No, Tom, what do you mean by "everything", not what the CEV translators think.

Also, do you think Paul is talking about people who have never heard of the Bible or Jesus, who learned "everything" there is to know about God by observing nature?

What do I mean? You mean what does Paul mean. I have no idea why you're asking me this. It's like if you quote John 3:16 to me, which says, "For God so loved the world ..." and I asked you "What do you mean by God? Wouldn't you respond that it was John who said, "God" and not you?

Regarding whom Paul is speaking of, it seems clear that Paul has everybody in mind. Remember he is driving to the point that all are without excuse.

Back to your theory for a moment, is there any evidence that you can present to support your idea that one cannot break the last 6 commandments in any way in ignorance? Why do you make a distinction between the first table of commandments and the last? The only one that seems different to me is the Sabbath. Why would you think it's any easier to beak the first commandment ignorantly than the last?

Also, you say that polygamy is a sin, but not a violation of the seventh commandment, so evidently you have some other commandment in mind. Which? The fourth? The fifth? Which commandment, and why?

I would think anyone could see that polygamy has to do with marriage, and that the seventh commandment is the one designed to protect marriage.

And why this limmiting of the law to the ten commandments? There is absolutely no reason to believe that any of the authors of the bible had such a limmitation in mind. What is translated to us as law is a words that also means "instruction" and covers the first five books of the bible, not just one half chapter of it.

It depends on the context. Clearly, the 10 Commandments were special, as they were written by the finger of God.

E. J. Waggoner argued that the law in Galatians was the 10 Commandments. You can take a look at the argument here, if you're interested.

http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/1888/waggonerbutler_twolaws3.html#GRACE

Tom, I'm not asking about Paul or the CEV translators. I'm asking about what you think it means. Paul merely conveyed a thought, which the CEV translators gave to us in English.

"They know everything that can be known about God, because God has shown it all to them."

Does the word "everything" mean everything? That is, did God show them everything that can be known about Him? Or, is there certain things about God that cannot be known in this lifetime?

Also, in Romans 1 it seems clear to me that Paul is talking about people who have knowledge about God that was not gained from only studying nature, knoweledge that was verbally handed down to them.

What evidence do I have to support my beliefs? Romans 2:13-15. And, common experiences. No one is born with an intinctively knowledge of the first four commandments. The Sabbath is a good example. Nothing in nature teaches us to observe the 7th day of the week as a sabbath. Neither do we know it instinctively. We must learn it from Bible study and prayer. The same it true about the the first four commandments.

But it is clear from common experiences that no one heas to tell us that lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc. is wrong. We just know it naturally, instinctively. A study of feral children makes this point obvious. They were not raised under normal circumstances, they did not benefit from custom or culture, and yet they know it is wrong to lie, cheat, steal, and murder.

I think the "everything" means everything that can be known about God that He reveals to them.



Is this clear to anybody besides you?



But Romans 2:13-15 doesn't say this. It says:



This says absolutely nothing about the last table being instinctive and the first table not. In fact, there's nothing whatsoever said about the first four vs. the last six at all. So there's no evidence for your idea from here, correct?



This Sabbath is the only example. One could say this about the whole 10 commandments though. That is, the Sabbath is the only commandment of the 10 which one has no knowledge of outside of Scripture.



No, it's not. Romans 1 clearly contradicts this. So does Psalm 19. I'm sure there are other Scriptures which do as well. Otherwise people who didn't have the Scriptures could not be condemned for not believing in God or thanking Him.



There's two problems with your assertion. One is that you say that none of the first four commandments are fundamentally different, in terms of knowing about them instinctively, when this applies only to the Sabbath. There are cultures with no Scriptures which keep the first three commandments.

Secondly is you say that there are no sins which break the last six commandments which are not known by instinct. Your "proof" demonstrates a lack of understanding of logic. If I make the assertion "All S are P," I cannot prove this by producing some S which is P.

For example, "All humans are women. My wife is a human. She is a woman. That proves my point." This is what you are arguing. That's not a valid argument, because the fact that some humans are women does not prove that all humans are. Similarly the fact that something about the last six commandments is known by instinct does not prove that everything about them is known by instinct.

To disprove your idea, all that is necessary is to do is produce a counter example. This I've done with polygamy. Your argument that polygamy is not a violation of the last table of the law is, to put it kindly, unconvincing.

Another example that comes to mind are two people living together without being married. There are people who believe that there is nothing wrong with this as long as they are monogamous.

There are types of lies, white lies, for example, which are not instinctively known to be wrong. In fact, there's a lot of disagreement as to what constitutes a lie. If someone asks you, "How are you" and you respond "fine" even though you're not feeling so well, is that a lie?

Jesus Christ, in the sermon on the mount, explained that the law embraces far more than what His hearers were thinking. A thought or a glance can break it. If all that Jesus preached about the law were known by instinct, one would hardly expect His assertions to have caused any commotion. Indeed, one would wonder why there would be any need for Christ to preach about the law at all (at least, the last six commandments), since all that could be known about them was already known by instinct.

TE: There are cultures with no Scriptures which keep the first three commandments.

MM: Quotes, please.

I'll see if I can find something in the next day or two.