April-June, 1991, 157-8. 2. Migne, Patrologiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina, vol. 23, col. 579. 3. Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xxxxi, p.387. 4. S. S. Patrum J. B. Cotelerius, Antwerp, 1698, vol. i, p.235. 5. Didascalia Apostolorum, trans. by R. Hugh Connolly, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929, p.76. F. X. Funk, Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, Paderborn, 1905, vol. 1, p. 92. 6. http://www.kjvtoday.com... 7. F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, fourth ed. (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), volume 2, pp. 337-344. 8. Harris, R. Laird. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures. Greenville, SC, 1995. 140-141. 9. pg. 141 10. pg. 141 11. Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, book 1, paragraph 8. 12. http://en.wikipedia.org... 13. http://en.wikipedia.org...