The post was to the issue of God’s dialog to Job, after Job had talked it all out to his friends about his suffering (the poster was referring to God’s dialog there).
In reference to that dialog, Job hadn’t discussed that he didn’t understand creation and that was the source of his grieving ... but that he didn’t understand his suffering. AND ... Job was pretty much “demanding it”. And finally, at the end God stepped in and was basically saying that the “entire story” (of what God knew) was far far beyond Job and that he was going to have to accept that God was far beyond his understanding ... and that’s where it was going to stay.
That wasn’t a commentary by God on “creation” in that mankind could not understand what GOD HAD TOLD THEM, but it was a commentary on the fact that mankind was not going to understand what GOD HAD NOT TOLD THEM! And in that, they were going to have to accept the fact that these unknown things, that God had not told them about was going to remain far far beyond mankind.
In relation to the creation account, some of those things not told would be (for an example) ... “What is the mechanism by which God can merely “speak” and the thing can happen?” AND ... there are a thousand questions like that, which God has not said a thing about.
That which he has told us about, he expects us to know and understand it.
“...but it was a commentary on the fact that mankind was not going to understand what GOD HAD NOT TOLD THEM!”
Thank you for that explanation. Of course I can often be like a two-year old when God gives me an answer, or in reading Scripture. “But whyyyyy?” (I would try to answer my kid’s questions, but on about the fourth “But whyyyy?” I was pretty tired of explaining whatever it was - sky is blue, grass is green, poop, etc.)