god according to the bible would ---not--- use text as a form of communication

The rules were simple enough. Naturally, you the fool among statutory fools, you broke them. Which rule exactly did I break? Everything I said was directly relevant to the discussion at hand.In other words, please do not try to lecture me. K? Especially for something that everybody should obviously know. My opponent claism that God wouldn't use text because it's an unreliable method. When it is stated that God used many other methods of communication my opponent simply scoffs as if he knew that. If that were true, then there should be no issue in understanding why this is relevant to the discussion.Nature Romans 1:20 - For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.This states that the qualities of God are seen in his creation. Nature. It goes on to say that these qualities are so well engraved in nature that no man is without excuse when it comes to God. I don't see how my opponent missed it.Dreams and Revelation & Audible Conversation - Proof isn't the topic right now. We're trying to figure out what means God supposedly uses to contact people. It has been stated both by believers in Christ, Early Followers, and the Bible alike that God talks to people by these means. I don't see how my opponent struggles with this concept.Matt Dillahunty Paragraph 1 - Jesus spoke in parables. There was more than one way to interpret a parable. For those looking for the truth, however, it could be found. (Matthew 13:10-17) God makes it very clear he wants his followers to be devoted to him, not mindlessly following what seems obvious to everyone. (2 Timothy 3:7) God says that he will make this requested 'one translation' available to any who want to pursue it. (John 16:13) In our humanness there may be differences, but there is no confusing the Gospel message, Christ's purpose, and Salvation in the Bible. There is no dispute for anyone actually seeking truth. Those are the only doctrines that matter, so that's all I need address now.Matt Dillahunty Paragraph 2 - The vast majority of Biblical books are not anonymous. We know who wrote most every book. We also know that the Bible we have, as proven before, is what God meant for us. We don't just have copies of copies of copies, we still have the same thing, essentially. If we know for a fact that we have what Jesus meant for us, why is text bad? My opponent has not responded to this question yet.Christopher Hitchens Paragraph 3 - Christopher Hitchens makes a fatal flaw here. He presupposes that everything we have did not come from Jesus, Muhammad, Abraham, or Moses to state that nothing would be different. How could he say 'what would change if these people didn't exist?' By what logic does he conclude that what we see right now isn't a derivitive of them? But what if they actually did exist? How can he claim that he knows exactly the effect these figures carried over thousands of years? Is Chris claiming to be omniscient?Personal Experience - These can't be proved, but they can be felt by most everyone. My opponent is really helping my case here though. If Nature, Dreams, Revelation, a Personal Conversation with God, and now Personal Experience is not good enough evidence for God, what method does he suggest God use? It seems he has ruled out most every method of communication available.I didn’t mention the deadbeat christ which has 0 to do with this argument. So everything you mention as christ shall be ignored.What better evidence would there be for God than him coming to Earth himself? Again, you cannot simply act as if God only communicated by text; he enacted almost every method of communication imaginable. Despite this, my opponent is not satisfied.Oh yes they do because without the bible you as christians have nothing. It is text spread out in over 100 different English translations alone. Christianity starts from Christ then goes to the Bible, not the other way around. For claiming to debate theists for years and years, I'm surprised to see an 'expert' such as you make such a trivial mistake. We're Christians, not biblians.So the version you are reading in in no way correct to trace it back to the original, with in no possible way for you to interpret correctly.I can only speak for myself, but I can't say that any major doctrine of the Bible has been threatened by translations. Salvation is always there. Sanctification is always there. Pneumatology is always there. The History is always there. The vast majority of the translations change nothing but the wording style. Nothing essential is ever lost. If it is, it is in the minority.The translation error my opponent suggests betrays context. These verses, taken in context, are still the same. Job 36:32-33:KJV: With clouds he covereth the light; and commandeth it not to shine by the cloud that cometh betwixt. The noise thereof sheweth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapour. NIV: He fills his hands with lightning and commands it to strike its mark. His thunder announces the coming storm; even the cattle make known its approach.When you take the previous verse in context, these verses no longer appear to be speaking of anything different.No we don’t know christ existed.I will not be watching three hours of youtube videos for the purpose of this debate. This would be unfair considering the word limit we are supposed to abide by. I used much of my previous debate presenting very specific facts and evidences as to how we know about Jesus. My opponet has refuted with a blanket statement "No we don't!"Conclusion:My opponent seems to have missed the entire point of the debate, so allow me to make it simpler so he may understand.We, as Christians worship Christ first.Christ said the Bible was from God.Therefore, the Bibe is God's Word.We also know our Bible was Jesus' Bible.If all of this is true, then we know that the Bible is indeed the word of God based upon the testimony of our leader. If this is true, there is absolutely no issue or fault in using text as communication. Jesus confirmed the Bible, so there is no longer and room for inaccuracy in text and translation. The Bible is, for the most part, completely free of translation error. Almost all translations simply change language style, not doctrine.