When you say morals only apply because of xyz condition then they automatically become relative.
If interpretation is lacking then the morals become subject to interpretive relativism. Which is what we have today thousands of religions, and billions of interpretations a battle of who's interpretation is the correct one. But that is a false dilemma because there is a third option here: you can just be plain wrong and there is no such thing as an absolute morality thats god given, perfect, universal and inherent.
Afterall you just assumed it without proof.
If people's interpretation of the law is imperfect how do we know the "god's laws" are perfect to begin with? You are back to faith-based presuppositions and circular logic quagmire.
People do not inherently know right from wrong. Otherwise there wouldn't be any crime and no one would need to be taught laws. You were groomed as a child to talk, walk and think in a certain manner you didn't inherit those things. If you visit some remote jungle tribe that has no connection to modern civilization you will be hunted down with bows and spears like a wild pig. With a very high chance of being eaten. This has been documented already.
Your god either doesn't exist or was extremely ineffective at passing on his morals. The morals that you assume come from god have been developed over hundreds of thousands of years by trial and error by numerous civilizations.
I am talking about relative in the sense of the modern usage; society deems x behavior good therefore it's good as long as society says so. You're correct it was relative because of the time and interpretations, but not in the sense I am referencing.
Your example of being hunted down as a wild pig is fallacious because you have to look at the examples of how the tribes themselves view murder among their own tribespeople. The example given is a defense of territory out of fear of the other, assuming these tribes are like the East Sentinel in that they've had no real contact with outsiders.
Also, I am Catholic so I won't necessarily go down the rabbit hole of interpretation specifics unless it's a separate conversation. Here we are just arguing about Christianity as a whole.
We both have presuppositions. I know what your response will be that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. But science itself states that something cannot come from nothing. So with that scientific presupposition in mind, there has to be a higher power/something acting outside of our realm of existence. I just adhere to the one that has the most historical documentation and real life instances of life-changing and behavior improving outcomes. In almost every category of social well-being there is, people who are Christian have some of the most positive outcomes and overall happiness.
As an anecdotal instance, I also have my lived experience and encounter with God personally at a time when I was just like you. I wasn't even really seeking an answer or God necessarily as I was an atheist for 17 years or so, but there He was when I needed Him the most. Just an addition, I understand it's not "evidence."