The Truth about Speaking Lies in Hypocrisy

[Forsakenone]

Interestingly, the Atheist and the Christian both agree that man's ability to communicate using the spoken word comes from the flesh.

Of course, it goes to follow that the Atheist and the Christian too both agree that man's ability to write the spoken word was developed by man and evolved over time.

While the Atheist denies the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, yet it is written 1 John 1:1, "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;"

Likewise, the Christian claims the Bible is the literal Word of God, yet it is written in Matthew 1:1, " The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham."

So who is right?

 

[stephenleonard]

Well that depends on your definition of the Bible. Even though you quoted 1 John 1:1 you have to understand that most people didn't know what a Bible was nor held one till Johannes Gutenberg came around and invented the printing press. Up until then, everything that they heard was from the mouth of the priest.

 

[lforrest]

Even if he is referring to the gospels specifically, the biblical canon includes these. These a. re also considered to be inspired writings.

I believe that the gospels are inspired, despite their also being a testimony from the deciples. This is due to my understanding of what inspiration means. I believe it can be a subtle influence, not a word for word dictation all the time.

I can see the hallmarks of insparation in how the gospels share the same basic stories most of the time. They send a unified message, but there is supposedly no collabration with their writing. If they were not inspired I would expect the gospels to focus more on Jesus' interactions with their respective writers.

 

[Forsakenone]

So the ability of man to speak, both male and female, or rather their ability to communicate using the spoken word has nothing to do with the gift of the Spirit called tongues?

It is easy to see that all living creatures have a conscious mind that gives them the ability to survive, reason, learn and pretty much those things that man does. And in fact animals communicate with each other by their own forms of sounds, yet none except man have the ability to communicate using the spoken word. While there are birds which can mimic the sound of the spoken word and other creatures such as primates that have the vocal folds which should provide them the physical ability to speak, yet none can as of date.

However, the interesting fact regarding the ability to speak is that if not developed by a certain age, the cases of feral children indicates that the ability to communicate using the spoken word could not evolve since feral children never gain the ability using the spoken word, thus demonstrating that the evolution from the non-speaking primate would have resulted in a non-speaking man unable to communicate using the spoken word.

Likewise, just as man needed to hear the word in order to learn to speak, man could not teach himself how to read nor write the written spoken word. As written in Isaiah 29:12, "And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned." Therefore, if any of you did teach yourself how to read and write that would serve to disprove that man needed any help from above to learn how to read and write, much less speak the spoken word.

As the one comment reflected that until the written word, the method of communicating,educating and informing the people done by word of mouth. Thus it is written in 2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost which is said to be the Father [the Spirit of God] and the Word in 1 John 5:7. Which with God being a Spirit in John 4:24, then the Spirit of God brings up an whole different question.