There is also arguably two versions of Genesis which don’t entirely run parallel to one another. At one point god creates everything instantaneously, in the conflicting version, it requires 6 days with one day of vacation time.

Is there any way to understand exactly what god's interpretation of "time" and the passing there of is exactly? Because additionally, it would be apparent that a normal human lifespan in genesis, could be upwards of 900 years.

Do we have ANY point of reference that is not simply conjecture based? Something along the lines of a "Rosetta stone" that was utilized in effect to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphic writings with? That would be a tremendous help.

Silly funches, tricks are for kids. And yes I already answered the question many times. Knowledge can not exist without someone or something there to gain it. There would be no knowledge before him, because there was nothing there to be knowledgeable about. Not to mention, he was always there, there is no "before God" so of course there was no knowledge before him.

So you want to have a theological debate based on God and knowledge, but through out the religious text on God and through out the meaning of the word Knowledge.

Sounds like trolling to me. Besides, what if our rational thinking is that God always existed? Something had to always exist. If he didnt exist then there was nothing and no consciousness so knowledge didn't exist. I defined knowledge several times and wont do it again.

Happy trolling.

Do you mean "throw" Chaz?

So you want to have a theological debate based on God and knowledge, but through out the religious text on God and through out the meaning of the word Knowledge.

Sounds like trolling to me. Besides, what if our rational thinking is that God always existed? Something had to always exist. If he didnt exist then there was nothing and no consciousness so knowledge didn't exist. I defined knowledge several times and wont do it again.

Happy trolling.

Here. I was reading it and it made sense to me with the word "throw" used in place of "through". I was just trying to verify and not insult anyone.

Actually, I never quoted the bible once. The only thing I ever said was that God always existed. I decided this through my own though, there are a lot of things my church teaches that I don't agree with. Physics says matter and energy can not be created or destroyed. If this is the case, then where did they come from? Something had to always exist for us to be here. I chose to believe that is God. Just because the church also believes this doesn't mean I can't rationalize it for my self. I don't follow, I lead my own path.

the bible makes no mention that the angels were created in the Heavens ...

"Eljay" Genesis dispute what you are saying ..Genesis states that God rested on the seventh day and to rest takes time it's no getting beyond that fact ..

so you can say that time doesn't apply to God because maybe God has a time machine like Dr. Who but Genesis dispute anyone saying that God is not affected by time simply because God had to rest on the seventh day

also for God to do what he does the knowledge to do it had to come from someplace ..even if one says that God created the knowledge then knowledge had to pre-date him in order for him to accomplish that feat

also if God never had a first thought only suggest that he can't remember it ..so that in itself is atleast one bit of knowledge God lacks

Actually, I never quoted the bible once. The only thing I ever said was that God always existed. I decided this through my own though, there are a lot of things my church teaches that I don't agree with. Physics says matter and energy can not be created or destroyed. If this is the case, then where did they come from? Something had to always exist for us to be here. I chose to believe that is God. Just because the church also believes this doesn't mean I can't rationalize it for my self. I don't follow, I lead my own path.

As for using words correctly I am sorry you don't agree. If you want to argue something is green when I can look at it and see its blue and you tell me to ignore the meanings of the words green and blue I wont. They are fundamental in the topic at hand. As an engineer, details are important to me. You don't alter things to fit your ideals, you just try to see if they are correct with the information at hand.
"Chazster" not sure why you believe that your definition of knowledge has to be the only one everyone has to abide by ...maybe you should change your avatar name to "Webzster" ..

the question requires you to expand your mind beyond your sunday school programming ..that's why instead of answering it you keep running to the safety of the bible ..but the answer is not in the bible ... unfortunely you may have to use your own thoughts to answer this one

Yes your question disputes that God always was because you are asking if knowledge was there before God. If God was always there then there is no before thus the question is moot.

Yes God is outside our physical world, so the laws of physics would not apply to him.

Your premise is only acceptable within a reference of time. Since God sreated "time" - how could there have been ANYTHING that was "1st" before this. It can only be interpreted as having always existed. God is not a material being. Only material beings are limited by the "constraint" of time. God did not "have" to rest. You are assumeing that this is something He had to do without having the choice to rest or not. The bible makes no mention of God "needing" anything. Plus - the account of Genesis is written with the attention of being read by man. Therefore the idea of "God resting" is seen through human comprehension. Since God is not a corporal being - he would not suffer exhaustion - as you are interpreting it - it is just a matter of having finished the "job". When something is not in motion, it is at rest. Not though "necessity" as you refer. But simply being the oppsite of "not moving". This is not what you are saying. You are "shifting" your interpretation to indicate the meaning of rest to refer to something that does not follow conclusively from the statement which preceeds it.
Therefore - this premise is unacceptable, and renders the rest of your argument - moot.

Chaz - but that is Funches point. He is attempting to reconcile the point using biblical concepts. Or in his case, he is attempting to show it can't be reconciled. Therefore - your thinking for yourself on this matter is only proving his point. You would then be agreeing that he can't get his answer from the scriptures.

However - the logic he is refering to is not directly coming from scripture. The bible does not explicitly deal with what was or wasn't before the first of creation. That is what he is after. I think.

"Eljay" the original question is not to trick anyone..like me the question is pure as the driven snow ..it just ask for a logical answer that can't be found in the bible or does the question prove that your thinking is trapped and limited within the realm of knowledge the bible offers