No, and my posts show that the Law was in full force before Adam... Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. Satan was a murderer from the beginning and a liar.
Cain was warned of sin... Gen 4:7 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.
Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression. Rom 5:13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
For Cain to sin there had to be Law. When there is no Law, there is no sin.
Re-read Romans 4:15
. Sin *was* in the world before the law. :D
The last phrase "not imputed", however, has to do with accountability for sin -- not it's existence.
Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father,
forgive them;
for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.
Yet, there is nothing to forgive -- if there is no sin. And it's even wrong to say that without sin there would be no death (at all) (Something for another post, if necessary.)
John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them,
they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak
for their sin.
eg: Sin exists, cloaked, but uncloaked it becomes "imputed".
Once a sin is uncloaked, committing the sin is called "transgression"; and implies guilt.
John 15:24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but
now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
John 15:25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in
their law, They hated me without a cause.
Notice, carefully, that there is also a special distinction in "laws"?
Their law is the
prophets... and I'd like to emphasize prophets are sent to
convict of sin. (But not every Israelite broke the law of Moses!)
So, although some "law" (eg: via prophets) has the purpose of convicting of sin; esp. the hypocrites whom God detests; There is no reason to say that all law is meant to do that.
*The* law (in General) has a noble purpose which goes beyond defining sin, for sin can never be a positive commandment; yet the law includes blessings. (Honor father and mother.)
--------------------- now, looking at your post more closely ----------------
I was just speaking to @
Sparrowhawke about Genesis 4:7 and it's translational problems; I find it humerous how there are probably only about 10 sentences in all of Genesis which are so drastically different in their original wording than what we have today -- and yet people seem attracted to them like a magnet in this thread.
We don't have the original Hebrew -- and early translators complained about Hebrew Manuscript variations on this particular passage. Our modern translations have to do with a rabbinical opinion from around the year 380A.D.; BUT Strictly Christian manuscripts from the same time period (eg: eg the LXX was used in Christian churches all the way back to 33A.D.) have a visibly different meaning. No Christian church preserved the Hebrew after 70A.D. -- what we have today is tended by those who disagree with Christianity.
You happen to be using the passage in a way that is correct regardless of original meaning; for Cain *was* warned about sin! -- but I'd like to caution you in it's use; for the translation does affect what can be said about that sin.
I'm going to talk about the view that your chosen translation points out:
The particular rendition in the KJV comes from the one given by a Jerome, Circa 390 A.D. based on theology of his day -- and adopted by Latin rite Catholics; If you accept it, then it compares against Genesis 3:16; with the same wording in English;
The theological reasoning for the two passages wsa "lust and domination."; which are the marks of a
marriage corrupted by sin. (Also Concupiscence, according to Paul).
Now, let me add a detail for you to think about; The Hebrew doesn't say "he" as far as I can see:
http://www.biblos.com/genesis/4-7.htm
I might be mistaken, check with a Hebrew expert -- but I don't see the standard *explicit* masculine ending (yod / mem -- eg: Abraha-M, Ada-M ).
Now, a interesting tidbit:
The devil was often historically considered a "she"; for the serpent was a seductress and a gossip.
Knowledge of sin, then, is *analogical* to knowing a wife of a particular negative bent.
Whether one recognizes the "law" of lust and domination or not -- it's there.
But even without known rules -- people can be made miserable, to suffer pain, or cruelty.
Sin can become part of the body; one can experience "nakedness" before being taught what it is. Death itself is not what man's body is intended for -- yet even a sinless one (Jesus') can experience it. (sin).
Just so; The Devil is also a "father" in the sense that he is involved with the (de)formation of the body of a child. He "marries" the one who commits sin/fornication and in a real sense, possesses their body, and affects/afflicts their spirit indirectly.
Analogy: Once a man has experienced sexual relations of a perverted nature -- their body is permanently changed. There is no such thing as a casual sexual relationship without consequences. (Even psychology today, and I mean studies of a medical nature -- eg: see Daniel G. Amen, M.D. bears this out in a striking way!) Sexuality reprograms the body to desire the other spouse/pseudo-spouse -- whomever they may be.
Sexuality, however, is not the only lust capable of changing the human mind in a permanent way; there are other abuses too.
Just so, recall that St. Paul was a murderer -- and a Pharisee who lusted for Glory at other's expense (and who by the way, were *often* notorious adulterers -- for divorce allowed legalized prostitution; wife for a night, freed the next day....)
----------------- Now, I think there's something missing in the conversation -----------
I know that I'm not guilty of the specific sins listed just prior to Roman 2:1 in the vein that Paul wrote them; so Romans 2:1
doesn't apply to me at the level it would apply to Paul; and in Paul's time scripture tells us that some people followed the Law blamelessly. So Romans 2:1 couldn't apply to them either.
Roman 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable,
O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself;
for thou that judgest doest the same things.
It's not just any man who judges, that Roman's 2:1 is talking about -- but a specific well known
stereotype. "THE man" (Oh! MAN! -- AKA -- the man spoken of in the psalms "make them remember, God, they are
only men." )
Arrogance, pride, competitiveness, (even if wrongly presumed) -- is what causes people to exclaim "he's
THE Man!"
1Samul 9:17
and, proven by misapplication here: John 19:5.
Whenever Paul says "the law"; he's talking *primarily* about the *condmning* portion of the prophets (you can easily check this!); for the psalms are the utterances of prophets, too.
But Paul himself was a murderer -- and his body was tormented by a demon until the day he was circumcised at the Neck by Nero. (~60-63A.D.). Forgiveness of Paul did not equate to a complete release while he walked the earth.
Consider:
Paul had a problem with *wanting* to be "THE MAN"! He couldn't stop bragging -- he would even
brag about not being able to brag.
2Cori 12:7 And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh,
the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.
2Cori 12:8
For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. ( God's answer, however, was NO! )
2Cori 12:9 And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.
2Cori 12:10 Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ's sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong.
2Cori 12:11
I am become a fool in glorying; ye have compelled me: for I ought to have been commended of you:
for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing
Paul, though, is not the same as I am.
I haven't trodden his path; no adultery, no murder, nothing of Roman 2:1 in the way he wrote it (It might apply accidentally, but even then -- I can show people who it couldn't POSSIBLY apply to.)
So, when Paul says:
Roman 7:9 For
I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and
I died.
Roman 7:10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life
, I found to be unto death.
Roman 7:11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived
me, and by it
slew me.
How Ironic: Was it not the woman who was deceived in Genesis, and not the Man?
1Timothy2:14
So, I really question this experience that Paul speaks of;
For he was a Benjamite, born under the law. And yet, he was alive for a time before He (himself) evidently
transgressed the law.
Therefore: I don't see why everyone assumes that his word applies to every single person who walks the earth; Paul never said it did.
It seems to me, that when Paul says "I" he means -- *PAUL* -- eg: it applies to Paul, and men *LIKE* Paul -- but not to everyone.
So, then, why does everyone seem assume the only purpose of law is to cause/define sin?
I agree; but because those people were anything but simpleminded.
