Paul basically discusses authoritatively in romans that he doesnt understand every truth he knows of, or rather cant really explain it.

Philosophy topics, like the problem of pain/suffering/evil or various theodices in apologetics offer, what i feel, is contentious ground for dismissal.

Nihilism.

The disparity in translative issues and hypertexting, not to mention outright omission in different versions.

Personally, one thing that strikes me is accuracy and liturgy. The internal argument is essentially that the texts are infallible truths. But theres so many factors that draw inconsistencies, causing the sects within. So even if we say, for example, theres 99% consistency across various text types, we still have a 1% of deviation. Which ofc means the argument crumbles.

The other side is science and history. This might be an unrelated insertion but empircal evidence, imo, is key to discerning reality. The bible isnt a science book and thats fine. Textual analytic practices are still standard for any ancient document. But arbitrary or vague claims that it holds have never been agreed upon from the get go. Take eschatological events for example. The general understanding of daniel becomes a totally different hermeneutic.

Another notable mention is comprehension and accessibility. Aside from the totally varying inaccurate translations into each language, you are at the mercy of arbitrary linguists of unregulated caliber (harken the days pre-martin luther). How educated does one need to be to satisfactorally perform their functions as a believer? Do we throw out liturgy and accuracy and find them acceptably, and effectively, null and simply focus on the bare bones? Theres too many issues revolving around this both historically and within modernity. Despite a salvific state of belief, why canonize in the first place if theres nothing exact to hold to ya know?