Hell no

[Thumbelina]

15 hours ago, ThereAndBackAgain said:

 

For God so loved the world that those who become adept at cross-referencing his texts may avoid eternal damnation. 

If you add the faith factor then I can say, truer words have never been spoken (2 Timothy 3:15).

[Thumbelina]

14 hours ago, florduh said:

Neither I nor anyone else BELIEVES in science. People either accept observable phenomena or they ignore it in favor of a magical explanation. I can say that I simply don't yet have all the answers, but there is evidence that points to likely scenarios. Faithful believers start with their conclusion that they already have the answer and ignore all evidence to the contrary. 

 

At least you don't sound like militant atheist here.

Atheism does not offer hope ( live a SHORT life in a devolving, polluted planet) & it limits God (Hebrews 11:6). Believers invite God so they're confident of His care & promises. However, believers should never force or attempt to legislate their beliefs. ... & vice versa for atheists & others.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

50 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

I had to go back & trace the convo'. You sarcastically asked why I had to apologize for God's failure. 

 

I answered that I'm giving an apologetic.

Edit: I did give an apology (a regretful acknowledgement of an offense) & an apology (apologetic). I was validating your feelings, man. The apologetic was to show that you have misunderstandings that caused disillusionment?

 

 

Now that we've cleared that up, please answer the question.  Wht do you need to apologize for god's failure?  Why can't he do that for himself?

[Thumbelina]

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Now that we've cleared that up, please answer the question.  Wht do you need to apologize for god's failure?  Why can't he do that for himself?

 

 

Have you ever heard about the old covenant & why it failed?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

36 minutes ago, Thumbelina said:

 

 

Have you ever heard about the old covenant & why it failed?

It failed for the same reason that you need to apologize for god: because god is imaginary.

[midniterider]

She drones on and on.

[Astreja]

3 hours ago, Thumbelina said:

 

I'm sorry, ma'am. I spoke generally. Many people are scared of a fire & brimstone God. Sometimes fear comes out in the form of anger.

Maybe on both our parts we shouldn't generalize but use 'many, some or most' in our assertions? Is that a fair compromise?

 

No, that's not acceptable.  When someone does not believe in a god, accusing them of being scared of it is an insult.  You are also not privy to our thoughts and emotions, so it's rather presumptuous to assume that our anger is indicative of some underlying fear.

 

I know some of these conversations may be hard for some but from a Christian perspective, atheists & the like are like that Harry Truman guy who got destroyed by the volcano. We need to sound the alarm at least.

 

To the best of my knowledge and belief, the so-called alarm is for a fake crisis.  Perhaps you should find some evidence for your claims first, evidence that is up to our standards rather than yours.  If you can't achieve that goal, there is simply no point in "warning" us.

 

[★ Citsonga ★]

6 hours ago, Thumbelina said:

There's a thread somewhere in the den that mentioned the simplicity of the Christian religion or some sort of such.

It is simple. I said that God's laws always existed, Mr. Sinai was not where it started. Look, the people were in bondage to pagans for centuries & they lost sight of the law of God that was passed down from their fathers. Sinai was basically a reiteration of what they should have known.

 

Pulling more crap out of thin air, I see. The pre-Law stories in the Bible do NOT show the people already having the Law orally. That simply is not how the story goes in the Bible, as anyone who reads it can see. Your dishonesty is mind-boggling.

 

6 hours ago, Thumbelina said:

Satan sinned/lied from the beginning- he's the father of lies- could he have been accused of lying if God's law did not forbid being a false witness? Pharaoh ADMITTED that he sinned against God BEFORE the Israelites left Egypt; could he have  sinned if there was no law that he broke?

 

Jesus used the method of asking questions to reason with people; it's a good teaching tool. What should one do if one uses that method with biblical questions that are are posed but the asker won't answer the questions? 

 

Again, could God accuse anybody of any sin if there was no law that they broke?

If there was no law against wearing neon yellow ribbons in public could a police officer arrest someone just for wearing said ribbons?

 

To rightly understand the bible, precept must be compared to precept. In logic something cannot be true & false at the same time in the same context. Contextualization has been a major problem when trying to understand the bible for many unbelievers. I cannot force them to study it the way it says to (see Isaiah 28:10).

However, what is in my power to do is pray that God can give enlightenment through His providence.

 

There you have it, folks: More mumbo jumbo from Thumby. Though her style is different from others, the act of going off on tangents instead of actually answering the questions is standard Christian apologetics. If the Christian worldview was true, then they would be able to give direct and sensible answers instead of doing silly dances like this to skirt the subjects. This is the dishonest garbage that we ex-christians have left behind.

 

Sorry, Thumby, but what you're doing here is not demonstrating Christianity to be truth, but rather showing how ridiculous it is. Anyone with half a brain can see that you are failing miserably as a witness for your "God."

 

 

 

[florduh]

9 hours ago, Thumbelina said:

Atheism does not offer hope......

Atheism is not a belief. It is not a philosophy. It is not a choice. It is the conclusion one inevitably reaches when one cannot find reason to believe in gods. I submit that YOU are also an atheist regarding the existence of Zeus. 

 

If it were possible for me to believe something that made me feel good and offer hope, I would still believe in Santa Claus. However, I am unable to simply choose to believe something that doesn't make sense, doesn't jibe with reality and doesn't have any evidence to support it.

 

Many atheists believe in an afterlife and reincarnation, yet they are properly labeled as atheist because they have no god belief. Obviously, such beliefs also offer hope without a god involved. A more materialistic atheist finds joy and hope in making the most of his life, experiencing the awe of nature, taking care of our planet and making things better for the generations to follow. 

 

A militant anti-theist may not even necessarily be an atheist, though they frequently are. This person has simply seen the harm of religious belief. He sees the division it causes between families and nations. Those pushing the theist agenda are at the root of much of the world's unrest. It is incorrect to consider the atheist and anti-theist as the same thing. 

 

It is not only possible but quite common for people who do not share your belief system to live happy, moral, fulfilled lives, with a clear conscience and hope for the future as well as the present. Hopefully absorbing this information will start to make a dent in the misconceptions that theists hold regarding atheists.

[mymistake]

10 hours ago, Thumbelina said:

Have you ever heard about the old covenant & why it failed?

 

There is a funny thing about the Old Covenant if you go back and read about it.  It was suppose to be the only covenant.  It was suppose to last forever.  There is no mention about any new plan that will come someday nor about the rules ever changing.  The Old Testament says that God will never change and God's covenant will never change.

[mymistake]

12 hours ago, Thumbelina said:

 

I'm sorry, ma'am. I spoke generally. Many people are scared of a fire & brimstone God. Sometimes fear comes out in the form of anger.

Maybe on both our parts we shouldn't generalize but use 'many, some or most' in our assertions? Is that a fair compromise?

 

Edit: I retraced the conversation, I did not speak generally. 

 

I know some of these conversations may be hard for some but from a Christian perspective, atheists & the like are like that Harry Truman guy who got destroyed by the volcano. We need to sound the alarm at least.

 

 

The people who are afraid of the Fire & Brimstone God are called Christians.  That is why they want to be saved from what, it is said, that God is planning do to them.

 

Those who think that God is made up are not afraid of him.  Think about it.  Are you afraid of Cthulhu?  I suspect you are not the least bit afraid no matter what horrible things Cthulhu is planning to do to us.

 

 

 

[midniterider]

14 hours ago, Thumbelina said:

Satan sinned/lied from the beginning- he's the father of lies- could he have been accused of lying if God's law did not forbid being a false witness? Pharaoh ADMITTED that he sinned against God BEFORE the Israelites left Egypt; could he have  sinned if there was no law that he broke?

 

Someone CAN be accused of doing something that isn't covered by the law. Accusing someone of something does not magically instantiate a law against it. I can lie to my neighbor but that does not magically create a law against it and the cops won't be coming to arrest me for it.

 

 

14 hours ago, Thumbelina said:

To rightly understand the bible, precept must be compared to precept. In logic something cannot be true & false at the same time in the same context. Contextualization has been a major problem when trying to understand the bible for many unbelievers. I cannot force them to study it the way it says to (see Isaiah 28:10).

However, what is in my power to do is pray that God can give enlightenment through His providence.

 

 

It isn't context that's important, what is important is being under the Jesus spell. Illogical bible bullshit will always be explained away by someone (You, for example) under the spell. But when the spell wears off, that same person will look again and realize they were just spinning a yarn in order to maintain their faith in something blatantly ridiculous.

 

 

 

 

[disillusioned]

22 hours ago, Thumbelina said:

 

Atheism does not offer hope ( live a SHORT life in a devolving, polluted planet) 

 

...so?

[★ Citsonga ★]

On 5/30/2018 at 10:19 PM, Thumbelina said:

At least you don't sound like militant atheist here.

 

Name one person who is a militant atheist. Seriously, who is taking up arms and going to war in the name of atheism?

 

On 5/30/2018 at 10:19 PM, Thumbelina said:

Atheism does not offer hope... & it limits God

 

Asantaism does not offer hope and it limits Santa. Does that prove that Santa is real?

[★ Citsonga ★]

On 5/30/2018 at 9:46 PM, Thumbelina said:

Contextualization has been a major problem when trying to understand the bible for many unbelievers.

 

Context is a major problem for Christians. You're notorious for taking things out of context, such as claiming that "Lucifer" is a name for Satan, or even the Gospel writers themselves who repeatedly took OT verses completely out of context in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments.

[florduh]

On 5/30/2018 at 9:46 PM, Thumbelina said:

Contextualization has been a major problem when trying to understand the bible for many unbelievers.

That is hilarious.

 

Okay, here's how understanding the Bible works. Believers come to belief itself within a context. It all depends on who did the saving, what church you were in, which sect you are indoctrinated in. All Christian denominations claim to have the correct understanding of the Bible. Often, when non-believers or even other Christians disagree with an interpretation one of the primary responses is, "but you took that out of context!" Christians themselves are the ones who argue most over context. I submit that actual Bible scholars are better suited than believers to sort out all the verses found in the current Bible, earlier Bibles and the original languages and manuscripts used. Believers begin with the premise that they already know what is must say in order to match their particular kind of indoctrination.

 

"I'M out of context? YOU'RE out of context! You can't handle the context!" 

[midniterider]

14 hours ago, disillusioned said:

 

...so?

 

Is Thumb dissing God’s creation? Oh my...

[yunea]

On 5/29/2018 at 2:53 AM, Thumbelina said:

Edit: There's a child rapist around, your two year old, who has no frame of reference about sex, has to be taught not to let others touch her. Would you describe explicitly to the kid what rape entails? You wanted God to describe sin in great detail before Adam & Eve sinned? The instructions were SIMPLE, 'don't touch it!'

This is a good few pages back (page 6 actually) but I just have to address this, as no one else has. 

 

So, say it's your toddler. As the adult parent, YOU'RE the only one of the two of you who fully understands the danger, and the pain that follows if your child is violated.

 

At 2, she's too small to comprehend what rape is. That is why you don't teach the small child to not touch a rapist. You certainly don't teach them that they're responsible for being hurt by an adult and will afterwards be punished with yet another hard-to-comprehend thing. 

 

Instead, you teach her to trust in you and tell you instantly if someone tries to touch her swimsuit area. You will do all you can to keep her safe from harm, without exposing her too much to the ugly truth that is in danger of happening. 

 

And your responsibility as the adult parent is to teach the goddamn rapist to not touch your child, by getting him arrested if you come across him hurting your (or someone else's) child.  

 

And if the worst happens despite all this, you sure as heck don't throw your violated toddler out of the safety of your home, and then ensure her (and her future offspring's) life from there on is a slow and painful death, before throwing them all in the oven to suffer if they don't repent for being born after what was done to the uncomprehending 2 year old.

 

Right?

[★ Citsonga ★]

15 minutes ago, yunea said:

This is a good few pages back (page 6 actually) but I just have to address this, as no one else has. 

 

So, say it's your toddler. As the adult parent, YOU'RE the only one of the two of you who fully understands the danger, and the pain that follows if your child is violated.

 

At 2, she's too small to comprehend what rape is. That is why you don't teach the small child to not touch a rapist. You certainly don't teach them that they're responsible for being hurt by an adult and will afterwards be punished with yet another hard-to-comprehend thing. 

 

Instead, you teach her to trust in you and tell you instantly if someone tries to touch her swimsuit area. You will do all you can to keep her safe from harm, without exposing her too much to the ugly truth that is in danger of happening. 

 

And your responsibility as the adult parent is to teach the goddamn rapist to not touch your child, by getting him arrested if you come across him hurting your (or someone else's) child.  

 

And if the worst happens despite all this, you sure as heck don't throw your violated toddler out of the safety of your home, and then ensure her and her offspring's life from there on is a slow and painful death, before throwing them all in the oven to suffer because they didn't repent for what was done to the uncomprehending 2 year old.

 

Right?

 

Good post. I hadn't noticed that comment from Thumby.

 

To add to what you've posted, you wouldn't just sit back and let a rapist have at your child, would you? You'd do whatever you could to stop the perpetrator, and if you were all-powerful, then that would be an easy task, wouldn't it?

 

You also wouldn't require that a rape victim either be murdered or have to marry her rapist, would you? Yet, the Bible has God's Law saying exactly that.

 

 

[◊ crazyguy123 ◊]

15 minutes ago, yunea said:

And if the worst happens despite all this, you sure as heck don't throw your violated toddler out of the safety of your home, and then ensure her (and her future offspring's) life from there on is a slow and painful death, before throwing them all in the oven to suffer if they don't repent for being born after what was done to the uncomprehending 2 year old.

 

Right?

 

You would only do that if you were Yahweh. Awesome post Yunea!

[mymistake]

On 5/28/2018 at 4:53 PM, Thumbelina said:

Edit: There's a child rapist around, your two year old, who has no frame of reference about sex, has to be taught not to let others touch her. Would you describe explicitly to the kid what rape entails? You wanted God to describe sin in great detail before Adam & Eve sinned? The instructions were SIMPLE, 'don't touch it!'

 

A big thanks to @yunea for spotting the edit.

 

 

No, Thumbelina this is all wrong.  God created the situation with the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden.  God put that tree there.  God set it up as a test.  No sane parent would arrange for their toddler to be alone with a child molester.  Your own example shows that your God is a monster.  According to your religion child rape exists because Adam and Eve sinned but Adam and Eve sinned because they didn't understand because they had been created without knowledge.  Your God is a monster.

[Eowynesque]

On 5/28/2018 at 7:53 PM, Thumbelina said:

There's a child rapist around, your two year old, who has no frame of reference about sex, has to be taught not to let others touch her. Would you describe explicitly to the kid what rape entails? You wanted God to describe sin in great detail before Adam & Eve sinned? The instructions were SIMPLE, 'don't touch it!'

 

And how would they know it was wrong not to follow instructions if they had no knowledge of good and evil?

[LogicalFallacy]

On 5/17/2018 at 6:20 PM, Thumbelina said:

Thumbelina said:

1)The sins of the world is not loving God with ALL our hearts, souls & minds & subsequently, not loving our neighbor as ourselves. The latter CANNOT be done without the former. We inherited selfishness from our first parents. The bible says we're born in sin & shapen in iniquity; that is a PREDICTIVE text, all men failed, & will fail, by sinning. I think the bible describes Enoch as being one of the best humans when it came to abiding in God but he too sinned. Only Jesus never sinned.

  ........

LF Said:

So how do we get this sin? If its applied at or just before we are born, at conception even it can be anything we do. You say sin is not loving god, but apparently we are already born with it before we can learn to love god. So which one is it?

 
Thumbelina says: The bible describes sin as transgression of God's law (the 10 commandments. See 1 John3:4). All humans are born with sinful propensities, even Jesus was born with the propensity to sin (as God He could not be tempted so He put on human flesh to be able to identify with us, therefore He was able to be tempted); every human failed/fell into sin except Jesus. Sins can only be committed by CHOICE, a person has to be cognizant of right & wrong in order to become a sinner (that's why baptizing babies & children too young to understand makes no sense). To be a sinner all one has to do is sin one time. Having a sinful human nature or having the propensity to sin is of itself not sin. The text I cited previously, about being born in sin & shapen in iniquity simply means humans have sinful proclivities; it's not saying zygotes are sinners.
Concerning that text, it's Psalm 51:5, the commentary Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges states:

5–8. He has inherited a sinful nature; and yet, so he is confident, God can and will make it conform to His desire. The emphatic ‘Behold!’ marks the beginning of a new stanza.

See? The Psalmist was stating that his nature is prone to sin.

 

Can you please make up your mind. Is sin not loving God with all our heart, or is sin transgressing God's law?

 

 

Quote

Thumbelina said:
 
2) Who said that God has that pen from Men In Black that erases memory? ??

 .................. 

Basically Revelations does... and my old Christian preachers.

 Thumbelina says: Where in Revelation? Revelation 21:4? I stated that the bible says in Revelation that the Saints/redeemed will sing the song of Moses & the lamb, therefore, they will remember, they just won't mourn about the lost people any more. That type of thing happens even today, in this SHORT life, people who have children or loved ones who are demonic & commit atrocities may cry when their relative gets the death sentence but eventually they understand that the system was JUST by executing their loved one. I think psychologists have a list of the stages of grief. God is fair, He'll give the saints 1000 years to examine the books in heaven where the deeds of the lost are recorded (read Revelation for yourself) & He'll let them mourn/cry when fire from Him destroys them. 

After the 1000 years God will resurrect the lost to prove that time is not a factor, they will NEVER change & true to form, they'll try to attack God & the saints. By that time they would've rejected the Holy Spirit & spurned God's offer for eternal life; the Holy Spirit won't be striving with them, they'd have blasphemed the Spirit, hence they'd have committed the unpardonable sin, just like the devil & his angels. Their characters would be FIXED, they'll be demonic, they could not have been saved by all their "good" deeds, those are filthy rags. Salvation is by grace ALONE, through faith.

 

Be noble like the Bereans, check scripture for yourself, don't take what I or your ex preacher says without checking it out, m'kay?
...............

 

I've read the bible (Most of it - I have a bible on my desk so I can refer to it in such discussions. I use KJV - hope you having nothing against it? If you don't like the KJV plenty of people think you are going to hell.). What is happening is you are interpreting your way, and I'm going off the interpretations I was thought was true. So are we all supposed to check out the scripture and come to our own truths?

 

 

Quote

Thumbelina said:
The redeemed will recall their redemption, just in a different way; they will sing the song of Moses & the lamb. Christians can do that even now (somewhat), people often say forgive & forget; it's basically impossible to forget but the Christian, by God's grace, can remember their experience in a different way. As time goes by they can forget the painful part for they understand that all their experiences work together for good.
Hell does not exist yet, it will exist after the judgment when God will give men the payment according to their work (evil deeds).

 

A great number of knowledge claims there. Care to support them with evidence? Most Christians I'm aware of thinks hell exists now. 

 

Quote

LF Said
A just God would have never created the system you claim he did. A malicious angry god maybe, but not a just all loving one.

 

Thumbelina says:

How would you do it?
As god, how would you get innumerable beings to respect you & each other AND factor in their free will too?

 

Well lets see, I'd create a garden, put a tree in it, make a deceptive serpent...... I'm sure you can see where I'm going here.

 

You cannot have an omnipotent omniscient god and free will. It's an oxymoron. 

 

If I have free will then I might do something that God hadn't thought of or accounted for, but that's not supported by scripture. What is supported is that God knows everything, and has called those whom he will from before the foundations of the world.

 

"Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." Romans 8:30

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:" Ephesians 1:4

 

And on the flip side God blinds whom he will.

 

He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them. John 12:40

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Romans 9:18

 

There is no free will here. There can't be because it's a logical contradiction in the circumstances described in the bible. Free will isn't even mentioned. I've read versus people claim is talking about free will, but it isn't - when looked at honestly they  talk about the Lords will.

 

 

[mymistake]

14 hours ago, Eowynesque said:

 

And how would they know it was wrong not to follow instructions if they had no knowledge of good and evil?

 

 

I think that was originally the point.  The religion that created the Garden of Eden story wanted you to obey Yahweh even when it seemed wrong or evil.  You must mindlessly obey no matter what.

[Thumbelina]

•  

Posted May 31

  On 5/30/2018 at 9:46 PM, Thumbelina said:

There's a thread somewhere in the den that mentioned the simplicity of the Christian religion or some sort of such.

It is simple. I said that God's laws always existed, Mr. Sinai was not where it started. Look, the people were in bondage to pagans for centuries & they lost sight of the law of God that was passed down from their fathers. Sinai was basically a reiteration of what they should have known.

 

Pulling more crap out of thin air, I see. The pre-Law stories in the Bible do NOT show the people already having the Law orally. That simply is not how the story goes in the Bible, as anyone who reads it can see. Your dishonesty is mind-boggling.

 

  On 5/30/2018 at 9:46 PM, Thumbelina said:

Satan sinned/lied from the beginning- he's the father of lies- could he have been accused of lying if God's law did not forbid being a false witness? Pharaoh ADMITTED that he sinned against God BEFORE the Israelites left Egypt; could he have  sinned if there was no law that he broke?

 

Jesus used the method of asking questions to reason with people; it's a good teaching tool. What should one do if one uses that method with biblical questions that are are posed but the asker won't answer the questions? 

 

Again, could God accuse anybody of any sin if there was no law that they broke?

If there was no law against wearing neon yellow ribbons in public could a police officer arrest someone just for wearing said ribbons?

 

To rightly understand the bible, precept must be compared to precept. In logic something cannot be true & false at the same time in the same context. Contextualization has been a major problem when trying to understand the bible for many unbelievers. I cannot force them to study it the way it says to (see Isaiah 28:10).

However, what is in my power to do is pray that God can give enlightenment through His providence.

 

There you have it, folks: More mumbo jumbo from Thumby. Though her style is different from others, the act of going off on tangents instead of actually answering the questions is standard Christian apologetics. If the Christian worldview was true, then they would be able to give direct and sensible answers instead of doing silly dances like this to skirt the subjects. This is the dishonest garbage that we ex-christians have left behind.

 

Sorry, Thumby, but what you're doing here is not demonstrating Christianity to be truth, but rather showing how ridiculous it is. Anyone with half a brain can see that you are failing miserably as a witness for your "God."

 

****************************

 

When reading the bible one has to be a deep sea diver and not just a mere water skier-- figuratively speaking. You have to prayerfully and humbly study the texts and you'll discover their rich mean in.

The Holy Spirit reaches people who are as meek as little children (one can't depend on preconceived ideas to understand scripture). Just because the bible doesn't say the law was not written down before Sinai, it does not mean the law didn't exist. I did say that the aim of the law is loving God, and loving one's neighbor as oneself. Prior to sin the law was basically stated in the affirmative; in Genesis it shows this when God gave Adam and Eve simple commands. First He stated His commands in the affirmative--- of every tree you can freely eat (ahem, freedom to choose) --- and then He stated His command in the negative without giving too much detail and putting ideas in their heads---  of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat ... or you will surely die (more choice).

 

In Galatians 5:22-23 Paul lists the fruit of the Spirit and he wrote that against such-- positive attributes there is no law. In other words, the law is not against right doing. The law points out sin, if it is kept it won't condemn anybody (only Jesus can impart righteousness to sinners though). As created beings sinned and continued to do so, God then had to use some negative language to describe how to keep His law of liberty (James 1:25) and to state the penalties for breaking said law.

 

 

After Adam and Eve sinned Jesus stepped in to offer GRACE, Jesus told the serpent/Satan, in Adam and Eve's presence, that He would put enmity between him & the woman  & between his seed & her seed. After more than 1,000 years of sinning & rebellion Jesus basically reiterated in the last part of the 2nd commandment that there is enmity between Satan's seed & His seed. Satan's seed has God's disapproval & God's seed has His approval. The book of Job mentions God's seed (sons of God) & distinguishes them from Satan which means adversary (see Job 2:1). The sons of God & enmity theme is throughout the bible. Was Job there at Sinai? Even if the law was not stated verbatim like in Exodus 20, the principles have always been there. The law is eternal as God because it shows His holy nature/character.

 

 

 

 

 

I said what I meant & meant what I said in my post.

God had a holy line from the onset of sin, albeit, a minority. Things got really bad for a time so God had to destroy the earth & start over again with Noah & family. Before Sinai the people received the law orally, mainly by prophets :

"God who at various times and in different ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets ... " Hebrews 1:1

Also see Numbers 12:6.

The fathers passed down the law to their families. Some pre Sinai prophets or patriarchs were Enoch, Noah  Abraham, Isaac & Jacob. The gospel is simple & yet the bible is  so profound. In Luke 3:23-38 it traces a holy line all the way back to Adam; those people were WILLING to do God's will so He entrusted them with His oracles of truth/law. The law shows what God is like, it is there to be OBEYED so there'll be PEACE in God's universe. Unfortunately, some of the law had to be stated in the negative because a God of love HAS to execute justice. He can never immortalize evil & sin, therefore, the wages of sin is death. He has to get rid of the cancer of sin, & death/hell is the only way to do it.

 

Btw. check out Exodus 16:28 and its CONTEXT; did they get to Sinai YET when God asked what He asked?

Throughout the bible God had to basically say what is written in 1 John 2:7. God is EVER reiterating to hard-headed humans-- I know He does it to me. God never changed His covenant, Hebrews 8:8 says God found fault with the people-- always reneging on their promises & backsliding. They were dense & didn't understand that God was coming to die for them/us. When Jesus came it opened more eyes to the truth so the new covenant is that they/we would trust Him to help them/us overcome sin & not trust in themselves/ourselves & therefore, His law will be written on their/our hearts.