No, we differ in our interpretations of revelation but that doesn't change the objective nature of the truth of revelation any more than scientists differing in their opinion of certain temporal matters changes the objective truth of the creation which underlies them. God said his word was truth - the fact some may get it wrong doesn't change this objective fact. The rest of your post has nothing to do with the inherent objectivity of revelation as truth, either general or specific. Thus, truth is not subjective.
Temporal matters can be observed and proved objectively and scientifically: spiritual ones, in general, cannot. Herein lies the difference, and the root of the problem when you try to use phrases like ‘objective truth’: you cannot use your own inner faith, no matter how strongly held, as an empirical argument of ‘Truth’ to those who may not share it. From your own spiritual viewpoint, one particular version of truth may indeed be objective: as part of a wider discussion incorporating others who may not share your beliefs in their entirety, that perspective becomes by definition subjective: i.e. something which cannot be clearly proven to be fact.
Indeed our interpretations of revelation do not and cannot change the objective nature of truth. However, none of us who are religious can demonstrate an answer to Pilate’s eternal question - ‘Truth: what is that?’ - other than by reference to our own faith, experience and opinion. Thus, in any discussion of the nature of truth in an environment where all paticipants do not share an identical faith (which is most environments, including FR), Truth is subjective. The whole of human history unfortunately goes to prove this. Quoting religious doctrines or beliefs, which are in themselves subjective from all but your personal, spiritual perspective (however many it may be shared by, possibly including me), only goes to demonstrate this even more clearly.