An Interesting Seventh-day Adventist teaching about Apes breeding humans?

[Pythons]

Check out the link that Stryder posted on the previous page.

I did check it out and it's safe to say that the apologist who wrote the apology does not answer the questions I posed in a way that would help Ellen's case.

In Ellen's statements she is clear that "confused species" of animals were the restult of Amalgamation AND that these confused "species" which God did not create were wiped out by the flood. Now, the worse form of Amalgamation which is listed as a "base crime" was the Amalgamation of man AND beast. If Ellen says that prior to the flood there existed confused species of animals, that God did not create THAT WERE the result of Amalgamation then it's game over. There is no way out of it as Ellen mentions both forms (man and animals) were the result of amalgamation.

 

[Stryder06]

Look up Early Writings. Needless to say while the church heavily promotes many of her works her earliest works are almost NEVER promoted, and at times were edited.

If you are an Adventist and have no read Early Writings you are missing why so many have issues with Ellen White. Many of her most controversial statements were her early statements which were later sanitized, re-thought, abandoned, etc.

If you all want an Adventist discussion of it I can send you a link to a disccusion with Pythons, an Adventist pastor or two and some others (including me).

It is on another forum though so I will not post it here.

I've read early writtings. What exactly about the book proves problematic?

 

[Stryder06]

I did check it out and it's safe to say that the apologist who wrote the apology does not answer the questions I posed in a way that would help Ellen's case.

In Ellen's statements she is clear that "confused species" of animals were the restult of Amalgamation AND that these confused "species" which God did not create were wiped out by the flood. Now, the worse form of Amalgamation which is listed as a "base crime" was the Amalgamation of man AND beast. If Ellen says that prior to the flood there existed confused species of animals, that God did not create THAT WERE the result of Amalgamation then it's game over. There is no way out of it as Ellen mentions both forms (man and animals) were the result of amalgamation.

What's interesting to me is that you ask questions, and than when you're given the answer you say "well that's not right." Do you ever look into studying the subjects for yourself that you question.

And secondly this isn't a point of faith for Adventist, it isn't even a teaching. What she saw in vision is what she talked about. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know nor understand all of her writtings, simply because I haven't studied them all, but considering where we are in history and how close we are to the Lord's return we have bigger things to worry about.

I say let's get to heaven than we can find out for sure what she "really" meant iof it's that important to you.

 

[tall73]

And secondly this isn't a point of faith for Adventist, it isn't even a teaching. What she saw in vision is what she talked about.

You may want to review your 28 fundamental beliefs:

18. The Gift of Prophecy:
One of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy. This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and was manifested in the ministry of Ellen. G. White. As the Lord's messenger, her writings are a continuing and authoritative source of truth which provide for the church comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction. They also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested. (Joel 2:28, 29; Acts 2:14-21; Heb. 1:1-3; Rev. 12:17; 19:10.)


Ellen's writings are a continuing source of truth and an Adventist teaching.

 

[tall73]

I've read early writtings. What exactly about the book proves problematic?

A number of things. A couple that leap immediately to mind are the shut door controversy and the problem of Ellen White saying God intentionally sent a wrong message through William Miller and covered an error in the figures to test people. Then she condemned those ministers who rightly said we don't know the day or hour of Jesus coming.

 

[tall73]

What's interesting to me is that you ask questions, and than when you're given the answer you say "well that's not right." Do you ever look into studying the subjects for yourself that you question.

I 100% guarantee you that Pythons has studied this subject for himself FAR more than you have. In fact your study seems to have been to post an article by the Ellen White Estate and call it done. If you want to show that the article you linked to addressed the evidence that Pythons posted then pull the applicable sections and respond point by point to Python's claims.


Now, since you seem to accept the White Estate's view, let me ask you a question regarding it.

To start with here are the two amalgamation quotes:

The quotes both appear in the same work 3SG, in successive chapters, both dealing with the time period of the flood and shortly before. Both refer to the same issue--amalgamation before the flood, and the one goes on to mention more amalgamation after the flood.

But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere.

{3SG 64.1}


Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men. {3SG 75.2}

Now if, as the Ellen White Estate claims, the amalgamation involves mixing of animal and animal and men with men, and it may well as far as I am concerned, then please explain which races of men in Ellen White's day showed this evidence of amalgamation that she considers a base crime?

The Ellen White Estate defense may save Ellen White from looking a little silly in saying that there were animal-human fusions, but it instead chooses to say she was a racist.

And if mixing of animals is a base crime, which brought about the flood and destruction of man kind above all the other base crimes then why is there no Adventist outcry against this "base crime" today?

 

[Stryder06]

Ellen's writings are a continuing source of truth and an Adventist teaching

I'm familiar with our beliefs, and I believe that her visions are a source of truth. However this subject isn't a "teaching" such as sabbath, state of the dead and diet, etc. When I read this statement I researched it to see what Ellen was talking about, which is why I posted that link to that explanation. That is the problem I run in to with Pythons, the explanation on that page tells us that Ellen was expressly talking about a defilement of both man and beast, not of man and beast together.

A number of things. A couple that leap immediately to mind are the shut door controversy and the problem of Ellen White saying God intentionally sent a wrong message through William Miller and covered an error in the figures to test people. Then she condemned those ministers who rightly said we don't know the day or hour of Jesus coming.

I don't see a problem with this. Doesn't Christ test His people continually?This disappointment was spoken of in the book of Revelation. The book that was sweet as honey in John's mouth, but bitter in his belly. The test did exactly what it was suppose to do, it weeded out those who were true to Christ from those who had only a form of godliness.

And the message through William Miller wasn't incorrect it was misunderstood. They applied an incorrect meaning to the prophecy, which God allowed them to do. And what condemnation did she place upon preachers who said that we don't know the day nor hour of Christ return. She says the same thing. Could you provide the reference to that?

 

[Stryder06]

I 100% guarantee you that Pythons has studied this subject for himself FAR more than you have. In fact your study seems to have been to post an article by the Ellen White Estate and call it done. If you want to show that the article you linked to addressed the evidence that Pythons posted then pull the applicable sections and respond point by point to Python's claims.


Now, since you seem to accept the White Estate's view, let me ask you a question regarding it.

So it ok for you to agree with Python's statment, but it's not ok for me to agree with the statement made by the white estate? The explanations there simply make more sense than the assumption that Python is making about them.

To start with here are the two amalgamation quotes:

The quotes both appear in the same work 3SG, in successive chapters, both dealing with the time period of the flood and shortly before. Both refer to the same issue--amalgamation before the flood, and the one goes on to mention more amalgamation after the flood.

But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime of amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere.

{3SG 64.1}


Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men. {3SG 75.2}

Now if, as the Ellen White Estate claims, the amalgamation involves mixing of animal and animal and men with men, and it may well as far as I am concerned, then please explain which races of men in Ellen White's day showed this evidence of amalgamation that she considers a base crime?

The Ellen White Estate defense may save Ellen White from looking a little silly in saying that there were animal-human fusions, but it instead chooses to say she was a racist.

And if mixing of animals is a base crime, which brought about the flood and destruction of man kind above all the other base crimes then why is there no Adventist outcry against this "base crime" today?

First question: Did you read the explanation given?
Second question: Do you remember where the bible says that the sons of God mixed with the daughters or men?

This is the action the defaced the image of God. These unions lead to great apostacy. This is what the problem is that Sr White was talking about. Of course you don't have to agree with that. You can choose to assume that she is talking about men and monkies having babies together, but that is simply not what she is talking about.

 

[Norbert L]

I just saw there are different types of SDA's on CF. I wonder if they ALL agree with what you posted.

And one question I would ask is why would they not be considered Unorthodox for that belief/view you posted, as are the JW's and LDS for their Unorthodox views/beliefs? Just curious

The 7th day Sabbatarian communties do have historical schisms, not all hold Ellen White as inspired and thus don't identify with SDA. To be realistic if a survey were done the fragmentation of Sabbath holding groups are not immune to the wolf in sheeps clothing.

What is Orthodoxy? I ran across a quote from the Protestant scholar H. Brown...

"It is impossible to document what we now call orthodoxy in the first two centuries of Christianity"

If anyone can come up with the full context, it would be much appreciated.

 

[Pythons]

Stryder, there is no possible way Ellen intended anything other than that Apes, bred human females which produced offspring. Read over the quote again and realize that Ellen explicitly states that,

Every species of animal WHICH God HAD created were preserved in the ark.

The confused species WHICH GOD DID NOT CREATE, WHICH WERE THE RESULT of [drum roll please] amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men. {3SG 75.2}

Confused Species "which were" the RESULT OF amalgamation God didn't allow into the Ark. Since the flood there has been "amalgamation" of man and beast. If species of animals existed that "God didn't create", two separate species of animals amalgamated resulting in a species that was not either of the parent species. This is exactly what she said and Tall is correct in that Ellen's writings are a continuing source of truth and also a rejection of what Ellen says is insulting the Spirit of God.

Unless the "sons of God" were Orang's Ellen still has a very big problem. A beast is never considered a "son of God" is Scripture, Ellen said woMAN was bred by Orangutang resulting in an amalgamated species AS MAY BE SEEN in certain races of men.

 

[Stryder06]

Stryder, there is no possible way Ellen intended anything other than that Apes, bred human females which produced offspring. Read over the quote again and realize that Ellen explicitly states that,



Confused Species "which were" the RESULT OF amalgamation God didn't allow into the Ark. Since the flood there has been "amalgamation" of man and beast. If species of animals existed that "God didn't create", two separate species of animals amalgamated resulting in a species that was not either of the parent species. This is exactly what she said and Tall is correct in that Ellen's writings are a continuing source of truth and also a rejection of what Ellen says is insulting the Spirit of God.

Unless the "sons of God" were Orang's Ellen still has a very big problem. A beast is never considered a "son of God" is Scripture, Ellen said woMAN was bred by Orangutang resulting in an amalgamated species AS MAY BE SEEN in certain races of men.

Once again you're believing that she is saying what you want her to say despite every explanation that is given to you. Ellen goes into greater detail about this in the book Patriarch and Prophets.

Simply put, the sons of God mixed with the daughters of man, defacing the image of God. This is what she is talking about. If you really did read the explanation given you'd see that. But you'll choose to believe what you want I'm certain.

Animal cross-breeding isn't anything new. No telling what type of animals were a result of this action during those times, simply because we have no idea of what types of animals existed back then. It's really not to hard to undertand once you study the subject.

 

[Pythons]

Animal cross-breeding isn't anything new. No telling what type of animals were a result of this action during those times, simply because we have no idea of what types of animals existed back then. It's really not to hard to undertand once you study the subject.

That is what I'm asking you to do. Study the Subject. I read the apology posted about amalgamation and as I said previously, that article did not address my points.

You've just answered the question in my affirmative in any event by saying amalgamation was "animal cross-breeding". If a new species of animal is resultant from one kind of animal breeding another kind of animal (amalgamation) why do you claim amalgamation does not mean the same thing it did to the same person who just described it when it's amalgamation between an animal and a woman? Please help me understand your position.

 

[Stryder06]

That is what I'm asking you to do. Study the Subject. I read the apology posted about amalgamation and as I said previously, that article did not address my points.

You've just answered the question in my affirmative in any event by saying amalgamation was "animal cross-breeding". If a new species of animal is resultant from one kind of animal breeding another kind of animal (amalgamation) why do you claim amalgamation does not mean the same thing it did to the same person who just described it when it's amalgamation between an animal and a woman? Please help me understand your position.

Sr White never said anything about cross-breeding between people and animals. She said that the amalgamation resulted in a defacing of the image of God, as well as His creation. Context Python, context. Man can't breed with animals, so why do you think that she thought this? (This brings us back to an acceptance of Sr White as a real prophet or not.) Remember how the bible says that the sons of God mixed with the daughters of men? What do we see next? Man's wickedness increased so much that it repented God that He had created man.

This is the defacing of His image. Man no longer reflected the character of His maker, kind of like the majority of the world today. All men are created in the image of God, but they do not reflect His image because it has been distorted so much so.

 

[Pythons]

Sr White never said anything about cross-breeding between people and animals.

The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation

And, within the same exact body of text,

Since the flood there has been amalgamation OF man and beast, AS MAY be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men. {3SG 75.2}

"AFTER the flood" male ape has bred female human, there has been AMALGAMATION of MAN & BEAST----AS MAY BE SEEN-----in the almost endless varieties of species of animals AND in certain races of MEN.


As in the black race Stryder.

She said that the amalgamation resulted in a defacing of the image of God, as well as His creation. Context Python, context.

No, that's not what she said. She said Amalgamation BETWEEN animals and humans defaced the image of God. She covered amalgamation between species of animals and that didn't cause defacting of the image of God. MAN was created in the Image of God, therefore Ellen states that it was the AMALGAMATION of man and beast that was the base crime. I'm going to have to ask you to read up on context my good Brother.

Man can't breed with animals, so why do you think that she thought this? (This brings us back to an acceptance of Sr White as a real prophet or not.) Remember how the bible says that the sons of God mixed with the daughters of men? What do we see next? Man's wickedness increased so much that it repented God that He had created man.

You have clearly not read the OP. I covered exactly "why" Ellen believed this and documented it with her own words and the UNIVERSAL biology of her day. Is an Ape a Son of God? The apology from the White Estate, if anything, makes it worse on Ellen. Re-read what I posted, look up some of the authors I listed then read Ellen's quote and it should literally swing off the page and do stuff to you.

This is the defacing of His image. Man no longer reflected the character of His maker, kind of like the majority of the world today. All men are created in the image of God, but they do not reflect His image because it has been distorted so much so.

Ellen stated men, WITHIN a "certain race" were resultant from Amalgamation between themselves AND BEASTS. If confused species that God did not create were the result of almagamation AND those species were destroyed in the flood then something was ALIVE that God did not create. Are you seriously suggesting that Ellen was speaking about how vile the white man had become? This, of course within the same time frame that God said He could not take the slave to heaven because he was a "Brute Beast"? Please read a little slower.

I will scan some of the pictures from the book this next week and post them as a picture is worth 1000 words.

 

[peace4ever]

The Amalgamation of man and beast ( ape / human hybrids ) is a teaching of the Seventh-day Adventist Church through the ministry of its prophet Ellen G. White. What I would like to do is offer this thread up for a spirited and open dialog with the real possibility of this topic ending with a determination of findings. As Ellen White is long dead I will attempt to show, in a forensic way, why I believe the first meaning a reader assigns to Ellen’s statement is the meaning she intended the reader to get. The quote,





In the above two quotes from the prophet we may garner some simple facts that are irrefutable. 1st, Ellen believed that some species of animals AND certain races of MEN were NOT created by God as evidenced by her explicit statement that “living things died that God didn’t create” and 2nd , Confused species which were the result of one kind of animal breeding another kind of animal were exterminated by God, through the flood. It’s important to note that God killed unauthorized life and specifically targeted the offspring of male Orangutan’s and Human Females. You more or less are wondering where I got Orangutan’s, right? It’s very straightforward and simple to identify what the guilty beast is by looking back at what was accepted as biological fact in Ellen’s day and age. The following quotes are a drop of water in an ocean of quotes. Remember, the biology of Ellen’s day was based on “the Great Chain of Being” and it was UNIVERSALLY understood by any culture that had a written language that the base of the Great Chain was Hottentots, Wild Bushmen and certain American Indians. The following demonstrates the belief of that time.

[/i][/color]


[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']We see next that Ellen states that God cannot take the slave to heaven for one of the specific reasons listed above, “it’s a creature without law, religion or morals”.[/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/font]


In Ellen’s view, all of the species God created were marched into Noah’s Ark (man included) and saved while the species that were confused by amalgamation (to include Orang / human hybrids) were removed via the flood. Ellen simply reflected the common understanding of biology that was taught as fact in her day as the premise an ape could breed a human woman was believed to be certainly true.

For those who want to read about, “ the Great Chain of Being theory” and that the understanding of Biology required a belief that apes could breed human females I refer you to a book called “IMAGES of SAVAGES” by Gustav Jaohoda. The book is not religious in nature, it’s primary focus is to document and trace prejudice against certain American Indians, Wild Bushman and Certain races of black people from the Cape area of Africa – all of which were considered to be the result of inter-breeding between man and beast. Stalin was so convinced it was possible he attempted to breed an army of ape – humans.

Also, if you have time check out the “Hottentot Venus” story, it was really sad but shows how the western world thought of Sara the Hottentot girl who was used as a side show.

The theology of this teaching of Seventh-day Adventists should be a good one for discussion.


Peace.
[/font]

What vivid imaginations! God created us separately from the animals which is why of course, animals don't breed human descendants in reality any more than humans breed descendants who are animals. Only in the imagination can that happen.

 

[tall73]

I'm familiar with our beliefs, and I believe that her visions are a source of truth. However this subject isn't a "teaching" such as sabbath, state of the dead and diet, etc.

If they are a source of truth and endorsed by the church then they are a teaching are they not?

But I will grant you this. I have not seen an Adventist church VOLUNTARILY bring up this subject to outsiders, so in that sense yes, it is not a teaching. Most I have talked to on the issue wish to not talk about this little nugget of truth at all!

When I read this statement I researched it to see what Ellen was talking about, which is why I posted that link to that explanation. That is the problem I run in to with Pythons, the explanation on that page tells us that Ellen was expressly talking about a defilement of both man and beast, not of man and beast together.

And Pythons is pointing out evidence that he believes shows differently. There is nothing magical about the White Estate that guarantees they are right. In fact they have a vested interest in supporting Ellen White no matter what.

I don't see a problem with this. Doesn't Christ test His people continually?This disappointment was spoken of in the book of Revelation. The book that was sweet as honey in John's mouth, but bitter in his belly. The test did exactly what it was suppose to do, it weeded out those who were true to Christ from those who had only a form of godliness.

So let me get you on record as agreeing with Ellen White that those ministers who stated CORRECTLY that we do not know the day or hour failed the test.

Is that what you are saying? They were not only RIGHT but they were right because they knew the Scriptures.

And the message through William Miller wasn't incorrect it was misunderstood.

No, it was wrong.

He said Jesus would come in 1843. Ellen admits that it was wrong but says God hid the error in the figures for the test. It was really meant to be 1844.

Either way Miller was dead wrong. He even admitted it himself. I think everyone on this board can agree Jesus did NOT come in 1844.

They applied an incorrect meaning to the prophecy, which God allowed them to do. And what condemnation did she place upon preachers who said that we don't know the day nor hour of Christ return. She says the same thing. Could you provide the reference to that?

Miller applied a wrong meaning. And it is pretty plain to most of Christianity that Adventists applied a second wrong meaning, but that is best reserved for another thread.


And indeed, she did say the same thing, which is what makes it even worse!
Here is what she said about the ministers:


The preaching of definite time called forth great opposition from all classes, from the minister in the pulpit down to the most reckless, heaven-daring sinner. "No man knoweth the day nor the hour," was heard from the hypocritical minister and the bold scoffer. Neither would be instructed and corrected by those who were pointing to the year when they believed the prophetic periods would run out, and to the signs which showed Christ near, even at the doors. Many shepherds of the flock, who professed to love Jesus, said that they had no opposition to the preaching of Christ's coming, but they objected to the definite time. God's all-seeing eye read their hearts. They did not love Jesus near. They knew that their unchristian lives would not stand the test, for they were not walking in the humble path marked out by Him. These false shepherds stood in the way of the work of God. The truth spoken in its convincing power aroused the people, and like the jailer, they began to inquire, "What must I do to be saved?" But these shepherds stepped in between the truth and the people, and preached smooth things to lead them from the truth. They united with Satan and his angels, crying, "Peace, peace," when there was no peace. Those who loved their ease and were content with their distance from God would not be aroused from their carnal security. I saw that angels of God marked it all; the garments of those unconsecrated shepherds were covered with the blood of souls.
Ellen White, Early Writings, 233


Now, were the ministers right or not? No man knows the day or hour they said, and they were dead right. They were correct to resist Miller on that basis. She says instead that they just didn't love Jesus.

Now notice however what she said later about predicting the timing of Jesus' coming. She never included Miller in this though!

Many who have called themselves Adventists have been time setters. Time after time has been set for Christ to come, but repeated failures have been the result. The definite time of our Lord's coming is declared to be beyond the ken of mortals. Even the angels who minister unto those who shall be heirs of salvation know not the day nor the hour. "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but My Father only." Because the times repeatedly set have passed, the world is in a more decided state of unbelief than before in regard to the near advent of Christ. They look upon the failures of the time setters with disgust; and because men have been so deceived, they turn from the truth substantiated by the word of God
that the end of all things is at hand. {4T 307.1}

Those who so presumptuously preach definite time, in so doing gratify
the adversary of souls; for they are advancing infidelity rather than
Christianity. They produce Scripture and by false interpretation show a
chain of argument which apparently proves their position. But their failures show that they are false prophets, that they do not rightly interpret the language of inspiration. The word of God is truth and verity, but men have perverted its meaning. These errors have brought the truth of God for these last days into disrepute.
Testimonies vol 4, pg 307

Clearly this is the exact objection those ministers had to William Miller. But she condemned them and praised William Miller.

 

[BlackSabb]

The Amalgamation of man and beast ( ape / human hybrids ) is a teaching of the Seventh-day Adventist Church through the ministry of its prophet Ellen G. White. What I would like to do is offer this thread up for a spirited and open dialog with the real possibility of this topic ending with a determination of findings. As Ellen White is long dead I will attempt to show, in a forensic way, why I believe the first meaning a reader assigns to Ellen’s statement is the meaning she intended the reader to get. The quote,





In the above two quotes from the prophet we may garner some simple facts that are irrefutable. 1st, Ellen believed that some species of animals AND certain races of MEN were NOT created by God as evidenced by her explicit statement that “living things died that God didn’t create” and 2nd , Confused species which were the result of one kind of animal breeding another kind of animal were exterminated by God, through the flood. It’s important to note that God killed unauthorized life and specifically targeted the offspring of male Orangutan’s and Human Females. You more or less are wondering where I got Orangutan’s, right? It’s very straightforward and simple to identify what the guilty beast is by looking back at what was accepted as biological fact in Ellen’s day and age. The following quotes are a drop of water in an ocean of quotes. Remember, the biology of Ellen’s day was based on “the Great Chain of Being” and it was UNIVERSALLY understood by any culture that had a written language that the base of the Great Chain was Hottentots, Wild Bushmen and certain American Indians. The following demonstrates the belief of that time.

[/i][/color]


[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']We see next that Ellen states that God cannot take the slave to heaven for one of the specific reasons listed above, “it’s a creature without law, religion or morals”.[/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/font]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'][/font]


In Ellen’s view, all of the species God created were marched into Noah’s Ark (man included) and saved while the species that were confused by amalgamation (to include Orang / human hybrids) were removed via the flood. Ellen simply reflected the common understanding of biology that was taught as fact in her day as the premise an ape could breed a human woman was believed to be certainly true.

For those who want to read about, “ the Great Chain of Being theory” and that the understanding of Biology required a belief that apes could breed human females I refer you to a book called “IMAGES of SAVAGES” by Gustav Jaohoda. The book is not religious in nature, it’s primary focus is to document and trace prejudice against certain American Indians, Wild Bushman and Certain races of black people from the Cape area of Africa – all of which were considered to be the result of inter-breeding between man and beast. Stalin was so convinced it was possible he attempted to breed an army of ape – humans.

Also, if you have time check out the “Hottentot Venus” story, it was really sad but shows how the western world thought of Sara the Hottentot girl who was used as a side show.

The theology of this teaching of Seventh-day Adventists should be a good one for discussion.


Peace.
[/font]

You are kidding, right? You take all this nonsense from "Ellen White" seriously? A person who plagurised someone elses work? A person who began a denomination that put people back into slavery? (keeping of the OT Sabbath/forbidding eating of ritualistic unclean foods etc). A person who says that man is "inherently good?"

If Ellen White doesn't even know the difference between the OT and the NT, I certainly wouldn't be taking anything else she said seriously. Why would you?

Seriously. If I met Ellen White today and she told me that the world was round and it circled around the sun, I'd have to think about it.

Simply because she said it.

 

[tall73]

So it ok for you to agree with Python's statment, but it's not ok for me to agree with the statement made by the white estate? The explanations there simply make more sense than the assumption that Python is making about them.

Actually I never said I agreed with Python's statement. I said to refute Pythons you need to go over his points one by one.

First question: Did you read the explanation given?
Second question: Do you remember where the bible says that the sons of God mixed with the daughters or men?

Indeed I did! And indeed I do!

And even if we accept that this is what is being talked about her in her two amalgamation quotes, AND even if we accept Ellen's rendition of what the sons of God and the sons of man meant, you still have a problem.

Because that text was BEFORE the flood and she goes on to mention that after the flood there were RACES of men IN HER TIME showing signs of this base amalgamation.

Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men. {3SG 75.2}


Now which races IN HER TIME show signs of this base amalgamation? Please be specific. She clearly saw in some RACES of men that there were problems of this sort. We are all waiting to know which RACES that would be.

This is the action the defaced the image of God. These unions lead to great apostacy. This is what the problem is that Sr White was talking about. Of course you don't have to agree with that. You can choose to assume that she is talking about men and monkies having babies together, but that is simply not what she is talking about.

You may want to limit yourself to what I have actually said. I have not come out in agreement with Pythons. And all my points have been directed at the view held in the Ellen White Estate defense document.

Now please tell us which races IN EGW's day showed signs of amalgamation.

Because if amalgamation is those who love God mixing with those who don't...can you point to ANY race in Ellen White's day that didn't have some that problems with that kind of mixing? I can't. Perhaps that is not what she meant afterall.

And there is another problem. Notice that it was in some RACES--plural-- of men that this is evident. But in the explanation about the amalgamation of men in your link only two groups are mentioned--the good guys, descendants of Seth, and the bad guys, descendents of Cain. Yet here we have many races in Ellen White's day and at least two...some...of them show signs of amalgamation. And some don't.

So it is not just one good race and one bad race. It is multiple races.

Hm...sounds like maybe she was talking about something different afterall. It sounds like, just as with the animals, she was talking about mixing of races, not just good guys and bad guys.

So tell us which races those are.

 

[tall73]

You are kidding, right? You take all this nonsense from "Ellen White" seriously? A person who plagurised someone elses work? A person who began a denomination that put people back into slavery? (keeping of the OT Sabbath/forbidding eating of ritualistic unclean foods etc). A person who says that man is "inherently good?"

If Ellen White doesn't even know the difference between the OT and the NT, I certainly wouldn't be taking anything else she said seriously. Why would you?

Seriously. If I met Ellen White today and she told me that the world was round and it circled around the sun, I'd have to think about it.

Simply because she said it.

Lol, don't worry, Pythons doesn't take her seriously. He just wants to get out what he thinks she meant for evaluation.

 

[Pythons]

Let's look into some of the apology. It confirms exactly what the Biology of the day SAID was fact. Certain races of men had been messing around with Apes and you could SEE the effects of the intercourse with your naked eye!

"Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men."

This view was given for the purpose of illustrating the deep corruption and crime into which the race fell, even within a few years after the flood that signal manifestation of God's wrath against human wickedness. There was amalgamation; and the effect is still visible in certain races of men."

Mark, those excepting the animals upon whom the effects of this work are visible, are called by the vision, "men."

Now we have ever supposed that anybody that was called a man, was considered a human being. The vision speaks of all these classes as races of men; yet in the face of this plain declaration, they foolishly assert that the visions teach that some men are not human beings!

But does any one deny the general statement contained in the extract given above? They do not. If they did, they could easily be silenced by a reference to such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country,

&c. Moreover, naturalists affirm that the line of demarkation between the human and animal races is lost in confusion. It is impossible, as they affirm, to tell just where the human ends and the animal begins. Can we suppose that this was so ordained of God in the beginning? Rather has not sin marred the boundaries of these two kingdoms?

That closes this case.