The Hebrew word for "LAW" is "תּוֹרָה", "towrah". This means that you just said;
"Not sure what you mean here, but animal sacrifices for sin go way back before God's Law became God's Law."
That doesn't make much sense.
The Torah or Pentateuch consists of the first 5 books of the bible. It is often referred to as the Book of the Law.
21 Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
Nevertheless, there was No Commandment of God for man to kill animals "because of their transgressions". This command wasn't "ADDED" to God's LAWS until 430 years after Abraham, at least this is what Paul and the Holy Prophets teach.
4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying "of his gifts": and by it he being dead yet speaketh.
Yes, it wasn't an offering Commanded by God "because of their Transgressions", which is the entire premise of your reply. It was a free will offering to God out of respect and honor towards God.
This assumes facts not in evidence. Where is your evidence of this? How does killing a lamb respect and honor God? Are you suggesting that God is honored by killing an innocent creature and burning its carcass on an altar? If so, do you kill and burn a lamb on an altar to honor God? Of course not. Why? Because the lamb that takes away the sins of the world has fulfilled that function. The offering was a sin offering.
That is exactly what Cain was doing. He was a farmer, so he brought his first fruits. Why wasn't God pleased with that?
There was no Commandment from God that they should kill goats, "because of their Transgressions". The AI teaching here doesn't mention that Cain gave a free will offering to God, same as Abel, but it wasn't the best of his increase. I think you have missed the entire point of the Scripture in your attempt to defend and justify the religious philosophy that God's entire Law wasn't "ADDED" until AFTER Transgressions.
Just because those exact words are not written out, it should be obvious to you as to the function of these sacrifices. If they are as you claim, then why do you not carry out such sacrifices to honor God today?
3 And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. 4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
Rom. 12:
1 I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that "ye present your bodies" a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. 2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Isn't this the real difference between Cain and Abel?
What? How does this refer to Cain bringing his first fruits to the altar.
Yes, a free will offering to God for His Mercy and promises. And to Ratify a covenant God made with Noah, just as Moses in the
Ex. 24 verse you referenced that I posted for our discussion and in the hope that you might answer questions asked of you, concerning the teaching you are furthering. There is no mention of a Commandment of God to kill animals, "because of his transgressions". You are making my point for me.
There absolutely is. Animal sacrifice is always what pointed to Christ on the cross. John did not say, "Behold the Avocado that takes away the sins of the world." He said "Lamb."
I think you should read the entire story. And yes, it wasn't about killing animals for the remission of Abraham's sin.
Yes, it was not about Abraham sacrificing Isaac "because of his transgressions". The command by God to kill animals "because of transgressions" was not "ADDED" to God's Laws, Statutes, Commandments and Judgments Abraham obeyed, until 430 years after Abraham.
Again, you are making the point Paul was making. The "LAW" that was ADDED, "Because of Transgressions", wasn't added until after the Golden Calf.
This is rabbit hole theology. We are in biblical wonderland here. Jacob sacrificing Isaac tells the story of God having His own son killed for our sins. "God will provide a lamb." What do you think that means?
Yes, God's Laws existed which defined sin, and Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Israel) lived by them, and free will offerings to God were offered as expressions of Love and respect for their King. But Israel lost sight of them, and sent Moses to show them once again.
This is incredibly bazaar. You are saying that in order to
But the "LAW" concerning burnt offering and sacrifices "because of transgressions", (Sin) wasn't "ADDED until after Israel broke God's Covenant, and Moses went up the 2nd Time to secure another Covenant.
This is the "LAW" Paul was speaking to, that the required Jews to come to "them" for atonement, and not to Jesus. Paul is telling them that the very reason this "ADDED" Law was given, was to lead them to their True High Priest, the Lamb of God.
The deceiver would have you and I believe that "ALL" of God's Laws defining sin, righteousness, holiness, judgments etc.,, given to Moses, were not given until after Transgressions. But this deception is stupid, given that their is NO Transgression, without LAW.
Remember, we are arguing about what "LAW" was ADDED "because of Transgressions" that the Pharisees were still promoting to the Galatians.
A Law that was to Lead them to their Prophesied, True High Priest. A "Law" that wasn't "ADDED" until 430 years after Abraham.
This World's religious system, and by extension you, because you promote the same philosophy, is that this "LAW" was the entire Law of God, made known to the world through Moses, His Chosen Servant, through the Law and Prophets. And you specifically stated the LAW can not be "parsed", meaning that if I Love the Lord my God with all my heart, I must also kill a goat "because of my transgressions" or I am not obeying God. I tried to show you how the "Priesthood", unlike God's Judgments and Commandments, was temporary from it's conception. And was Prophesied to end. While God's Laws defining sin, righteousness, clean, holy and just, are eternal.
Now lets get out of the rabbit hole and go over some examples.
️ Step 2: Biblical Examples Before the Mosaic Law
1. Genesis 3:21 – The first shedding of blood
“Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.”
While not explicitly called a “sacrifice,” this verse implies that
animals were slain to cover human shame. The skins would have required the death of an animal — the first recorded death after sin entered the world.
Spiritual meaning: Bloodshed provided
covering (Heb.
kaphar = atone). This sets the pattern that forgiveness and cleansing from sin require substitutionary death.
2. Genesis 4:3–5 – Cain and Abel
“Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering.”
The “firstlings” and “fat portions” indicate a
blood sacrifice, unlike Cain’s produce offering.
Hebrews 11:4 interprets this scene:
“By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous.”
Why was Abel’s sacrifice “more excellent”? Because it was an
atoning offering — an act of faith that looked forward to the covering of sin through blood (cf. Hebrews 9:22: “without shedding of blood there is no remission”).
So while Genesis doesn’t label Abel’s act a “sin offering,” the
New Testament identifies it as a righteous, faith-based, blood sacrifice — a prototype of substitutionary atonement.
3. Genesis 8:20–21 – Noah after the Flood
“Noah built an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. And the LORD smelled a sweet savour…”
The phrase “sweet savour” (Heb.
reyaḥ niḥoach) later appears repeatedly in Leviticus to describe sacrifices that
make atonement (Lev. 1:9, 3:5, 4:31).
God’s response to Noah’s offering — “I will never again curse the ground for man’s sake” — mirrors the
appeasement and reconciliation language of atonement.
Noah’s act has
atoning overtones: the world had just been judged for sin, and Noah offers sacrifice representing cleansing and restored favor.
4. Genesis 22:13 – Abraham and Isaac
“And Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.”
The substitutionary nature is unmistakable — the ram dies “
in the place of” Isaac.
That is the exact logic of a
sin offering: one life given to spare another.
Later Scripture confirms the typology:
- John 1:29: “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.”
- Romans 8:32: “He did not spare His own Son.”
So while this sacrifice is called a
burnt offering, its theological meaning is
substitutionary atonement — precisely what a sin offering represents.
5. Job 1:5 and 42:8 – Job’s priestly offerings
“Job… offered burnt offerings according to the number of them all: for Job said, It may be that my sons have sinned…”
“My servant Job shall pray for you: for him will I accept… and offer up for yourselves a burnt offering.”
These clearly
function as sin offerings — the intent is explicitly to make intercession for sin.
Job lived in the patriarchal period
before Moses, showing that substitutionary sacrifice for sin was already known.
duckduckgo.com
