Not sure what you mean here, but animal sacrifices for sin go way back before the Torah became The Law.
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.
️ 1. Genesis 3:21 – God clothing Adam and Eve
Meaning:
This is not explicitly called a sacrifice, but the implication is that an animal was slain to cover their shame and nakedness — a symbolic picture of atonement and covering for sin (compare “atonement” = kaphar, “to cover”).
However, this is God’s act, not a commanded sacrifice by humans.
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.
2. Genesis 4:3–5 – Cain and Abel’s offerings
Meaning:
This is the
first recorded animal offering by a human.
While the text doesn’t explicitly say it was for sin,
Hebrews 11:4 gives commentary:
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.
Prov. 3:
9 Honour the LORD with thy substance, and with the firstfruits of all thine increase: 10 So shall thy barns be filled with plenty, and thy presses shall burst out with new wine.
This suggests Abel’s sacrifice was accepted because of faith in God’s provision for sin — a substitutionary offering, prefiguring later sin offerings.
Still, no law or priesthood existed here; it’s voluntary worship, not an atonement system.
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.
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?
3. Genesis 8:20–21 – Noah’s burnt offerings after the Flood
Meaning:
Burnt offerings (olah) were acts of devotion and thanksgiving.
Verse 21 says, “The Lord smelled a sweet savour,” and in response, promised never again to curse the ground.
This shows divine acceptance, but again, it’s not explicitly a sin offering for atonement — more a dedication or thanksgiving offering.
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.
️ 4. Genesis 15:9–10 – Abram’s covenant sacrifice
Meaning:
These animals were cut in two as part of the covenant ceremony between God and Abram.
This was not for sin, but to ratify God’s covenant promise to give Abram descendants and land.
I think you should read the entire story. And yes, it wasn't about killing animals for the remission of Abraham's sin.
5. Genesis 22:13 – Abraham and Isaac
Meaning:
This was a substitutionary sacrifice — the ram died in place of Isaac.
It foreshadows substitutionary atonement (Christ, the true Lamb of God), but it was not a sin offering under law — it was an act of obedience and faith.
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.
️ 6. Exodus 10:25 – Moses before the Exodus
Meaning:
Before Sinai, Moses acknowledges that sacrifices were part of Hebrew worship, but still, no system for sin atonement or priesthood yet existed.
These were likely peace or burnt offerings, expressing devotion to God, not Levitical sin offerings.
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.
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.
7. Job 1:5; 42:8 – Job’s burnt offerings
Meaning:
These are
the clearest examples before Moses of animal sacrifices being used in relation to
sin.
But notice:
- There’s still no written command or priesthood; Job acts as his family’s priest.
- God accepts the offerings (Job 42:9).
This shows a
principle of substitutionary atonement known by the patriarchs, but not yet codified in the Mosaic 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.