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

First off we are NOT going to play by your rules, we are going to play by MY rules. The rules were simple enough. Naturally, you the fool among statutory fools, you broke them. So I will ignore everything that you neatly showed yourself to be homeless and will move on from there or I will simply end this debate is its so far off base in which I have the gargantuan feeling that it will be. “The first thing I would like to point out is that God did not just use text.” Wow. Really? Did you come up with that one all on your own? Or did that pale glued stickum glue you to your brick pillow? In other words, please do not try to lecture me. K? Especially for something that everybody should obviously know. Nature (Romans 1:20) (doesn’t describe “nature” at all. Invent better excuses please.) Dreams and Revelation (Genesis 15:1, Acts 7) (which can’t be proved) Audible Conversation (Exodus 3, Mark 1:11) (in other words “talking to people” which would be evidence. However its not evidence because its never happened to anybody that has been proved because others would be able to talk about it. So if this god of yours can talk to people here, he can talk to people everywhere and thus provide evidence rather than providing this cloak and dagger hide-and-seek nothingness and would not rely on text, not ever. “If god is all knowing and he knows the future of all events and he wrote a book that can only be interpreted as if it endorses slavery and if its heinous violence against your children against your neighbors… how could a god be that omnipotent and devise a book where we can’t distinguish between the law of Israel and god’s law? I mean their interwoven where we have metaphor and fact and nobody can distinguish the two. We don’t know what we’re supposed to take figuratively. We don’t know what we’re supposed to take literally. Was it actually a tree? I mean come on. How can anyone distinguish this. I mean come on. It doesn’t make any sense. It doesn’t matter how its translated. It doesn’t matter what version. If it was written by an omnipotent being there would be ONE VERSION. And there would be only ONE WAY to interpret it because it would be written well.” Aron Ra Actually it wouldn’t be written at all. What’s wrong with your god comin’ down and talking to people? ‘Hey you know some of that stuff that’s in the book? I’m here to correct it.” Matt Dillahunty “We have to rely on copies of copies of anonymous authors with no originals and the textural testimony to a miracle for example, there’s no amount of reports, anecdotal reports that is sufficient to justify in believing that actually happened as reported. And anything that would qualify as a god would clearly understand this and if it wanted to clearly convey this to people in a way that is believable would not be relying on ---TEXT--- to do so. And this to me is the nail in the coffin for christianity. The god that christians believe in is amazingly ---STUPID---!!! If it actually wants to achieve its goal by spreading its word to humanity by relying on text, by relying on languages that die off, by relying on anecdotal testimony, that’s not a pathway to truth. And anything that would qualify for a god would know this.which shows either god does not exist or doesn’t care enough about the people to understand the nature of evidence to actually present it. Now which of those two possibilities is accurate?” Matt Dillahunty “If jesus and Muhammad and abraham and moses had never been born, which in any case I tend to dabble, if all their stories were untrue were suddenly found and everyone had to admit it some people I know would show panic. Now what would we do? We’d have no morals suddenly. What could be more nonsensical than that? As the matter of fact the position that we occupy would---be---precisely---the---same as it is now if none of these texts had ever been written, as if none of these lacerations had ever been made. We would still have to reason together about how how to treat one another, about how to build a just city, and about how to have irony and a sense of humor.” Christopher HitchensPersonal Experience (Psalm 34:8, 1 Peter 2:3, John 10:14) (which can’t be proved) Most importantly: Christ - I didn’t mention the deadbeat christ which has 0 to do with this argument. So everything you mention as christ shall be ignored. “God came to us himself. Christians do not worship the Bible,” 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. http://tyndalearchive.com...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. And as I’ve asked you before in which you’ve naturally pleaded the 5th… where and how do you get your interpretations from in which are clearly with no doubt false because only a very same percentage of christians, like maybe .00001% of christians in the world might possibly agree with you and you fricken know it you sad pathetic 16 year old teeny bopper who has to invent excuses and flat out lie for something in which he clearly knows nothing about so he pretends he does and yodels his magic wand and thinks he can bluff his way across the poker table in order to take down a royal flush in which I am holding and you are hold nothing. NEWSFLASH: It doesn’t work. “God himself confirmed for us the Bible.” Well no god according to your bible would be stupid enough to do something so stupid. Wow he would actually talk to you and all of man. Imagine that as an example. Nah. You can’t. The bible is evidence nor proof for nothing. Now here’s another perfect example of why your god would NEVER entrust text…Job 36:33 KJV “The noise thereof showeth concerning it, the cattle also concerning the vapor.”NIV “His thunder announces the coming storm; even the cattle make known its approach.” They are the same verses with two totally different statements and meanings. No god who has any intelligence or an education, in which you obviously don’t have, would ever entrust this and would have his crystal ball out to know that this would occur and know that language would change that drastically to come up with completely different translations that have nothing to do with each other. Your god’s sad frail fragile pathetic ego simply would not allow this. Your god would simply ---never--- use text as any type of a means of communication. Period. No we don’t know christ existed. - Christianity debunked using science and history - Did jesus even exist? OK I’m not going to get into the Tacitus ideals with you because it has nothing whatsoever to do with god using text. Well hey, you proved he wouldn’t here. OK you are getting off track here, who cares about all this jesus mumbo jumbo false prophet bile that you mentioned in which christ clearly is as he broke many of your god’s laws rules and regulations, so this round is over. Once again “For this debate it will be up to you as Con to prove that god according to the bible would use text, namely the bible, as a form of communication. You must also give the "why" this god would choose text as a form of communication. For extra credit, prove that this god would use text as a form of communication above all else.”