Animal Sacrifices Found in the Old Testament ?

[God's Truth]

To all,


Pay attention.

If Cain had brought a lamb with the same wrong attitude (not by faith), it would not have been accepted.
If Abel had brought crops with the same right attitude (by faith), it would be accepted.

Cain was supposed to bring crop because that is the role that GOD placed him in --- as a tiller of the ground.
Abel was supposed to bring from the flock because that is the role GOD placed him in --- keeper of the sheep.

Cain was not rejected because of WHAT he brought, but for the attitude he brought it with.
Hebrews 11:4 tells us why Abel was accepted, because he did it by faith.


I don't know why you all would argue that a flock offering is better than a crop offering when BOTH were symbolic of the Lord Jesus Christ.
The flock offering (Passover) was death - the cross.
The crop offering (Firstfruits) was life - the resurrection.

And here's the kicker ......
If the flock offering happened (Passover), and the crop offering didn't (Firstfruits) ....... then no resurrection.
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is in vain. 1 Cor 15:14

In other words, a flock offering without the crop offering leaves you trapped in the grave and your hope of being raised to eternal life is nothing but a pipe dream.

It takes BOTH.

And with that I will bow out of this thread and let ya'll take in whatever direction you want.

No hard feelings. But this is crystal clear to me and I see no point in repeating myself.

:carryon:

I understand what you are saying. However, a blood offering is better. Abel was in charge of the flock, and by faith he gave a better offering. Cain could of had that same faith that the animal sacrifice was better, but he did not. Think for yourself whether or not an animal offering is more than a vegetable offering.

 

[God's Truth]

No bible verse?

What do you want scripture on?

Works of the law, or scripture specifically saying it was to clean oneself?

 

[Dark Matter]

I understand what you are saying. However, a blood offering is better. Abel was in charge of the flock, and by faith he gave a better offering. Cain could of had that same faith that the animal sacrifice was better, but he did not. Think for yourself whether or not an animal offering is more than a vegetable offering.

You just missed a very important point that enriches discussion and comes out of the Bible.

Yeah, But.

But, Nothing.

 

[Dark Matter]

What do you want scripture on?

Works of the law, or scripture specifically saying it was to clean oneself?

If you think the Law washed anyone, you are beyond Bible assistance. You need to back up, discard that and read with an open mind.

 

[God's Truth]

You just missed a very important point that enriches discussion and comes out of the Bible.

Yeah, But.

But, Nothing.

Your opinion is tainted and means nothing to me.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

You deny the Testimony of the Master.

Why won't you answer my simple question?:

Do you deny that the animal sacrifices found in the OT, including burnt offerings, were according to the commandment of the LORD?:

"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).​

Are you really willing to argue that the LORD is speaking about "living sacrifices" in this verse?

 

[God's Truth]

If you think the Law washed anyone, you are beyond Bible assistance. You need to back up, discard that and read with an open mind.

Are you Evil Eye?

Try to take your own advice.

The law DID wash. God says it did. God says it was to atone. They Jews had to work at cleaning themselves. I will give scripture reference if you do not know God says the blood of animals is to atone for their souls.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The story is void if you remove the focus on Ables faith.

Let us look at this verse:

"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous" (Heb.11:4).​

When we read about the faith of Abel here was was it that he believed? It must have been some revelation from the LORD, right?

I can only surmise that the LORD told him that he wanted an offering from the flock and he believed the LORD and brought that kind of offering.

What do you think it was that Abel believed?

 

[God's Truth]

Let us look at this verse:

"By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous" (Heb.11:4).​

When we read about the faith of Abel here was was it that he believed? It must have been some revelation from the LORD, right?

I can only surmise that the LORD told him that he wanted an offering from the flock and he believed the LORD and brought that kind of offering.

What do you think it was that Abel believed?

It is common sense to know that life is a better sacrifice.

It is also faith, and common sense that faith alone is dead.

 

[daqq]

Why won't you answer my simple question?:

Do you deny that the animal sacrifices found in the OT, including burnt offerings, were according to the commandment of the LORD?:

"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).​

Are you really willing to argue that the LORD is speaking about "living sacrifices" in this verse?

Blind Pharisee:
I already answered your question with much scripture and you rejected the scripture.

 

[Dark Matter]

Are you Evil Eye?

Try to take your own advice.

The law DID wash. God says it did. God says it was to atone. They Jews had to work at cleaning themselves. I will give scripture reference if you do not know God says the blood of animals is to atone for their souls.

I've been asked if I was Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian and a bunch of other things, but I've never heard of an evil eye! What kind of churches to you go to anyways?

Do evil eyes teach that the Law washes you?

 

[Eagles Wings]

Are you Evil Eye?

Try to take your own advice.

The law DID wash. God says it did. God says it was to atone. They Jews had to work at cleaning themselves. I will give scripture reference if you do not know God says the blood of animals is to atone for their souls.

He already said he was and Tambora pointed it out a couple of days ago in the chat box. Some joking about better formatting, too.

 

[daqq]

Why won't you answer my simple question?:

Do you deny that the animal sacrifices found in the OT, including burnt offerings, were according to the commandment of the LORD?:

"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).​

Are you really willing to argue that the LORD is speaking about "living sacrifices" in this verse?

In addition you have ignored everything that was initially posted to you again on page two of this thread; including all of these following passages of scripture which completely refute your carnal understanding:

Psalm 40:6, 7, 8
Psalm 50:7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Psalm 51:14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Hosea 14:1-2 KJV
Isaiah 1:10, 11, 12, 15
Isaiah 66:1, 2, 3
Jeremiah 7:21, 22, 23

 

[Nang]

Only the burnt offering (bloody sacrifices of innocent animals) worked atonement in the tabernacle/temple OT ordinances.

Why?

Because without a life offered for the loss of life (blood shed), there is no remission of sins.

The other offerings, that contained no blood, never worked atonement, but were only accepted by God because they signified thanksgivings, and were seen by Him as the blessed fruits obtained first by the blood offerings.

Unfortunately, many never study the tabernacle/temple ordinances of offerings and the details of the priesthood, looking for revelations of the Person and purpose of Jesus Christ.

Tambora is totally wrong to say that Cain's "crop" offering had the capacity to please God in any way. It was only a substitute worship on Cain's part, based on the works of his hands.

Man can raise corn, but corn offered, cannot not cover sins, let alone save souls.

The death of an innocent animal life, created by God alone, is worthy to gain covering for one's sins. And such bloody offering of life, alone points to the eventual and sacrificial offering of Jesus Christ on the cross.

Jesus' blood was much more worthy than Cain's corn cobs . . .

 

[God's Truth]

I've been asked if I was Baptist, Catholic, Presbyterian and a bunch of other things, but I've never heard of an evil eye! What kind of churches to you go to anyways?

Do evil eyes teach that the Law washes you?

God says to do it to clean oneself.

You gotta know by now that I have scripture for what I say.

 

[daqq]

Only the burnt offering (bloody sacrifices of innocent animals) worked atonement in the tabernacle/temple OT ordinances.

Why?

Because without a life offered for the loss of life (blood shed), there is no remission of sins.

The other offerings, that contained no blood, never worked atonement, but were accepted by God because they signified thanksgivings, and blessed fruits obtained first by the blood offerings.

Unfortunately, many never study the tabernacle/temple ordinances of offerings and the details of the priesthood, looking for revelations of the Person and purpose of Jesus Christ.

Tambora is totally wrong to say that Cain's "crop" offering had the capacity to please God in any way. It was only a substitute worship on Cain's part, based on the works of his hands.

Man can raise corn, but corn does not cover sins, let alone save souls.

The death of an innocent animal life, created by God alone, is worthy to gain covering for one's sins. And such bloody offering of life, alone points to the eventual and sacrificial offering of Jesus Christ on the cross.

Jesus' blood was much more worthy than Cain's corn cobs . . .

The word for "burnt offering" in most of your English translations is simply "olah", (from "alah" which means to ascend), which only really means "ascending offering", (prayer). "BURNT" is nothing more than a carnal understanding of men who love to eat the cooked flesh of animals.

 

[God's Truth]

In addition you have ignored everything that was initially posted to you again on page two of this thread; including all of these following passages of scripture which completely refute your carnal understanding:

Psalm 40:6, 7, 8
Psalm 50:7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
Psalm 51:14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19
Hosea 14:1-2 KJV
Isaiah 1:10, 11, 12, 15
Isaiah 66:1, 2, 3
Jeremiah 7:21, 22, 23

God commanded animal sacrifices.

When did God not desire them?

God did not desire them for things like murder and adultery.

When did the animal sacrifices and other offerings turn bad to God?

When they were done by those who really weren't sorry for their sins, and those who were not really thankful.

 

[Nang]

The word for "burnt offering" in most of your English translations is simply "olah", (from "alah" which means to ascend), which only really means "ascending offering", (prayer). "BURNT" is nothing more than a carnal understanding of men who love to eat the cooked flesh of animals.

Bah . . .

You voice blasphemy against the scriptural revelations of God!

The burnt offering is equivalent to the prayers of faithful saints, which ascend up to the throne of God, in thanksgiving for the sacrificial offering of Jesus Christ, that redeemed their souls.

Some of the most wonderful bible studies that can be held, are those of the tabernacle ordinances, which ALL teach Christians of the Person, purpose, and work of Jesus Christ on the cross on behalf of His people.

 

[daqq]

God commanded animal sacrifices.

When did God not desire them?

God did not desire them for things like murder and adultery.

When did the animal sacrifices and other offerings turn bad to God?

When they were done by those who really weren't sorry for their sins, and those who were not really thankful.

And you speak for Elohim? I already quoted Jeremiah 7:22 in the same place I just spoke about to Jerry, that is, on page two of this thread, (even after it was already posted in a previous thread which brought about this new thread). How many times does it need to be repeated? The Father plainly says that He did not speak about literal physical animal sacrifices and eating flesh when He brought the children of Israel out of Egypt. Here it is again, a third time now, from page two of this thread:

Jeremiah 7:21-26 KJV
21 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh.
22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.
25 Since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day I have even sent unto you all my servants the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them:
26 Yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck: they did worse than their fathers.

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).

 

[God's Truth]

And you speak for Elohim? I already quoted Jeremiah 7:22 in the same place I just spoke about to Jerry, that is, on page two of this thread, (even after it was already posted in a previous thread which brought about this new thread). How many times does it need to be repeated? The Father plainly says that He did not speak about literal physical animal sacrifices and eating flesh when He brought the children of Israel out of Egypt. Here it is again, a third time now, from page two of this thread:

Jeremiah 7:21-26 KJV
21 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh.
22 For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices:
23 But this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all the ways that I have commanded you, that it may be well unto you.
24 But they hearkened not, nor inclined their ear, but walked in the counsels and in the imagination of their evil heart, and went backward, and not forward.
25 Since the day that your fathers came forth out of the land of Egypt unto this day I have even sent unto you all my servants the prophets, daily rising up early and sending them:
26 Yet they hearkened not unto me, nor inclined their ear, but hardened their neck: they did worse than their fathers.

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).

God commanded the sacrifice of animals.

Get closer to God by not going against the Truth.