[James C. Bennett]

You’re welcome, and I will try and answer this again in greater detail later, but for now, I wanted to ask you that if a deity was so interested in conveying to its creation the ‘reality’ of its existence, why would it do so using media that is not merely corruptible, but of a highly suspect nature, forcing the believer to rely on human testimony, instead of direct revelation?

In other words, if Moses (or Arjuna, or whoever) could talk to the divinity, then why not all the rest of humanity? Also, it’s an important thing to note that when Moses went up to collect the tablets, his people, after supposedly having witnessed all the extra-ordinary ‘miracles’ and other occurrences, decided to lose faith in this particular deity, and began making their own. Doesn’t this strike you as odd? That first-person witnesses to ‘miracles’ would do this? En masse? Another point of suspicion is the people themselves demanding they want a middleman-prophet, instead of direct reception. Isn’t this rather convenient for the scripture writers to attach?

[D-fendr]

if a deity was so interested in conveying to its creation the ‘reality’ of its existence, why would it do so using media that is not merely corruptible, but of a highly suspect nature, forcing the believer to rely on human testimony, instead of direct revelation?

Putting aside the problem of "want" here (it implies change), the answer is quite simple: The infinite/eternal can come through, can be known in, our finite temporal existence through the finite. You can think of it as footprints of something outside your dimension.

Another very rough, somewhat cliché analog: If the wind "wants" to become known to beings without the sense of touch it moves water, moves objects.

Another way of saying this is the infinite can be evidenced to a finite being through the finite. The finite is, by definition, corruptible, imperfect - else it would be God.

Christianity differs from Islam and much of Judaism in this way. The bible is a finite object written by (inspired) finite beings. If this were not so, we would be confusing Paul, for example, for God. And confusing the finite for the infinite is a definition of idolatry (bibliolatry for example).

forcing the believer to rely on human testimony, instead of direct revelation?

I don't believe that is an accurate statement. It is not absolutely necessary to take another's word for what God is, one can explore for themselves.