Are babies born without sin

[Webers_Home]

Adam`s first sons Abel and Cain - murder had already begun in Adams family.

Cain was indeed a murderer. However; God couldn't legally prosecute him
for that particular crime. The reason being that according to Rom 4:15, Rom
5:13, and Gal 3:17 God's laws cannot be broken until they are issued; viz:
God's laws aren't retroactive. Well; God didn't issue a ban against murder
till many years later after the Flood (Gen 9:5-6) which effectively put Cain
outside that particular law's jurisdiction.

This is a difficult Bible principle for some people to digest; but it is a very
important element in the plan of salvation so it's a good idea to nail it down
in one's thinking.

Christ's crucifixion places believers outside the jurisdiction of every law that
God issued in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy;
every one of them; including, but not limited to: all ten of the Ten
Commandments, all of the Temple sacrifices, and all of the feasts and holy
days. The most important law that Christ's crucifixion places believers outside
is this one:

†. Deut 27:26 . . Cursed is the man who does not uphold the words of this
law by carrying them out. (cf. Gal 3:10)

In other words; in order to avoid that particular curse; it is necessary for
people to comply with everything in the books of Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, and Deuteronomy-- everything --and not just some of the time,
nor even most of the time: but all of the time: no exceptions and no
excuses.

Now; I think you'd have to admit that Cain was in a very advantageous
position; and actually so was Abraham. He existed something like 400+
years before God issued Deut 27:26 so Abraham couldn't be cursed for
violating anything in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Deuteronomy. Good thing too because lying is prohibited by those laws
(Lev 19:11) and so is sleeping with one's half sister (Lev 18:9). Therefore,
Abraham would have been under the curse of Deut 27:26 because the law
says "cursed is" which is grammatically present tense-- no delay, and no
waiting period; which is probably why Jesus said: "He that disbelieves is
condemned already." (John 3:18)

Buen Camino
/

 

[lukethreesix]

Babies and the unborn have yet to eat of the tree of knowledge of good or evil, therefore have already access to the tree of life. But once that knowledge has been obtained, the tree of life is taken away (until repentance and correction takes place).

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

Cain was indeed a murderer. However; God couldn't legally prosecute him
for that particular crime. The reason being that according to Rom 4:15, Rom
5:13, and Gal 3:17 God's laws cannot be broken until they are issued; viz:
God's laws aren't retroactive. Well; God didn't issue a ban against murder
till many years later after the Flood (Gen 9:5-6) which effectively put Cain
outside that particular law's jurisdiction.

But God did have laws. Read Rom 1:20-32 where Paul talks about these Gentiles that lived prior to the law of Moses. And In Rom 2:14,15 "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another" So they knew murder was wrong, they knew homosexuality was wrong but they did it anyway.

After Cain killed Abel "the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground."

If there were not any laws, nothing to determine what was right and wrong, then why did Caiin lie and try to cover up what he did? Why didn't Cain just come out and tell God he killed Abel for to Cain nothing would have been wrong with killing Abel. The law was written in his heart, his conscience knew it was wrong.

You continue to have God act unjustly in randomly condemning men for no particular reason.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

What has always bothered me (about God) was his dislike for Cain's offering (produce) and approval of Abel's offering (animal)

I fail to see what the big deal was between the two.

If I was Cain I would have been upset too.

I hope God doesn't smote me dead because I said that

Now Abel became a shepherd of a flock, but Cain cultivated the land. 3In the course of time Cain presented some of the land's produce as an offering to the LORD. 4And Abel also presented [an offering] — some of the firstborn of his flock and their fat portions. The Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, 5but He did not have regard for Cain and his offering. Cain was furious, and he was downcast.

 

[KingJ]

If that was all the facts to the story I agree with you.

But there is further (predictable) insight in Heb 11:4-6 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. 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God. 6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him

If Abel cultivated the land his sacrifice would still have been an animal.

 

[Webers_Home]

What has always bothered me (about God) was his dislike for Cain's offering (produce)
and approval of Abel's offering (animal) I fail to see what the big deal was between the two.

The big deal wasn't the offerings. The Hebrew word for their gifts is from
minchah (min-khaw') and means: to apportion, i.e. bestow; a donation;
euphemistically, tribute; specifically a sacrificial offering (usually
bloodless and voluntary).

Ancient rabbis believed the brothers' offerings to be a "first fruits" kind of
oblation.

T. And it was at the end of days, on the fourteenth of Nisan, that Kain
brought of the produce of the earth, the seed of cotton (or line), an oblation
of first things before the Lord; and Habel brought of the firstlings of the
flock. (Targum Jonathan)

Seeing as how Cain was a farmer, then in his case, an amount of produce
was the appropriate first fruits offering, and seeing as how Abel was an
animal husbandman, then in his case a head of livestock was the appropriate
first fruits offering.

It's common for poorly-trained Bible students to trip up on the nature of the
offerings; in other words: they assume Cain was rejected because his
offering was bloodless and they attempt to justify their theory by citing the
below:

†. Heb 11:4 . . It was by faith that Abel brought a more acceptable offering
to God than Cain did. God accepted Abel's offering to show that he was a
righteous man.

However, the focus in both Genesis and Hebrews is not really upon the
offerings because it's okay for a minchah to be bloodless. The focus is
actually upon faith and righteousness; that is: the focus is upon the nature
of the brother's conduct rather than upon the nature of their gifts. Abel's
conduct was righteous; hence God accepted his gift; while Cain's conduct
was unrighteous.

†. Gen 4:7a . . If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?

Cain was of a good family. He wasn't the product of poverty or an inner city
barrio or dilapidated public housing. His mother wasn't cruel and/or
thoughtless, nor did she neglect him or abandon him. He wasn't in a gang,
didn't carry a church key, a shank, an ice pick, or a gun; didn't smoke weed,
drink, snort coke, take meth, gamble or chase women. He was very religious
and worshipped the exact same God that his brother worshipped, and the
rituals he practiced were correct and timely.

Cain worked for a living in an honest profession. He wasn't a thief, wasn't
a predatory lender, wasn't a Wall Street barracuda, a dishonest investment
banker, or an unscrupulous social network mogul. He wasn't a cheap politician,
wasn't a terrorist, wasn't on the take, wasn't lazy, nor did he associate with
the wrong crowd. The man did everything a model citizen is supposed to do;
yet he, and subsequently his gift, were soundly rejected because he was
unrighteous.

In what way was he unrighteous? Well, Cain's blemish is an elephant in the
middle of the room. It was friction between him and his brother. Christ
taught that it is incorrect to worship God while the worshipper's relationship
with their brother is dysfunctional.

†. Matt 5:23-24 . .Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there
remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift
there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother,
and then come and offer your gift.

So then, what are Genesis and Matthew teaching? They're teaching that
one's worship-- no matter how timely, nor how correct --is unacceptable when
their conduct is unbecoming.

†. 1John 1:5-7 . . God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all. If we say
that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not
the truth: but if we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship
one with another.

See also Isa 1:11-20, Hos 6:6, Pro 15:8-9, and Prv 21:27

This principle of comes out very early in the Bible because it is so foundational
to humanity's association with its creator.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

What has always bothered me (about God) was his dislike for Cain's offering (produce) and approval of Abel's offering (animal)

I fail to see what the big deal was between the two.

If I was Cain I would have been upset too.

I hope God doesn't smote me dead because I said that

Now Abel became a shepherd of a flock, but Cain cultivated the land. 3In the course of time Cain presented some of the land's produce as an offering to the LORD. 4And Abel also presented [an offering] — some of the firstborn of his flock and their fat portions. The Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, 5but He did not have regard for Cain and his offering. Cain was furious, and he was downcast.

To add another verse to what KingJ posted:


Heb 11:4 "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."


Rom 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."


Abel made his offering by faith, and faith comes by hearing God's word, so Cain and Abel would have heard God's word on what type of sacrifice to make and Cain's offering was not by faith, not as God said.

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

Well all I can say is if it all comes down to who had the best faith between Cain and Abel , then why did God discriminate between the actual offerings (grain or animals)

 

[Webers_Home]

Well all I can say is if it all comes down to who had the best faith between Cain and Abel
, then why did God discriminate between the actual offerings (grain or animals)

See post #66

Buen Camino
/

 

[Arnie Manitoba]

See post #66

Buen Camino
/

I already have ..... but you are bolstering the Cain - Abel issue by using a lot of New testament explanations .... what were people to think for thousands of years with only the Genesis record ??

 

[Webers_Home]

you are bolstering the Cain - Abel issue by using a lot of New testament
explanations .... what were people to think for thousands of years with
only the Genesis record ??

†. Gen 4:7a . . If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?

That principle comes out very early in the Bible because it is so
foundational to humanity's association with its creator. A great place to find
it repeated in the Old Testament is in the first chapter of Isaiah. (Isa 1:11
-20)

Yhvhs' people were offering all the correct God-given sacrifices, they were
praying up a storm, and observing all the God-given feasts and holy days.
But God rejected all of it, even though He himself required it, because the
people's conduct was unbecoming.

Another place to find the principle repeated is in the Old Testament book of
Hosea. (Hos 6:4-9). Yhvh's people were very religious. But there again, just
as with Cain, God despised the people's worship because their conduct was
unbecoming.

There's other places in the Old Testament where the principle is repeated;
for example:

†. Prv 15:8 . .The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to Yhvh.

Perhaps the classic example is the one below.

†. Ps 51:16 . .You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it; you do not
take pleasure in burnt offerings.

David had only just committed the capital crimes of adultery and murder.
There was just no way that God was going to accept his sacrifices and
offerings on top of that; and David knew it too.

FYI: Isaiah, Hosea, and Proverbs, along with Gen 4:7, were referenced in
post #66.

Buen Camino
/

 

[Suhar]

Sin is an act. Babies are born with sinful nature upon which they will act and sin.