Scott,
What you are saying is obviously impossible, for if sin was not imputed before Sinai, everybody before Sinai would have been sinless. This is exactly the opposite of what Paul is trying to prove.

Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned

All the commentators I know of agree that there was a law, and that sin was imputed, before the Mosaic era. Some interpret this law as being the law written on the heart. However, this would not explain why children before the age of accountability die. Therefore, I agree with Matthew Henry here:

"Sin was in the world before the law; witness Cain’s murder, the apostasy of the old world, the wickedness of Sodom. His inference hence is, Therefore there was a law; for sin is not imputed where there is no law. Original sin is a want of conformity to, and actual sin is a transgression of, the law of God: therefore all were under some law. His proof of it is, Death reigned from Adam to Moses." [italics in the original, bolds supplied]


Again, as Matthew Henry says, "Here is mention of a seventh-day sabbath. It was known, not only before the giving of the law upon mount Sinai, but before the bringing of Israel out of Egypt, even from the beginning, Gen_2:3." The text suggests they had been transgressing it for a long time. Here the Sabbath is mentioned as part of God's laws.

If God had left the inhabitants of the world without a moral instruction from Eden to Sinai (2500 years), He would have been a very negligent God.


If everyone who is in rebellion against God knows it, then there is no need for the law - it's virtually useless. The interesting thing is that before my conversion I was in rebellion against God and didn't know it.

I asked this:



This is because you are apparently saying that it's OK to eat piranhas because they aren't on the list. I'm saying that just because something is not on the list does not mean it's good to eat.

Why should the Israelites be concerned about piranhas anyway?

Romans 5:13 (New International Version)
For before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.

Romans 5:13 (New American Standard Bible)
For until the law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

Romans 5:13 (Amplified Bible)
[To be sure] sin was in the world before ever the Law was given, but sin is not charged to men's account where there is no law [to transgress].

Romans 5:13 (English Standard Version)
For sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.

Romans 5:13 (Young's Literal Translation)
For till law sin was in the world: and sin is not reckoned when there is not law;

Romans 5:13 (New Century Version)
Sin was in the world before the law of Moses, but sin is not counted against us as breaking a command when there is no law.

I wonder what version of the Bible Matthew Henry was reading! It even says the same thing in the GreeK.

Adam chose sin, but all of those after him were simply sinners by nature. Once the law came their sin was defined and they were guilty. That didn’t mean that they didn’t suffer the consequences of Adam’s sin, nor does it mean that their guilt was any less. What it does mean, and the point of the context of the whole discussion, is that what Adam did to his family by choosing sin Jesus undid for those who believe on Him!

That is Paul’s point so why would you try to make the point that this text teaches that the 10 Commandments were in Eden?

scott

If we need the guidelines of the Old Covenant then where does vegetarianism come from? Is this not an application of the principles of love through a knowledge of God's kingdom where there will be no killing?

scott

No, not because they aren't on the list of unclean animals, but because they are on the list of clean animals.

Leviticus 11:9 ‘These you may eat of all that are in the water: whatever in the water has fins and scales, whether in the seas or in the rivers—that you may eat.


Not the Israelites - WE, today. As you know, a great part of the SDA members in Brazil (and other South American countries) are not vegetarians, and of course there are many who eat piranhas because it's a clean animal. Scientifically, piranhas are high in the food chain, so they would normally be more likely to accumulate toxins. Maybe they are an exception to the rule, but science has not yet demonstrated this (or been concerned in ascertaining this).

Not only Matthew Henry, but all the commentators are in agreement about this, as I said.

Geneva Bible “That this is so, that both guiltiness and death began not after the giving and transgressing of law of Moses, is evident in that men died before that law was given: for in that they died, sin, which is the cause of death, existed then: and in such a way, that it was also imputed: because of this it follows that there was then some law, the breach of which was the cause of death.”

Gill: “but sin is not imputed when there is no law. This looks like an objection, that if there was no law before Moses’s time, then there was no sin, nor could any action of man be known or accounted by them as sinful, or be imputed to them to condemnation; or rather it is a concession, allowing that where there is no law, sin is not imputed; but there was a law before that law of Moses, which law was transgressed, and the sin or transgression of it was imputed to men to condemnation and death, as appears from what follows.”

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown: “but sin is not imputed where there is no law—‘There must therefore have been a law during that period, because sin was then imputed’; as is now to be shown.”

Robertson’s Word Pictures: “{Until the law} (acri nomou). Until the Mosaic law. Sin was there before the Mosaic law, for the Jews were like Gentiles who had the law of reason and conscience (#2:12-16), but the coming of the law increased their responsibility and their guilt (#2:9). {Sin is not imputed} (amartia de ouk ellogeitai). Present passive indicative of late verb ellogaw (-ew) from en and logov, to put down in the ledger to one’s account, examples in inscription and papyri. {When there is no law} (mh ontov nomou). Genitive absolute, no law of any kind, he means. There was law _before_ the Mosaic law.”

And as I've also already said, some of them interpret this law as the law written on the heart. But, besides the law written on the conscience, of course the 10 commandments were already known in oral form before Sinai. Besides, as I said, the law written on the heart wouldn't explain why babies and children before the age of accountability die.

Scott,

Jesus ate meat after the cross, the apostles ate meat after the cross, and the whole church of God ate meat after the cross until the SDA Church arose, and many in the SDA Church still eat meat. And all those needed and still need guidelines about which animals are safe to eat and which aren't.

But the guidelines were given to Noah and he was given a list of every animal! How can you say this happened best when the law was given? If anything, as you point out, the law is incomplete compared to Noah's list, but does give us an example of the principle.

Oh, I forgot to add that no one will eat meat in heaven!!!!!

scott

I'm not sure what you are trying to prove.

Of course the law existed in the form of God's character of love. God created us in His image. The natural law would be to act like God.

It is the written law we are talking about. You insist that the 10 Commandments were given in Eden and that is an assumption with no Biblical backing based on Romans 5 that says that the law (Moses law) was definitely after Eden!

Even your commentators agree with me.






The commentators are saying that even though "the law" wasn't in existence before Eden there was still "a law" in existence.

That has always been my point. You are the one insisting that "the law" in Eden was in the same form as "the 10 Commandments" at Sinai.

The 10Cs are an expression of the law of love written in the context of slaves coming out of Egypt after 400 years of bondage. They are actually a "lower expression" of the law for the purpose of governing people as the standard of righteousness. They represent the law expressed through the lowest common denominator. Not to kill someone is the bottom line and definitely not the ideal.

The law written on the heart happens when an individual falls in love with God for who He is! It becomes descriptive of a relationship with God that extends to our fellow men.

If I were the leader of a country of unconverted men I would use the 10 Commandments as a first step into leading men to Christ.

OTOH, if I were counseling an individual in their spiritual life I would suggest that their thoughts and feelings toward God and others is a thermometer of where they are with God. If the thermometer says we are a little cold we might need to turn up the heat through prayer and meditation on the life of Christ.


One can't get too close to God!

The 10Cs are a guide to govern a nation of unconverted, but once a man is converted Jesus is a much better example of love. The “law” becomes obsolete and ready to pass away.

scott

How could piranhas have been excluded? They didn't even know what a piranha was. How could God have excluded piranhas?



I'm not clear what you're saying in the last sentence. Are you saying that piranhas may be an exception to the rule that scavengers are unhealthy to eat, but science hasn't proven this?

Here's my original comment: