SDA Hypocrisy?

Here is why I believe the Seventh Day the Sabbath of the LORD your God:

1. "In fulnes of the Sabbath midst of (day)light before the First Day of the week" Christ rose from the dead;

2. "Having triumphed throu it (His resurrection from the dead) - "Let not you (Body of Christ's own) be judged by anyone (of the world) FEASTING YOUR SABBATHS' FEASTS";

3. For thus God concerning the Seventh Day ... in these last days ... through the Son ... did speak: And God the Seventh Day finished ALL His works" - through the LIFE, death and RESURRECTION of Christ from the dead "ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF INDESTRUCTABLE LIFE" - God unchanging, faithful and eternal and almighty;

4. For THIS Day, the Sabbath of which Jesus the Son of Man is Lord, IS "THE LORD'S DAY" FOREVER - UNTO hIM BE WORSHIP, PRAISES, GLORY AND HONOUR!

 

That's the whole issue. I have no "points" against "God's Word" in any scripture. It's not God's word anyone here is argung against, it's your selective use of God's Word in determining which commandments were are still to keep today. But you always cast our agrguments that way, and it's amazing how a few pages ago Claudia was whining about persecution of SDA's, when you all are the ones coming on here and accusing us of going against the Word of God. You don;t keep every commandment in the OT. You don't keep the annual feasts. So when you claim that only the annual feasts were abolished, how do you like it if wopik came and claimed you were arguing "against the Word of God"?

 

Did you even "look at Heb 10"?? You have to at least "try". Pretending not to understand the point or the references is not a compelling form of argument.

As was pointed out above - and as is so blatantly obvious Lev 19:18 and Deut 6:5 do not PREDICT the PRESCRIBE behavior.

Eric your attempts to pretend to be confused by it so vaccuous in terms of "substance" - why not join the discussion instead of playing your games?

You apparently have far more time on the computer than I do. I don't have time to break down your posts point by point anymore, because I've done it all before, it can take whole days, and all your posts are is a bunch of accustatory rhetoric. Playing games, pretending to be confused, etc. Who has time for this? Like you can read my mind, and it was as if God had appeared in the sky and shouted that the Sabbath was still in effect. It's just the same old rehashed indirect correlation (the sabbath is a memorial; of creation, and is mentioned in Is.66 for the future). What does that have to do with us now? Show us a clear command for US to keep it NOW. God is so straightforward and repetitive about everything else He expects from us. And it is omitted from Acts 15, which would have been the perfect place to reinstate it for the NT. So if you think it is still in effect, then YOU keep it, but you do not have enough Scriptural EVIDENCE to be accusing us the way you do! You basically have just a THEORY.
DHK answerd this last night regarding the Kingdom, and I have always added that that Isaiah passage was a conditional picture of the Kingdom under the Old Covenant had Israel remained faithful and been the vehicle God used in the Kingdom.
You don't answer any of this, except to just accuse us of attacking God's Word, and then you just repeat the passages with your interpretation on them as if we hadn't answered it. You're clearly the one playing games here, and JArthur nailed this whole issue a couple of weeks ago when he told Claudia that this is all about pride anyway. (You all had no comeback for that)

 

The whole point is that you all are picking and choosing what you think "God says" for us today. Iff one of God's commands is the sabbath, then another one is new moons. If The sabbath is proven to be for us today because it is in the Millennium in Is. 66, then so are new moons. Yet you keep one and not the other. This is selective. So you cannot accuse anyone of not obeying what God says, becayuse either you are not, or perhaps some commandments have apparently been rescinded by God Himself.

 

oh brother, one can read the ten commandments and see that the sabbath is one of them, what a lame excuse.

 

Please respond to the next level of this discussion instead of simply repeating the previous "answered" point.

The reason you can not "equivocate" between Sabbath and New Moon as you seem to hope is the following DIFFERENCES that we have between Christ the Creator's Sabbath Commandment and the New Moon.

#1. God SHOWS in Exodus 20 that the Sabbath was a Holy Day FROM CREATION week onward.

#2. Christ stated in Mark 2 that "the Sabbath was MADE FOR MANKIND".

#3. We SEE "from Sabbath to Sabbath" services held for BOTH Jews and Gentiles in Acts 13 and we see the GENTILE problem ADDRESSED by the fact that "EVERY SABBATH Moses IS preached in the synagogues".

#4. The Sabbath is the ONLY Holy day mentioned in God's Spoken Ten Commandments.

This shows "the difference" between Sabbath and New Moon that can not be refuted though you ARE likely to simply gloss over details that do not please your man made traditions.

But far more devastating than ALL of the list is above - is the dubious argument you make AGAINST BOTH! Your intent is to violate BOTH the Sabbath AND the New Moon and you argue you case by stating that THEY ARE BOTH so important that they are CONTINUED in the NEW Earth!!

A more compromised and flawed position to make your case can hardly be imagined!!

As for me - I am not actually arguing for NOT keeping the New Moon as God shows in Isaiah 66. I am just arguing that you can not EQUIVOCATE between that and Christ the Creator's Memorial of Creation - His Holy Day - the LORD's Day Mark 2:28!!

"The Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath"!

Isaiah 58 the Sabbath "is the Holy Day of the LORD"

In Christ,

Bob

 

I admit that there were few times when you actually did that.

This is a true statement on your part.

Hint: Try making ONE point that you DO believe and that you WILL take the time to defend!

If you can not do that - then pick a subject where you DO have AT LEAST that much genuine interest.

Case in point - it is "obvious" that you have NO interest in God's Word regarding the New Moon and ALL mankind KEEPING it in the New Earth! Yet you will toss that point out as a mere "rabbit trail" purely for its "gaming value".

Pick something you actually believe - pick a text you do claim to hold accurately and that you claim to show Christ the Creator's Sabbath is abolished "for MANKIND" even though HE said it was "MADE for MANKIND". Pick it - be willing to review it and be willing to show that your view is not simply tired man-made-tradition piled on top of a text to spin it.

This board is "supposed" to have some people on it who actually value the Proetestant principle of "Sola Scriptura" and the assocated principles of sound "exegesis". Now is the time to SHOW that you are one of them!

In Christ,

Bob

 

I admit that I do "accuse you" of appealing to tradition instead of sound exegesis.

I keep insisting that each point you bring up ACTUALLY HOLD Water!!

But in your statement above you make "yet another unsupported accusation" in that you make it appear that I am accusing you of something on the Sabbath question MERELY by the fact that I CHOOSE not to ignore God's Word as IT SHOWS the scope of Sabbath to reference ALL MANKIND!

Make it appear that merely UNDERSTANDING God's Word and refusing to turn a blind eye to it - IS tantamount to "ACCUSING YOU" of something!!

Do you have a link Eric an actual reference to piont to where I SAID "YOU ERic are in huge trouble because YOU are rejecting Christ the Creator's Holy day"??

Do you have EVEN ONE!

In other words - do your wild claims ever have actual support in fact?

Finally your post appears to make another wild claim - you appear to claim that my view that "CHRIST said the SABBATh was MADE for MANKIND in Mark 2:27" is just THEORY.

You appear to be saying my claims that God said ALL MANKIND was in the scope of "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship" Isaiah 66 is just a "theory".

OR you are saying that YES the texts actually DO exist - by MY THEORY is that we should TRUST AND BELIEVE them???

What is the THEORETICAL aspect you want to claim/support/prove as being central to my argument??

In Christ,

Bob

 

Isaiah points to the NEW heaven and NEW Earth in Isaiah 66 and JOHN goes to that SAME picture in Rev 21:1-4 drawing on the doctrine from Isaiah - scripture being added to scripture!

But lets say that our tradition "needs to ignore that" as you suggest above. The PROBLEM that you have is two fold. Let's use the "possible future with a FAITHFUL Israel" idea.

#1. You totally miss the nature of the Old Covenant as defined in 2Cor 3.

#2. IT SHOWS that GOD's OT INTENT is the ALL MANKIND SCOPE of the Sabbath -- STILL!! One of your earlier points (which apparently you don't really care about since you are so willing now to contradict it) was that God did not intend Sabbath to apply to ALL MANKIND - but just Jews and this is the only way we are to see it in the OT as given by God and as intended by God!

But here even you NOW appear to be willing to admit that we DO HAVE an OT text SHOWING that God's OT intent for the SCOPE of Sabbath really was literally "ALL MANKIND" providing the world STAYS with that same OT dispensation model. What a switch Eric! What a flip-flop!


In other words you now want to claim that the OT SCOPE really IS ALL MANKIND and so when Christ says PRE-CROSS under that SAME pre-cross model ( in MARK 2:27) "the Sabbath was MADE FOR MANKIND" it fits PERFECTLY with your NEW claim that the OT purpose and scope of Sabbath as shown in Isaiah 66 really Was ALL MANKIND!!

So now the MAKING of the Sabbath as a holy day (according to Christ) in Gen 2:3 is FOR MANKIND. And the explicit OT SCOPE is ALL MANKIND as we see in Isaiah 66 and NOW you claim that this is what we have if we STAY with that OT model??!!!

You basically shot your own opening argument!!

Now your "new twist" is that while this WAS the scope in the OT and would have REMAINED as such even after the time of the Messiah HAD the Jews remained faithful -- NOW Christ has turned back against HIS OWN Holy Day post-Cross and abolished it -- even to the point of NO LONGER intending to have ALL MANKIND come before Him and worship as He said HE would do in Isaiah 66!

Since you are prone to flip-flopping - is THIS now the new "Flip" you are willing to stick with as your argument continues down it's slippery slope of changing positions?

IN Christ,

Bob

 

You're the ones who have assumed that only the Ten Commandments remain today, and the rest abolished. I have pointed out that the universal laws were the Seven. But then you're not even consistent with that, because you keep some of the others, and then the criteria changes from "the Ten" to "The new millennium in Is.66". But even that includes laws you are not keeping.

 

"Universal laws".

How many "Universal laws" before Adam?

How many "Universal Laws" before Noah?

How many "universal laws" after the flood as Noah came out of the boat?

Is it really "better" to appeal to man-without-scripture than to TAKE IT from GOD as HE SPEAKS it on Sinai!!??

There are many here who would choose to honor God's Word even HIGHER than the traditions of man.

In Christ,

Bob

 

And "then" it turns out that ERIC AGREES with the OT pointing to "ALL MANKIND" as the SCOPE in the OT for Christ the Creator's memorial of HIS creative act in Gen 2:3!!

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3919/9.html#000128

 

Please respond to the next level of this discussion instead of simply repeating the previous "answered" point.

The reason you can not "equivocate" between Sabbath and New Moon as you seem to hope is the following DIFFERENCES that we have between Christ the Creator's Sabbath Commandment and the New Moon.

#1. God SHOWS in Exodus 20 that the Sabbath was a Holy Day FROM CREATION week onward.

#2. Christ stated in Mark 2 that "the Sabbath was MADE FOR MANKIND".

#3. We SEE "from Sabbath to Sabbath" services held for BOTH Jews and Gentiles in Acts 13 and we see the GENTILE problem ADDRESSED by the fact that "EVERY SABBATH Moses IS preached in the synagogues".

#4. The Sabbath is the ONLY Holy day mentioned in God's Spoken Ten Commandments.

This shows "the difference" between Sabbath and New Moon that can not be refuted though you ARE likely to simply gloss over details that do not please your man made traditions.

But far more devastating than ALL of the list is above - is the dubious argument you make AGAINST BOTH! Your intent is to violate BOTH the Sabbath AND the New Moon and you argue you case by stating that THEY ARE BOTH so important that they are CONTINUED in the NEW Earth!!

A more compromised and flawed position to make your case can hardly be imagined!!

As for me - I am not actually arguing for NOT keeping the New Moon as God shows in Isaiah 66. I am just arguing that you can not EQUIVOCATE between that and Christ the Creator's Memorial of Creation - His Holy Day - the LORD's Day Mark 2:28!!

"The Son of Man is LORD of the Sabbath"!

Isaiah 58 the Sabbath "is the Holy Day of the LORD"

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]You're still giving me everything but a clear command for us today! Those examples you gave are NOT clear commands for us TODAY.
1 What God kept holy for HIMSELF, and did not first command to man for thousands of years afterwards.
(Also, the new moon cycle was created that same Creation Week).
2 "Mankind" does not state all me for all time, but that the people Christ was talking to were apart of mankind, yet they were making it into a burden as if man was made for it. It's just like I said way before; marriage was made for mankind, but not all menare obligated to get married.
3 We are not in synagogues today. But if we could get into one to preach today, it would most likely be on their sabbath. That is not a COMMAND for any Christian to KEEP the sabbath!
4 The Ten commandments were addressed to ISRAEL, where the 7 universal laws were for everyone, and do not include the sabbath. PLUS, again, you keep other laws besides the ten. Based on these criteria, you should be keeping new moons. Now you say you're not arguing against them. But do you KEEP them? They too are from creation and will be in the Millennium. OK, there may not be any passage saying they were made for mankind and references to them in syagogues in the NT. But then once again; what is the criteria for determining which are still to be kept? Iis it because you have four points for the sabbath, while only two support new moons? Or is three the magic cutoff number since the dietary laws only have three of those points?

Once again, the most you can do with your four points is build an argument that they are still binding, but it is not enough to go accusing us of trying to "violate" God's commands, but that is all you ever do. As it is, each of those points has holes that we keep pointing out, but you have placed them so that one point fills in the hole of another, and you think that is conclusive proof we are breaking God's laws. But it DOESN'T WORK! It's nothing more than a patchwork argument being substituted for any clear command for us to keep those laws. Now if you can't find anything better than that, then quit your accusing.

 

I admit that there were few times when you actually did that.

This is a true statement on your part.

Hint: Try making ONE point that you DO believe and that you WILL take the time to defend!

If you can not do that - then pick a subject where you DO have AT LEAST that much genuine interest.

Case in point - it is "obvious" that you have NO interest in God's Word regarding the New Moon and ALL mankind KEEPING it in the New Earth! Yet you will toss that point out as a mere "rabbit trail" purely for its "gaming value".

Pick something you actually believe - pick a text you do claim to hold accurately and that you claim to show Christ the Creator's Sabbath is abolished "for MANKIND" even though HE said it was "MADE for MANKIND". Pick it - be willing to review it and be willing to show that your view is not simply tired man-made-tradition piled on top of a text to spin it.

This board is "supposed" to have some people on it who actually value the Proetestant principle of "Sola Scriptura" and the assocated principles of sound "exegesis". Now is the time to SHOW that you are one of them!

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]I have done this time and time again, but you just dismiss everything with your accusations. We frequently repeat the key scriptures by which we believe that the sabbath and dietary laws are no longer binding, but you just brush that off, rewrite them all according to your own SDA interpretation designed to justify your judging over these things, and then accuse of of attacking thw Word of God.

It is no "rabbit trail" on my part. The OP questioned YOU as to your inconsistent practice and logic, yet you keep trying to put us back on trial as lawbreakers (while one of you complains that SDA's are being mistreated).
The burden is on YOU now to prove these things are a mandatory part of the NT. You've tried us and judged long enough, now it is time for you to produce some REAL proof, or just quit bugging everyone.

 

I admit that I do "accuse you" of appealing to tradition instead of sound exegesis.

I keep insisting that each point you bring up ACTUALLY HOLD Water!!

But in your statement above you make "yet another unsupported accusation" in that you make it appear that I am accusing you of something on the Sabbath question MERELY by the fact that I CHOOSE not to ignore God's Word as IT SHOWS the scope of Sabbath to reference ALL MANKIND!

Make it appear that merely UNDERSTANDING God's Word and refusing to turn a blind eye to it - IS tantamount to "ACCUSING YOU" of something!!

Do you have a link Eric an actual reference to piont to where I SAID "YOU ERic are in huge trouble because YOU are rejecting Christ the Creator's Holy day"??

Do you have EVEN ONE!

In other words - do your wild claims ever have actual support in fact?

Finally your post appears to make another wild claim - you appear to claim that my view that "CHRIST said the SABBATh was MADE for MANKIND in Mark 2:27" is just THEORY.

You appear to be saying my claims that God said ALL MANKIND was in the scope of "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship" Isaiah 66 is just a "theory".

OR you are saying that YES the texts actually DO exist - by MY THEORY is that we should TRUST AND BELIEVE them???

What is the THEORETICAL aspect you want to claim/support/prove as being central to my argument??

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Like all thos EGW quotes, and some of the other stuff you all say, about how we're following the Beast isn' accusatory
Yet once again, you think your four points proves that the isue is really "the texts actually DO exist - by MY THEORY is that we should TRUST AND BELIEVE them???"
The issue is thatere are some of those texts that yo do not follow either. Just liek us, you believe they have been superseded. The debate is to which have and which have not, and how we determine that. You have not proven ANYTHING. You jus accuse us of not trusting and believing and turning a bline eye to the ones YOU happen to think still apply.

Nowhere did I say I dont believe what it says, or thisb is my tradition (that is Matt and DT who argue that). So stop speaking as if that is what I say.

 

As already stated -

BTW you made yet "another" illogical statement --

You said "now it is time for you to produce some REAL proof, or just quit bugging everyone. " after having already said "You apparently have far more time on the computer than I do. I don't have time to break down your posts point by point anymore, ".

Again the "flip-flop" is apparent.

So "Again" I say - pick a single argument that you actually believe - and would defend. And lets see if it holds up to scripture. In the mean time I already have far more scripture and more points made on this subject "than you claim to have time to read".

I on the other hand am asking you to simply post even ONE point that you will actually follow through.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I admit that I do "accuse you" of appealing to tradition instead of sound exegesis.

I keep insisting that each point you bring up ACTUALLY HOLD Water!!

But in your statement above you make "yet another unsupported accusation" in that you make it appear that I am accusing you of something on the Sabbath question MERELY by the fact that I CHOOSE not to ignore God's Word as IT SHOWS the scope of Sabbath to reference ALL MANKIND!

Make it appear that merely UNDERSTANDING God's Word and refusing to turn a blind eye to it - IS tantamount to "ACCUSING YOU" of something!!

Do you have a link Eric an actual reference to piont to where I SAID "YOU ERic are in huge trouble because YOU are rejecting Christ the Creator's Holy day"??

Do you have EVEN ONE!

In other words - do your wild claims ever have actual support in fact?

Finally your post appears to make another wild claim - you appear to claim that my view that "CHRIST said the SABBATh was MADE for MANKIND in Mark 2:27" is just THEORY.

You appear to be saying my claims that God said ALL MANKIND was in the scope of "From Sabbath to Sabbath shall ALL MANKIND come before Me to Worship" Isaiah 66 is just a "theory".

OR you are saying that YES the texts actually DO exist - by MY THEORY is that we should TRUST AND BELIEVE them???

What is the THEORETICAL aspect you want to claim/support/prove as being central to my argument??

</font>[/QUOTE]

"again" you are abandoning your OWN argument above. In our post above at the top right here in this post - you say THAT I AM posting accusations.

IF you have a link to one of my posts quoting EGW used BY ME to accuse you - then provide it!

If you HAVE a link to one of MY posts accusing you of "Following the Beast" please provide it!!

Recall YOUR accusation at the top??

Yep! That would be the one. Time to include the link to SHOW that you are dealing with fact about ME accusing YOU of anything other than failing to rely sola-scriptura and rejection of exegesis.

Why do you keep doing this???

In Christ,

Bob

 

[qb]

You have not shown in any detail how the Isaiah 66 passage supports your cause at all. In fact it devastates your point entirely.

Isaiah 66:23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD.

First it is an event that happens after a great and terrible event known as the Great Tribulation. Read on:
Isaiah 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.
--That also does away with annihilation of the wicked doesn't it. "Their worm dieth not." "Neither shall their fire be quenched." It speaks of eternal torment of the wicked. After the Great Tribulation Christ comes and sets up his Kingdom which will last for a thousand years. And as it says in verse 23: "all flesh (mankind) will come and worship him. Does that happen now? No it does not. Do the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, and all the various sects and other religions worship Christ now? You have failed to answer this question directly. Does all man now worship Christ?
The obvious answer is no. It is a future event, yet to take place. It is not now. And only when it does happen will the Sabbath be reinstituted. Not now. This entire passage defeats your cause. The Sabbath is not for today. It is for a future time.
Demonstrate how this passage in any way relates to the Gentile believer today. Yes, it may say all mankind, all flesh. So what! It is not speaking of "all mankind" for this day and age. It has no relevance for today. Demonstrate it's relevance for this day and age.

Mark 2:27-28 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
--The context was, that according to the Pharisees, the disciples broke the Sabbath by plucking and eating corn on the Sabbath day. Jesus gives an example of David, when he was hungry ate of the shewbread of the Temple which was unlawful for him to eat. Did David break the law?

David was not a slave to the law, as the Pharisees were making the people a slave to the Sabbath, and to the rest of the law.
Man is not a slave to the Sabbath, as the SDA's are making their people a slave to the Sabbath.
"The Sabbath was made for man; not man for the Sabbath." The meaning is the opposite of what you are saying. We are not slaves to it. God never intended the Gentile believers to keep it. It did not matter if the disciples plucked corn, picked up sticks, etc. The Sabbath had no rule over them. They were not slaves to it.
Why?
The Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath.
He is the Lord of the Sabbath.
He is the Lord of the first day of the week.
He is the Lord of the second day of the week.
He is the Lord of the third day of the week, etc.
And he is Lord also of the Sabbath.
He is Lord of all.
DHK

 

I'm not flipflopping on anything; you're the one who keeps pasting a verse in Genesis with a verse in Isaiah, but you have still not shown anywhere where this is required of us. You just generalize it to us. But that is not enough evidence for your claims.

Sinai was adressed to Israel, Bob. Everything commanded at Sinai was not intended for all men, or for all time.

 

Eric,

God loves us all. He made His commandments to protect us from harm. He gave them to all of mankind. Think about this... the Bible talks about "sin" which the Bible defines as "transgression of the Law"...1Jn:3:4: Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.

Okay watch this now Eric, the devil and the angels sinned BEFORE the law was given at Sinai:

"He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil." 1 John 3:8.

"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;" 2 Peter 2:4.


There cant be sin unless there is the law:
"Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression." Romans 4:15.


Allright now look at Cain and Abel:
"And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him." Genesis 4:8.


"Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous." 1 John 3:12.


"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. And 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. And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand." Genesis 4:7-11.

Did you see all the references to evil and sin there? Once again, before the law was given at Sinai.


Now look at Noah, he was called "righteous"...
"And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth person, a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly." 2 Peter 2:5.

But what about the people of Sodom? they were called sinners:
"But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly." Genesis 13:13.
"For we will destroy this place, because the cry of them is waxen great before the face of the LORD; and the LORD hath sent us to destroy it." Genesis 19:13.


"And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation of the wicked: (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, vexed his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds.)" 2 Peter 2:7,8.

Now how could their deeds be "unlawful" if there wasnt any such thing as sin yet?

What about Joseph?
"There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?" Genesis 39:9.

He didnt want to SIN (transgress the Law)


God abhorred the nations that occupied Canaan before Israel... once again, before the law given at Sinai...
"Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out. And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them." Leviticus 20:22,23.

The reason God made His promise to the seed of Abraham was because he kept the commandments...
"Because that Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws." Genesis 26:5.

And Jesus says we should do the works of Abraham...
"They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham's children, ye would do the works of Abraham." John 8:39.

"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Galatians 3:29.