A familiar apologetic argument says that governments cannot ground human rights because governments can withdraw them, whereas an unchanging biblical deity can make rights universal and permanent. The argument compresses four questions: what a right is, what justifies it, how it developed, and what enforces it. It also confuses universality, which concerns who possesses a right, with absoluteness, which concerns whether any limitation is justified. Once those distinctions are made, bare authorship proves too little: a command-giver can impose duties, but authority alone does not determine which people hold claims, which agents owe the corresponding duties, or what exceptions preserve equal status. The biblical canon also yields a mixed rather than self-sufficient modern rights doctrine. Creation, covenant, concern for strangers, prophetic criticism, and Christian equality formulas can support human dignity. Yet slavery, coercive worship, unequal family and civic standing, conquest, and narrated destruction require substantive moral and interpretive restrictions. Historically, modern rights arose through interacting biblical, Christian, classical, legal, Enlightenment, revolutionary, abolitionist, feminist, anti-colonial, non-Christian, and postwar sources. These canonical and historical findings establish different conclusions: the first challenges derivation from scripture alone; the second challenges sole genealogy, not the truth of a Christian moral theory. None of the three arguments disproves theism, moral realism, or a developed Christian rights theory. Together they show that exclusive biblical ownership and bare-authority grounding remain undefended.