Animal Sacrifices Found in the Old Testament ?

[Nang]

Abel sacrificed an animal to God, as did Noah, and so did Job, and so did Abraham, all before the law as given to Moses.

Yep.

(The Covenant of Works with Adam was founded on the same Law as the Mosaic Covenant.)

Just as there is only one Gospel of Truth; there is also only one everlasting moral Law of God.

Adam received it, Moses reiterated it in the Decalogue, and all men are born accountable under it.

Only the promised Seed achieved perfect obedience, even to His death, to fulfill it.

 

[Tambora]

Abel sacrificed an animal to God, as did Noah, and so did Job, and so did Abraham, all before the law as given to Moses.

Remember firstfruits?

 

[Nang]

Remember firstfruits?

"Firstfruits" signified the spiritual reward of penal/substitutional (blood) atonement, only.

Cain desired the reward, without placing his faith in the means (the promise of the Seed).

Remind you of a few folk?

 

[God's Truth]

Remember firstfruits?

What would you like to say about it?

 

[Tambora]

Firstfruits was not a bloody animal.
I don't why you foolish idiots want to argue for argument sake.
BOTH flock and crop were required offerings to GOD by the law.
It was not because of WHAT Cain offered, but his attitude and expectation for offering it.

 

[God's Truth]

Firstfruits was not a bloody animal.
I don't why you foolish idiots want to argue for argument sake.
BOTH flock and crop were required offerings to GOD by the law.
It was not because of WHAT Cain offered, but his attitude and expectation for offering it.

So then, are you arguing against God for accepting Abel's animal sacrifice and not Cain's? It was NOT about attitude of the offering.

 

[Nang]

Firstfruits was not a bloody animal.
I don't why you foolish idiots want to argue for argument sake.
BOTH flock and crop were required offerings to GOD by the law.
It was not because of WHAT Cain offered, but his attitude and expectation for offering it.

There is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood (death for death).

Without the shedding of blood, there are no firstfruits (resurrection).

Abel got it. Cain was dumb.

And Cain murdered his brother over the matter.

:think:

 

[Tambora]

So then, are you arguing against God for accepting Abel's animal sacrifice and not Cain's? It was NOT about attitude of the offering.

WHAT??????????????????

 

[Tambora]

There is no remission of sin without the shedding of blood (death for death).

Without the shedding of blood, there is no firstfruits (resurrection).

Abel got it. Cain was dumb.

And Cain murdered his brother over the matter.

:think:

You are as dense as GT.

BOTH flock and crop were required offerings to GOD.

Bringing a crop offering to GOD is not evil, not a sin, not wrong to do, not an unacceptable offering, etc etc etc UNLESS you bring it with the wrong attitude.
And guess what? The same thing applies to any animal offered.

 

[God's Truth]

WHAT??????????????????

God did not accept Cain's offering from his crops.

You said it was about attitude.

It is about a blood offering being better than a crop offering.

 

[Dark Matter]

Firstfruits was not a bloody animal.
I don't why you foolish idiots want to argue for argument sake.
BOTH flock and crop were required offerings to GOD by the law.
It was not because of WHAT Cain offered, but his attitude and expectation for offering it.

You are on the money. Though understanding blood atonement is theologically critical... Cain's toil in the soil is clearly symbolic of a works based offering.

The contrast is irrefutable and Hebrews 11 with the knowledge that dust is the substance of our flesh proves your theological theorem.

 

[God's Truth]

You are as dense as GT.

BOTH flock and crop were required offerings to GOD.

Bringing a crop offering to GOD is not evil, not a sin, not wrong to do, not an unacceptable offering, etc etc etc UNLESS you bring it with the wrong attitude.
And guess what? The same thing applies to any animal offered.

You have the nerve to call others 'dense'.

 

[God's Truth]

You are on the money. Though understanding blood atonement is theologically critical... Cain's toil in the soil is clearly symbolic of a works based offering.

The contrast is irrefutable and Hebrews 11 with the knowledge that dust is the substance of our flesh proves your theological theorem.

You are so wrong.

When the law was given to Moses, it was about a law that required works, and that works included the sacrifice of animals!

 

[Dark Matter]

You have the nerve to call others 'dense'.

I found the word dense subtle and thoughtfully chosen.

 

[God's Truth]

I found the word dense subtle and thoughtfully chosen.

Who cares what you and Tambora think of others personally? Let's discuss scriptures and not about the worthless opinions you have for your opponents.

 

[Dark Matter]

Who cares what you and Tambora think of others personally? Let's discuss scriptures and not about the worthless opinions you have for your opponents.

Romans the fourth chapter, verses 1 - 8 support that faith wins, when works are defended.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

So you went and found a more suitable translation to fit your taste buds? (the NIV), however that does not make it right and that is not what the original language says or means.

Of course you made no mention of the fact the sacrifices and burnt offerings were according to the commandment of the LORD, as witnessed by His following words spoken when He brought the children of Israel out of Egypt:

"An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee" (Ex.20:24).​

Do you deny that the animal sacrifices found in the OT were according to the commandment of the LORD? You said:

Literal physical animal sacrifice results in blood guilt according to the scripture, (Psalm 51:14, Isaiah 1:15), and is the result of the imagination of an evil heart according to the above passage from Jeremiah, that is, the imagination of an evil heart that does not actually "hear" the Torah and rather walks according to belly, (just as the serpent was cursed to do from the beginning), which is the result of walking according to the lust of the flesh, (the lust to eat the cooked flesh of slain innocent creatures of Elohim).

According to your ideas since the LORD gave the commandment in regard to the animal sacrifices then He must have an evil heart!

Instead of admitting that you blundered you continue to try to defend your totally discredited ideas.

 

[Tambora]

God did not accept Cain's offering from his crops.

You said it was about attitude.

It is about a blood offering being better than a crop offering.

No, that is not the point of the story.
Neither a flock or crop offering was accepted without the right attitude.
Do you understand that????
It didn't matter if you brought an offering from your flock or from your crop if you brought it with the wrong attitude.

They both (Abel and Cain) brought offerings in which the substance itself was acceptable by law, as both flock and crop were acceptable offerings to GOD by law.
But while the substance was acceptable, if you brought it with the wrong attitude it would not be accepted.

 

[God's Truth]

Romans the fourth chapter, verses 1 - 8 support that faith wins, when works are defended.

What you said about Abel and Cain was wrong. Address that.

The works of the old law is the purification/ceremonial work, such as circumcision and the sacrifice of animals. Those are the works we do not have to do. We still have to obey God, we just don't have to get circumcised anymore.

 

[God's Truth]

No, that is not the point of the story.
Neither a flock or crop offering was accepted without the right attitude.
Do you understand that????
It didn't matter if you brought an offering from your flock or from your crop if you brought it with the wrong attitude.

They both (Abel and Cain) brought offerings in which the substance itself was acceptable by law, as both flock and crop were acceptable offerings to GOD by law.
But while the substance was acceptable, if you brought it with the wrong attitude it would not be accepted.

THE BLOOD OFFERING was BETTER.