Did the Ten Commandments Precede Moses?

[posthuman]

posthuman . . . do you realize that you're debating copy and pasted articles not written by 'just-me' but that come from a cult source, the Restored Church of God headed up by Robert C. Pack?

'just-me' is simply passing along false teaching, not engaging in genuine discussion.

Just sayin'.

Carry on as you see fit/feel led .

-JGIG

♥ aw, thanks for your concern for me

i started to take this thread seriously, then mostly i was talking to Valiant about whether spore-bearing plants are kosher, in a light-hearted way, ((hopefully Valiant understood that)) because whether they count as seed-bearing or not, i am free to eat whatever i can thank God for.

i reckon the Spirit led me away from getting mired down in this thread!
and that i am not sure i could be thankful for algae pie, kosher or not!

 

[oldthennew]

While some of the concepts of the Sinaitic Covenant existed before Sinai, the Law did not. Law requires enforcement, and Old Covenant Law has plenty of that.

Abraham sinned.

A lot.

And God's wrath never came upon Abraham.

Why?

Because Abraham was under a covenant of Grace, not of Law.

-JGIG

===============================

JGIG,

thank you for your response.

the definition of sin is, 'the transgression of the Law' - and another way of putting Romans 6:23 would be,
'the wages of transgressing the Law is death, it is written in another place, 'even so, death reigned from Adam to Moses'
so, we see, that the scriptures tells us that the LAW was enforced through death, for if there had been NO transgression
then there would have been no death.
the penalty of sin was paid by ALL men, including our father Abraham.

 

[Elin]

JGIG,

thank you for your response.

the definition of sin is, 'the transgression of the Law' - and another way of putting Romans 6:23 would be,
'the wages of transgressing the Law is death, it is written in another place, 'even so, death reigned from Adam to Moses'
so, we see, that the scriptures tells us that
the LAW was enforced through death, for if there had been NO transgression
then there would have been no death.

Not quite. . .

Sin is transgression of the law. . .the wages of sin is death. . .death is the result of sin.

But between Adam and Moses, there was no law, therefore sin was not taken into account,
so for what sin were they held accountable, guilty since they all still died (death reigned from Adam to Moses)?

They were guilty of the sin of Adam, they were made sinners by Adam's sin.
"the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men. . .
through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners," (Ro 5:18-19)

There was no transgression of the law, but there was still death because all were made sinners, subject to death, by one trespass (of Adam). (Ro 5:12-21)

 

[just-me]

Not quite. . .

The wages of sin is death. . .death is the result of sin.

But between Adam and Moses, there was no law, therefore sin was not taken into account,
so for what sin were they held accountable and guilty since they still all died (death reigned from Adam to Moses)?

They were guilty of the sin of Adam and were made sinners.
"the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men. . .
through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners," (Ro 5:18-19)

There was no transgression of the law, but there was still death because all were made sinners, subject to death, by one trespass (of Adam). (Ro 5:12-21)

That takes God's mercy and completely makes it void. God has always shown mankind what trespasses were before pronouncing judgment against them.

"By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith." Hebrews 11:7

I'm sure Noah wasn't the only person alive back then that heard the warning. Noah knew what animals were clean and unclean.

Genesis 7:2-3
[SUP]2 [/SUP]Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
[SUP]3 [/SUP]Of fowls also of the air by sevens, the male and the female; to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.

 

[Elin]

Sin is transgression of the law. . .the wages of sin is death. . .death is the result of sin.

But between Adam and Moses, there was no law, therefore sin was not taken into account,
so for what sin were they held accountable and guilty since they still all died (death reigned from Adam to Moses)?

They were guilty of the sin of Adam and were made sinners.
"the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men. . .
through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners," (Ro 5:18-19)

There was no transgression of the law, but there was still death because
all were made sinners, subject to death, by one trespass (of Adam). (Ro 5:12-21)

That takes God's mercy and completely makes it void.

Ro 5:12-21 is clear. . .take it up with Paul.

 

[just-me]

"And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar." Genesis 8:20

This sounds like a sacrificial law to me. What about that?

 

[Elin]

"And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar." Genesis 8:20

This sounds like a sacrificial law to me. What about that?

Where is the law stated prior to Noah's sacrifice?

Sacrifices were offered from Adam onward.

 

[Elin]

"And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar." Genesis 8:20

This sounds like a sacrificial law to me. What about that?

The NT word of God written states there was no law between Adam and Moses.

Who you gonna' believe. . .your lyin' eyes, or the NT word of God written?

 

[posthuman]

"And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar." Genesis 8:20

This sounds like a sacrificial law to me. What about that?

does the term "free-will offering" not enter into our thinking?

 

[valiant]

"And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar." Genesis 8:20

This sounds like a sacrificial law to me. What about that?

we must not read into this that the same animals and birds were seen as clean (suitable for sacrifice and offering) as are described in Leviticus. It simply indicates that some birds and animals were seen as suitable as offerings. It was probably based on custom.

 

[just-me]

does the term "free-will offering" not enter into our thinking?

Yes it does. They are burnt and peace offerings. A burnt offering represents devotion to God. It is not a tresspass or sin offering. A peace offering represents a connection with God, as in boldly entering unto the throne on God. In other words prayers. This should all be taken into the Spiritual account that we still continue to offer of ourselves a "living sacrifice" holy and acceptable unto God. It's expected, and reasonable.

 

[just-me]

we must not read into this that the same animals and birds were seen as clean (suitable for sacrifice and offering) as are described in Leviticus. It simply indicates that some birds and animals were seen as suitable as offerings. It was probably based on custom.

Did God change the animals after the flood? I don't think so because the Bible says God doesn't change.

"For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." Malachi 3:6

 

[posthuman]

Yes it does. They are burnt and peace offerings.

you know "free-will" gifts aren't the requirements of a law, right?

so observing someone putting something in a donation box doesn't imply that there's a law requiring them to do so. or even regulations regarding what may be donated, how or when it may be donated, or who may donate.
all it implies is that there is a box that accepts donations, and that at least one individual has donated at least one object.

 

[just-me]

does the term "free-will offering" not enter into our thinking?

Yes it does. They are burnt and peace offerings. A burnt offering represents devotion to God. It is not a tresspass or sin offering. A peace offering represents a connection with God, as in boldly entering unto the throne on God. In other words prayers. This should all be taken into the Spiritual account that we still continue to offer of ourselves a "living sacrifice" holy and acceptable unto God. It's expected, and reasonable.

you know "free-will" gifts aren't the requirements of a law, right?

so observing someone putting something in a donation box doesn't imply that there's a law requiring them to do so. or even regulations regarding what may be donated, how or when it may be donated, or who may donate.
all it implies is that there is a box that accepts donations, and that at least one individual has donated at least one object.

I assumed you were alluding to this from this quote of yours at the top. Gifts and offerings are different.

Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his freewill offerings, which they will offer unto the Lord for a burnt offering; Leviticus 22:18

 

[posthuman]

you know "free-will" gifts aren't the requirements of a law, right?

so observing someone putting something in a donation box doesn't imply that there's a law requiring them to do so. or even regulations regarding what may be donated, how or when it may be donated, or who may donate.
all it implies is that there is a box that accepts donations, and that at least one individual has donated at least one object.

you may counter, "but Cain & Abel and accepted and not"

but what was the 'condemnation' in the one sacrifice not being accepted?
there wasn't one. there was regard from God, and there was envy, which was not from God.
and where did God say to Cain, "you did not follow my sacrificial law?"
He didn't. He said do well, and you will be accepted, and He warned him that if he did not do well, sin crouches at the door.
He said "do well" -- not "do according as I have commanded you" -- and that's significant to this topic, don't you think?

 

[posthuman]

I assumed you were alluding to this from this quote of yours at the top. Gifts and offerings are different.

Speak unto Aaron, and to his sons, and unto all the children of Israel, and say unto them, Whatsoever he be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers in Israel, that will offer his oblation for all his vows, and for all his freewill offerings, which they will offer unto the Lord for a burnt offering; Leviticus 22:18

not only any one verse, but the very idea -- a gift given not by compulsion, but out of respect, honor, gratitude or love. it's true that under Moses there were laws given regulating how such gifts should be given, but they were not required​ to be given -- that is what makes them distinct from the other sacrifices and offerings.

why shouldn't Noah's gift have been like this?
so there is not necessarily an implication of a sacrificial law.

 

[just-me]

you may counter, "but Cain & Abel and accepted and not"

but what was the 'condemnation' in the one sacrifice not being accepted?
there wasn't one. there was regard from God, and there was envy, which was not from God.
and where did God say to Cain, "you did not follow my sacrificial law?"
He didn't. He said do well, and you will be accepted, and He warned him that if he did not do well, sin crouches at the door.
He said "do well" -- not "do according as I have commanded you" -- and that's significant to this topic, don't you think?

IMO Cain's offering wasn't accepted because it was vegetation. Abel's offering was because it was a blood offering. On the other hand, the question still remains why God had respect for Abel's offering, and not Cain's. Both boys had to have the same information beforehand.

"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Hebrews 9:22

 

[posthuman]

You may, however, present as a freewill offering an ox or a sheep that is deformed or stunted,
but it will not be accepted in fulfillment of a vow.
(Leviticus 22:23)
​

hey! look at this!
now if we are imperfect, and we offer ourselves as living sacrifices,
are we acceptable as the fulfillment of a vow? nope.
are we acceptable as a sin offering? nope.
are we acceptable as a peace offering? a trespass offering? a meal offering? nope, nope, nope.

but we are an acceptable freewill offering

is that right?

 

[Jeff_56]

1. The 430 Years of Galatians 3:17 & Exodus 12:40
   
   Restoring Original Christianity for Today: Christian Biblical Church of God430_Years_of_Galatians_3-17.htm‎
   
   The 430 Years of Galatians 3:17 and Exodus 12:40. By Carl D. Franklin. There
   appears to be a conflict in the prophecy that God gave to Abraham concerning
   the ...
2. The 400 YEARS and 430 YEARS Puzzle - to Exodus - Bible Insight
   
   www.bibleinsight.com/crn1p5.html‎
   
   The 400 and 430 year verses. 'Four hundred' and 'four hundred and thirty years'
   to Exodus. The correct solution!
3. Exodus 12:41 At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the ...
   
   biblehub.com/exodus/12-41.htm‎
   
   In fact, it was on the last day of the 430th year that all the LORD's forces left the ...
   At the end of 430 years, on that very day, all the hosts of the LORD went out ...
4. Galatians 3:17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years ...
   
   biblehub.com/galatians/3-17.htm‎
   
   This is what I am trying to say: The agreement God made with Abraham could not
   be canceled 430 years later when God gave the law to Moses. God would be ...

 

[posthuman]

IMO Cain's offering wasn't accepted because it was vegetation. Abel's offering was because it was a blood offering. On the other hand, the question still remains why God had respect for Abel's offering, and not Cain's. Both boys had to have the same information beforehand.

"And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Hebrews 9:22

remember the meal offering / grain offering? no blood shed. it's vegetarian.

and these two weren't atoning for sin.

but the scripture says Abel brought from the firstborn, and Cain brought "from some of the fruits" -- not firstfruits.
i think the answer to why He had regard for one and not the other may be found in that direction