The god of the bible would never be dumb enough to ever text as a form of communication to god

From the top. ;-; If you want to ignore advice, It's your loss. It was partially said only so people could see the inconsistency between you saying you don't have room for all your arguments and you saying filler words. Also I noticed, You always say "in which" where you could just say "which", Especially when you say "God, In which nobody can prove exists. . . " Ignore it if that's what you'll do. I still don't know if you'll start following my advice once I'm not around to see you. You'll probably say you're ignoring it if you ever get a chance, But I think eventually you'll be better enough at writing that you'll change. "And it you don"t like it, Leave. " - I don't dislike the errors so much that I'll leave to escape them. I wasn't really trying to please myself by giving you advice, Since I would leave if I wanted to be pleased above all else. It's more that the errors make your meaning difficult to understand, Which makes debating less effective, And I value that. If you had just a small amount of chaos and errors to it, That would be fine, Since it wouldn't really impact the meaning I'd get from it. "I [didn't] ask [you] to enter my debate" - You left this question open for debate, And should have known it could be as bad, In your opinion, As this. You basically said anyone can answer the debate. I'm someone. You say you don't hate christians unless they act like fake christians, And you also say that real christians don't exist. That pretty much covers all christians. Also, "hypnotic beliefs"? Next paragraph: I was telling you that you picked a bad example by picking Trump. I know you "used that moron as an example"; that was obvious. I told you that the debates people pay attention to in the political world don't rewrite the definition of a debate, Nor the ideal kind of debate. Despite that most live debates involve lack of discipline, Lack of discipline is not how a debate should be; politicians don't set the standards for morals, So they don't set the standards for morals regarding debating (I guess you won't pay much attention to the logic this time either, But voters might be more reasonable and see where you're wrong). And then you tell me that I don't understand political debates (false assumption), Or the bible (when I only said I don't know all the details of it; I know some details at least), And then you say I must then not understand anything, When you didn't give any example I didn't understand at least adequately. I don't think you or anyone else can have a perfect understanding of something, So there's no blame on me for not understanding those two PERFECTLY. Skipping down, I can give some evidence of my understanding: For "God was/was not pleased with his creation: GE 1:31 is pre-human-life, And GE 6:5-6 is post-human-decadence. God was pleased with the stage of creation at 1:31 and not pleased with the stage of creation at 6:5-6, Which is why he designed to change things at that point by flooding the earth. What I was taught justified the flood was that any further development of human beings would have been in the negative direction, So ending the judgement section at that point in all of their lives was a good thing for them in the long-run/eternal-perspective. I think it could also be punishment, Which I address lower down, Since it's hard to explain clearly. For "Adam lived 930 years/Adam should've died the same day he ate the fruit": My dad told me that the 930 was supposed to be a different cycle than the year-cycle and that it was a mistranslation; it was either months or weeks, Although I'm not sure where to reference for that. I can reference 2 Peter 3:8 which says days for God are very very long for mankind, Although that's more meant to show that his plans are long-term perspective; that isn't supposed to be a literal order of magnitude scaling. I was also taught that Adam would've lived forever had he not eaten the fruit, So he might've had that same long-term perspective pre-fruit-eating as God, Which is why God might've said something with seemingly short-duration meaning like that while referring to something long-duration to our perspectives. I always figured it wasn't meant as an exact time limit; just short-term as Adam and God saw it at the time. Maybe the mistranslations make "the same day" capable of originally meaning "soon" or something like that. For "God asks Cain where Able is/God is omniscient": That was something I saw on my own and reasoned God probably knew all along. I always interpreted it as being meant for Cain's benefit instead of God's. Maybe it was to give him greater shame for his action, Forcing him to confront what he did, Or something like that. I think the idea that God is omniscient is more likely than the idea that he needed to ask a question, So whatever the truth is, It involves God being omniscient and probably doesn't involve him requiring the answer from Cain. Cain DIDN'T give God the answer, Lying instead, And God still knew the truth, So that's more evidence it wasn't really unknown to God. For Vengeance/Benevolence: I never tried to sort that one out until today; those other things were easy explanations that fit into the basic principles I had learned, And I had already easily solved those. I kinda consider the vengeance a punishment of wrongdoing, Not rage, And punishment is a tricky spot to define as moral or immoral, For me. "The wrath of God" might just be severely destructive consequences that terrify people so that they think he must be angry, Just like with the stereotypical island tribes thinking a volcano erupting is a sign of their gods' anger. It does explicitly say he's angry in at least some of these versions, And it's the narrator saying so, Not some character in the story (the narrator is usually considered doctrinally correct, Even though it's just the author of the section). Maybe that does mean the bible's contradictory, But it could be the authors' perspectives on God's actions. The words themselves come from the authors, And they don't get direct revelation for word choice of every line (nor do translators); they just do what they remember, And things are written how the authors interpret them. If God ever explicitly mentioned his emotions (not just "you will provoke my wrath" because it could just refer to something destructive, Not rage-motivated) in a scripture, That would shed some light on it. For "God can't be seen/God is seen": I considered that so closely analogous to being unable to comprehend infinity that it was pretty obvious it referred to that. People can't comprehend God's full glory/nature because he's infinite (EX 33:18 was "show me your glory", Which would've been inexpressible to a human mind, Which is why God said no), But he could show finite forms like a cloud or a light, Or a generic white-robed figure (it's not the face he chooses to wear that would be impossible to comprehend). Though you might call it "just backtalk", It's not definitely disproven since it can be explained somehow. Back to where I left off above: "You have dragged this same subject on and on. . . " This is relevant to the debate. ""Almost" doesn't meat "everybody"": I already said that; it doesn't make sense to correct me when I told you "You said "almost", So maybe it doesn't prove you're logically cornered. " I know almost isn't everybody. I called it an indication, Which was at most what it could be. "The words "evil", "disaster" and "bad" have nothing to do with each other. ": Evil and bad are usually synonyms. Bad has alternative meanings beyond what evil means, But they don't have nothing to do with each other, That's for sure. "It is so easy to spot if they have "genuine" friends or loved ones. ": It's easy for you to assume you know, But you can't be certain without being there to see for yourself, No matter what you suppose about how personalities relate to friendships. If you're supposing certain personalities tend to discourage good friendships, It should be obvious that a name-calling and insulting person would have one of those personalities. Would you lose friends if everyone found out about the hate you're putting down against christianity here? How many of your friends are christians? Do you shun christians? If you act differently elsewhere, Are you being "genuine", Then, To them, If these are your true views? My Final Argument: You went back to talking about how messages change over time, And you did not respond to any of the instances where I wrote things along the lines of "The final message in a game of Chinese Whispers can be more truthful than the original, " or "The messages each person hears along the Chinese Whispers line can be exactly what that person needs to hear. " God, With his strategic ability, Can plan events to lay out like that. And it could be accurately interpreted by the people if God can foresee their minds' interpretations as well. All of the stuff you talk about is how the Chinese Whispers game didn't work perfectly, And you give plentiful examples of how translations worked wrong, With the same message not coming out in the end, But maybe God wasn't trying to get it to come out the same. Maybe each person needed an individualized message to get the best outcome. Even if the final message is untruthful, It can help a person to understand a related issue accurately. Just like the fable about the Tortoise and the Hare, The Bible doesn't need to be perfectly true for it to teach people. That's why God might be stupid if he wants a text to stay the same forever, Or stay true forever, But he wouldn't be stupid if he wanted it to stay useful, For him, Forever. The seriousness with which people take morality while reading the Bible helps them discover right and wrong, Even if the Bible isn't a morally trustworthy source. That's why the Bible is a vessel for God's word: It teaches.