Lev 4 clearly covers ALL sins as long as at the time of commission they were unknown, or without premeditation.
Lev 4
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a soul shall sin through ignorance against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which ought not to be done, and shall do against any of them:
3 If the priest that is anointed do sin according to the sin of the people; then let him bring for his sin, which he hath sinned, a young bullock without blemish unto the LORD for a sin offering.
I guess if the bible says sin against ANY of the commandments, that covers ALL of the commandments.
DL, I am saying they killed them. The text said show them no mercy. Do you admit the text says that? How do you address it.
You are saying there are sins that there is no forgiveness. The only sin without forgiveness is the sin against the holy spirit because the sinner does not repent.
No, I already pointed out that God has at times forgiven it. But in Moses' law they killed them, not offered sacrifice for them, and in the case of David for murder, a similar capitol crime, when David was spared he did not offer sacrifice.
The bible says Jesus who was prefigured in the sacrificial lamb takes away the sin of the world. Now you manufactoried a theory that says the sin of idolatry can not be forgiven. Who's correct? The bible or you?
Indeed we agree. I already cited the example of Mannasseh and David in capitol crimes, and yet they were forgiven-but it does not say they sactrificed, and it says that David would have brought sacrifices but God was not pleased with those.
But what you say is that the blood of Jesus does not cleanse but just moves sins around. Yet the Scriptures say that Jesus paid our debt to sin. It is paid. There is no more sin when Jesus dies for it.
The reason they are to be driven off is because they commit those sins repeatedly. There is no forgiveness for any sin that's committed repeatedly to the end, not just idolatry.
So
a. there is nothing, not one word, that says the sins they committed were in ignorance.
b. you admit they went on for some time doing them.
yet you inexplicably insist that is how the record got there, ignoring the death penalty issue, ignoring the total lack of evidence that the sins were confessed, ignoring the fact that sins defiled the sanctuary at commission, so if a record was to be there it would be there from that, not from the blood.
In fact, according to you the sins that are confessed must be there twice? Once from commission and once transferred by blood. Do you want to explain that?
The only person you have to convince is yourself. So keep changing the word for your liking. I'm signing off.
You didn't give me a word to change.
You gave me
a. an admission you had no text about transfer of confessed sin. Therefore you infer.
b. a text you want to mean there was a record but never says they were confessed sins, therefore you infer.
c. a text that never says it was an altar of the Lord, and in fact mentions asheras, high places and pagan idols and altars, therefore you infer.
d a text that never says they sacrificed for these sins, therefore you infer.
And
a. I gave you a text that says they get the death penalty for this crime, and you say no they don't.
b. I gave you a text that shows the sin defiling at commission, you admit it does, but then say it transfers again later.
c. I gave you a text that says that blood atones and forgives, and you infer that means it records sins.
d. I showed that the illustration was not of blood but of a pen showing how deep the sin was and how hard to remove, and you state that it must be blood, when nowhere did it say that.
e. I showed you in your own text where it says that they are being driven from the land for their sin of idolatry and you say that it was forgiven and not willfull, though the text nowhere says that.
Who then is changing the word?