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

[tall73]

Stryder, I couldn't help but notice you didn't address another problem for me. Notice again what Ellen White says:

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

Now you have said this was amalgamation of man with man and beast with beast. As I have said, I am more than willing to look at that possibility.

But then what do you do with the implications of the statement by this continuing source of truth?

You just admitted that animals mixing together, which is VERY common today, is a base crime and more than any other is reason for God to destroy us.

Yet you have done nothing to warn the world about this! Nor have any of the others who hold to Ellen White as a continuing source of truth. Instead they worry about all kinds of things like eating pork and such. All the while they let the world head to utter ruin due to dog breeding!

Please explain yourself. Please explain why the Adventist church buries this need to know information.

 

[BlackSabb]

You just admitted that animals mixing together, which is VERY common today, is a base crime and more than any other is reason for God to destroy us.

Yet you have done nothing to warn the world about this! Nor have any of the others who hold to Ellen White as a continuing source of truth. Instead they worry about all kinds of things like eating pork and such. All the while they let the world head to utter ruin due to dog breeding!

Please explain yourself. Please explain why the Adventist church buries this need to know information.

Hahahahaha.....ROFl......


Very funny. I'd also like some citations for the claim that Stalin (he and Ellen White would have made a great couple) attempted human-ape breeding.

 

[tall73]

So let's look at the possibilities here.

Either the passage, as Pythons asserts, means that humans bred with animals producing offspring.

OR

The passage means, as the White Estate submites, that it is a base crime for animals to interbreed, but it has been happening all through time and it is a crime that brings the most danger on the world. But no Adventist is talking about it. And along with that you can see this in certain races of men too.

Either way this passage is completely ridiculous and no Adventists even tries to take it seriously. They just try to hide it or explain it away.

 

[BlackSabb]

So let's look at the possibilities here.

Either the passage, as Pythons asserts, means that humans bred with animals producing offspring.

OR

The passage means, as the White Estate submites, that it is a base crime for animals to interbreed, but it has been happening all through time and it is a crime that brings the most danger on the world. But no Adventist is talking about it. And along with that you can see this in certain races of men too.

Either way this passage is completely ridiculous and no Adventists even tries to take it seriously. They just try to hide it or explain it away.

That's an excellent point, I never thought of it. I've know Adventists for years, and it's the same old thing always:

"Keep the Sabbath"

"Don't eat pork, prawns" etc.

I've also never heard of such a great abomination as you put it, that's happening commonly today. This all demonstrates that Ellen White is no "prophet" at all-except a false one, that even Adventists don't take her all that seriously.

 

[Pythons]

I'm sorry, I have another one to throw on top of the already growing pile. A devout Seventh-day Adventist and undisputed Father of Creation science,

"George McCready", born 1870 earned a living as a young wipper snapper selling Ellen White Books then attended the SDA Battle Creek College. Upon completion of School he went out into the world to teach that while called men, negros were actually the result of wicked people being mated by Apes. To him, God didn't "create them" they were the result of Amalgamation. Wonder where he got that from?

On the other hand, if there is any blood relationship between man and the great apes, it is far more reasonable to suppose that the apes are degenerated or hybridized men, than that man has evolved by progressive development from the apes. Degeneration is a thousand times better established as a general principle of nature than is progressive development.

 

[BlackSabb]

I'm sorry, I have another one to throw on top of the already growing pile. A devout Seventh-day Adventist and undisputed Father of Creation science,

"George McCready", born 1870 earned a living as a young wipper snapper selling Ellen White Books then attended the SDA Battle Creek College. Upon completion of School he went out into the world to teach that while called men, negros were actually the result of wicked people being mated by Apes. To him, God didn't "create them" they were the result of Amalgamation. Wonder where he got that from?

Wow, I didn't know that!! It just shows you how seriously twisted these isolated little sects and cults can get.

I'm sure the KKK would love that. Especially as they're Christian based.

 

[tall73]

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!

Uriah Smith, 1868

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.

In case anyone is not sure why this quote is particularly helpful Uriah Smith was a prominent Adventist and was writing to defend Ellen White on the quote.

 

[BlackSabb]

In case anyone is not sure why this quote is particularly helpful Uriah Smith was a prominent Adventist and was writing to defend Ellen White on the quote.

Well why didn't you say so before? If "Uriah Smith" said it, it must be true!




*roll eyes*

 

[Sophia7]

Well why didn't you say so before? If "Uriah Smith" said it, it must be true!




*roll eyes*

The point is that Uriah Smith, in writing to defend Ellen White, gave evidence that, contrary to the White Estate's claims, her amalgamation statements did refer to the interbreeding of humans and animals as the cause of confused species and races. Ellen White certainly did not disagree with Smith's interpretations of her writings, or she would have corrected the errors. In fact, her husband, James White, endorsed Smith's defense in a review printed in the Adventist publication Review and Herald (Aug. 25, 1868):

The Association has just published a pamphlet entitled, "The Visions of Mrs. E.G. White, A Manifestation of Spiritual Gifts According to the Scriptures." It is written by the editor of the Review [Uriah Smith]. While carefully reading the manuscript I felt grateful to God that our people could have this able defense of those views they so much love and prize, and which others despise and oppose. This book is designed for a very wide circulation. There will be 2000 copies upon the camp ground. Price 20 cents. Postage 2 cents. (http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH1868-V32-10/index.djvu, last page)
​

James White had carefully reviewed Smith's book and enthusiastically endorsed it and was planning to take 2000 copies to sell at camp meeting (which happened to be their first general camp meeting, according to the next announcement on that page of the Review). He wouldn't have written that if Smith were wrong in his understanding of Ellen White's statements.

 

[BlackSabb]

The point is that Uriah Smith, in writing to defend Ellen White, gave evidence that, contrary to the White Estate's claims, her amalgamation statements did refer to the interbreeding of humans and animals as the cause of confused species and races. Ellen White certainly did not disagree with Smith's interpretations of her writings, or she would have corrected the errors. In fact, her husband, James White, endorsed Smith's defense in a review printed in the Adventist publication Review and Herald (Aug. 25, 1868):

The Association has just published a pamphlet entitled, "The Visions of Mrs. E.G. White, A Manifestation of Spiritual Gifts According to the Scriptures." It is written by the editor of the Review [Uriah Smith]. While carefully reading the manuscript I felt grateful to God that our people could have this able defense of those views they so much love and prize, and which others despise and oppose. This book is designed for a very wide circulation. There will be 2000 copies upon the camp ground. Price 20 cents. Postage 2 cents. (http://www.adventistarchives.org/docs/RH/RH1868-V32-10/index.djvu, last page)
​

James White had carefully reviewed Smith's book and enthusiastically endorsed it and was planning to take 2000 copies to sell at camp meeting (which happened to be their first general camp meeting, according to the next announcement on that page of the Review). He wouldn't have written that if Smith were wrong in his understanding of Ellen White's statements.

You've missed my point. Who is "Uriah Smith" such that I should listen to what he has to say? To me, he's a nobody, a supporter of a false prophet called Ellen White. I couldn't care less what SDA's say about such things as interbreeding of species. They don't even understand the basic tenets of their own faith, let alone such advanced topics as genetics and interspecies breeding.

If you don't even understand that the OT Sabbath has been abolished in the NT, as the vast majority of other Christians do, I'm not expecting much out of you when it comes to complex dynamics of man and animal.

So, Uriah Smith to me is nothing.

 

[Stryder06]

Stryder, I couldn't help but notice you didn't address another problem for me. Notice again what Ellen White says:

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

Now you have said this was amalgamation of man with man and beast with beast. As I have said, I am more than willing to look at that possibility.

But then what do you do with the implications of the statement by this continuing source of truth?

You just admitted that animals mixing together, which is VERY common today, is a base crime and more than any other is reason for God to destroy us.

Yet you have done nothing to warn the world about this! Nor have any of the others who hold to Ellen White as a continuing source of truth. Instead they worry about all kinds of things like eating pork and such. All the while they let the world head to utter ruin due to dog breeding!

Please explain yourself. Please explain why the Adventist church buries this need to know information.

There is really no point in arguing this as this issue has nothing to do with salvation. I'm honestly still studying this issue to see for myself what Sr White was talking about.

I don't think that interbreeding of species is an issue, perhaps the type of interbreeding tha occured than was the problem. Of course no one knows exactly what she was talking about as far as the species goes, because she offered no exact specifications. I think, from what I've read, the bigger issue was the defacing of the image of God.

But as I already said, this is something I'm no expert on. I don't think that animals and humans are capable of breeding. I believe Sr White knew this and as such was not referring to this action. Of course I could be wrong, and if I am I'll find out in heaven. Know what exactly she was talking about as far as the animals is concerned is a small point im my opinion. I don't speak for the adventist church.

I think the bigger issue at hand was the amalgamation of man which defaced the image of God. The sons of God marrying the daughters of man which lead to such wickedness, that man destroyed God's creation and defaced His image so much so that the world needed to be cleansed.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ unsubscribes

 

[Stryder06]

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.


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.




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.

Your points are valid, and please forgive me for making assumptions about what you are and are not agreeing with.

From my point, strickly my own, I believe that the amalgamation she is talking about as far as man is concerned, is their fall into an abase type of wickedness, so horrible that it repented God that He had made man. From this standpoint it is easy to see what type of races she was talking about, as all races of men have some form of wickedness so base that it defaces the image of God.

Consider people that give themselves over to witchcraft or occult practices, tattoo their entire bodies with all types of markings, or that pierce themselves from head to toe, or cut their flesh. Than you can consider the individuals that get tatoos and piercings just for the sake of it (And i'm not talking about one or two tat's or piercings, although I don't agree with that degree either, but rather those who go overboard, getting marks and whatnot all over themselves, and in the most inappropriate places). These people are making outward statements that their bodies belong to them and that they are free to do what they want with them. The deface the image of God by doing these such things.

Sr White was simply stating that just as it was back before the flood, it is now. This is just as the bible says, as it were in the days of Noah, so shall it be at the time of the end. Once the world needed to be cleansed by water, this time it will be cleansed by fire.

But of course, this is just my take.

 

[tall73]

Your points are valid, and please forgive me for making assumptions about what you are and are not agreeing with.

From my point, strickly my own, I believe that the amalgamation she is talking about as far as man is concerned, is their fall into an abase type of wickedness, so horrible that it repented God that He had made man. From this standpoint it is easy to see what type of races she was talking about, as all races of men have some form of wickedness so base that it defaces the image of God.

You just state that all races of men have some form of wickedness that it defaces the image of God. And yet in the quote she doesn't indicate that you can see it in all races. She says you can see it in CERTAIN races.

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}

Ie...she was pointing to things that folks could clearly see in her day in CERTAIN races, not all, of men.

So it cannot be just that men commit wickedness. That is in all races.

 

[tall73]

There is really no point in arguing this as this issue has nothing to do with salvation. I'm honestly still studying this issue to see for myself what Sr White was talking about.

How can there be no point? This was a base crime that more than anything else brings destruction on the world. I don't see why this would not be something to talk about.

How can this horrible base crime/sin not be something to be looked at.

For that matter we are now seeing bio-engineering on a high level in crops, and animals, with genes being manipulated for certain perceived benefits. Would not this be a timely message?

I don't think that interbreeding of species is an issue, perhaps the type of interbreeding tha occured than was the problem. Of course no one knows exactly what she was talking about as far as the species goes, because she offered no exact specifications. I think, from what I've read, the bigger issue was the defacing of the image of God.

She included both as a base crime, so you cannot pick and choose. Are you sure it is all that confusing what she meant? Maybe it is not an issue because Adventists don't like what she meant.

So that it is clear I will post the statements again. Please notice that both mention amalgamation of man AND beast. And the animals were such a problem that she says God killed off the problematic animals.

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}

So how can you say that the animals are not an issue?

But as I already said, this is something I'm no expert on. I don't think that animals and humans are capable of breeding. I believe Sr White knew this and as such was not referring to this action. Of course I could be wrong, and if I am I'll find out in heaven. Know what exactly she was talking about as far as the animals is concerned is a small point im my opinion. I don't speak for the adventist church.

I think the bigger issue at hand was the amalgamation of man which defaced the image of God. The sons of God marrying the daughters of man which lead to such wickedness, that man destroyed God's creation and defaced His image so much so that the world needed to be cleansed.

She said both were a base crime and led to destruction. Please do not change what she said for your own comfort.

And see above as to the certain races of men portion.

 

[peace4ever]

Every descendant on earth can be traced back to the sons of Noah, and thus, to Adam. Every one. So making up new tribes of people never before mentioned in history is called a fairy tale. And it's even more of a fairy tale to believe that animals can breed human descendants when animals can only reproduce from the DNA they already possess. That's why turkeys don't produce offspring who are elephants, lions don't breed giraffes and apes don't breed; zebras skunks, tigers, humans or anything other than apes. That means that imaginary animals can't breed anything, much less animals different than what people imagine them to be.

 

[Norbert L]

If you don't even understand that the OT Sabbath has been abolished in the NT, as the vast majority of other Christians do, I'm not expecting much out of you when it comes to complex dynamics of man and animal.

When it comes to the complex dynamics of man and animal, what is known at one point in historical time, is how the available knowledge of that society frames human concepts. People grow up and form opinions from the knowledge that the society contains.

During her lifetime Ellen White (1827-1915), Christianity had to deal with polygenism, that man did not only decend through the one line of Adam. The general understanding by anyone contemporary to Mrs. White with the word 'amalgamation' would be a reference to the mixing of races. Are her writings just an uninspired contribution to the cultural times she lived in where there was also an acceptance of the notion that they have found the missing link or that man can de-evolve? Some will agree, others will not.

To learn that just over 100 years ago, the world view of not only the average man but those that are educationally disciplined, are shown to both reflect blind ignorance. Just look at the implications of Ota Benga, the African Pygmy had on "modern society" back then circa 1905.

Dr Jerry Bergman has an interesting paper on that moment in time, how the world view of man about other men were held during the early 1900's. It can be read at Ota Benga: The Story of the Pygmy on Display in a Zoo

It's not at all impossible looking in hindsight where those religious and scientific concepts led to, the master race instead of the chosen race. But where are the religious and scientific concepts leading people today?

I would be less concerned about seeing something in the past as totally false and irrelevant, if it weren't for the blindness of men during those times. But that somehow today Christianity has figured out what the truth is, that it actually abolished the Law and by that knowledge is no longer capable of being deceived and lead down the garden path again??? Some will agree others will not.

 

[peace4ever]

When it comes to the complex dynamics of man and animal, what is known at one point in historical time, is how the available knowledge of that society frames human concepts. People grow up and form opinions from the knowledge that the society contains.

Actually, most of what the secular has believed have been myths. "For the wisdom of the world is foolishness in God's sight."

One can only build on the truth. If he builds on a faulty foundation, it will crumble. But some people live in a faulty foundation for years, until the roof beings to leak, the walls begin to crack, but instead of admitting that they built their houses on a faulty foundation, & tearing down the house and rebuilding on a solid foundation, they keep adding new studs to the crooked walls, spending untold dollars on repairing leaks until one day, the house is in such bad shape that it is condemned by the city and the owners have no more money to build a new house on a new foundation.

That's what happens when one calls the beliefs of the secular world knowledge. He is building his house on a shaky foundation by listening to the fallible minds of man. The only real knowledge comes from God's Word alone as 1 Corinthians 1:18-25 explains.

 

[Norbert L]

Actually, most of what the secular has believed have been myths. "For the wisdom of the world is foolishness in God's sight."

Christianity has always existed side by side with the secular, each succesive generation defining the doctrinal demands towards the challenges that the greater world confronts it with.

What a Christian way back when thought about the relevance of truth to their particular circumstances, does not mean a Christian today sees it as past generations did.

 

[MamaZ]

Christianity has always existed side by side with the secular, each succesive generation defining the doctrinal demands towards the challenges that the greater world confronts it with.

What a Christian way back when thought about the relevance of truth to their particular circumstances, does not mean a Christian today sees it as past generations did.

Why not? For all Christians in the past and of today have the mind of Christ. It is when secular minds get involved and try to reason why things are that error comes into play.