The law has been changed, and the Constitution has been changed. That's a living document, schmitty. If it wasn't, Amendments couldn't be added or changed. You know this. For example, black people are no longer 3/5 of a person, yet that used to be in the Constitution. But it isn't anymore. That's not interpretation; that was a change in the Constitution.
The bible isn't a living document but the Constitution is.
That's not what the term "living document" as applied to the Constitution means; of course it can be amended, in fact, that's what we all say should happen.
Living document means that the law changes based on the new interpretations that justices make up, simply because the times and circumstances change. It's "living" because it evolves without actual textual change.
Which basically is the same as saying it means nothing at all and whoever is on the Supreme Court at the time can make up the law as they see fit, which is bullshit.
If we want to amend the constitution, that's fine. That's better than fine, it's optimal as to how law should be changed. Living Constitutionalists believe that the meaning changes over time, Originalists believe it should be interpreted per the intent of the people who wrote it, at the time they wrote it. The latter approach is used throughout just about every statutory interpretation in every level of American law; only intellectually dishonest liberals apply different logic to the Constitution when it fits their agenda.