The Amalgamation Statement

[mva1985]

I was doing some reading and came across this website
http://adventist-defense-league.blogspot.com/2007/09/did-egw-teach-amalgamation-of-man-with.html

Check it out and let me know what you think.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Hi MVA--thanks for the web site, many here need to read this one.

As you may have seen in another thread on this board, I posted that when I first read the comments of EGW in question--that I didn't for one minute think that she was referring to procreation between man and animals, but rather between man and man--and animals cross-breeding by man. Reading this site you provided is just what the Lord had given to my mind many years ago on this subject.

Also--about 10 yrs ago--I was a a church members home for our regular Friday evening bible studies, when this topic came up. All that read her statement came to the same conclusion--she was NOT referring to man procreating WITH animals; but as this article states.

Thanks again for posting it MVA.

PS--Here's an additional thought to consider though. We know that man's intelligence has been decreasing since the creation. How do we know that man back then was not already gene splitting and cloning? Is it so far fetched to think that the advanced race of man didn't in fact cause a 'confused' species of animals that God did destroy with the flood? (Doesn't the bible tell us that there is 'nothing new under the sun"?)

 

[mva1985]

Hi MVA--thanks for the web site, many here need to read this one.

As you may have seen in another thread on this board, I posted that when I first read the comments of EGW in question--that I didn't for one minute think that she was referring to procreation between man and animals, but rather between man and man--and animals cross-breeding by man. Reading this site you provided is just what the Lord had given to my mind many years ago on this subject.

Also--about 10 yrs ago--I was a a church members home for our regular Friday evening bible studies, when this topic came up. All that read her statement came to the same conclusion--she was NOT referring to man procreating WITH animals; but as this article states.

Thanks again for posting it MVA.

PS--Here's an additional thought to consider though. We know that man's intelligence has been decreasing since the creation. How do we know that man back then was not already gene splitting and cloning? Is it so far fetched to think that the advanced race of man didn't in fact cause a 'confused' species of animals that God did destroy with the flood? (Doesn't the bible tell us that there is 'nothing new under the sun"?)

I have no doubt that the humans before the flood were indeed very very smart, plus they had the advantage of long life.

 

[sentipente]

I have no doubt that the humans before the flood were indeed very very smart, plus they had the advantage of long life.

What are you making the comparison to?

 

[mva1985]

What are you making the comparison to?

You......

 

[sentipente]

And how did you make the comparison?

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

to deal with the question you have to deal with the history. History inidcates that in the 1700-1800's many people thought that Blacks were subhuman and the result of interbreeding between man and animal (monkey's mainly)

The following is a PDF download of a presentation on the subject given at an Adventist Forum meeting.

http://www.forthegospel.org/files/Amalgamation_of_Man_and_Beast.pdf

 

[mva1985]

to deal with the question you have to deal with the history. History inidcates that in the 1700-1800's many people thought that Blacks were subhuman and the result of interbreeding between man and animal (monkey's mainly)

The following is a PDF download of a presentation on the subject given at an Adventist Forum meeting.

http://www.forthegospel.org/files/Amalgamation_of_Man_and_Beast.pdf

I read 20 of the 75 pages of this pdf file. Waste your time if you want to but it is seriously flawed.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

What are the flaws you saw?

 

[honorthesabbath]

MVA--if we can avoid debating with the opposition in our area--let's do it, ok? I'm not going to do it anymore myself.

We have to have ONE area where we can discuss topics of our choice without their interference.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

MVA--if we can avoid debating with the opposition in our area--let's do it, ok? I'm not going to do it anymore myself.

We have to have ONE area where we can discuss topics of our choice without their interference.

Asking a question is not debating, it would seem that it would be beneficial to everyone involved if flaws in such a presentation were explained or at least addressed by the one that claims the article is not worth the time to read.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Asking a question is not debating, it would seem that it would be beneficial to everyone involved if flaws in such a presentation were explained or at least addressed by the one that claims the article is not worth the time to read.

RC--MVA made his point very clear to you--he found the article flawed--this should be good enough for you. Your question would lead to a debate and you are not allowed to that in this area, per the rules.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Asking him for his reasons is not debating. Neither is the slippery slope argument (it is in fact a logical fallacy). You cannot assume something will move into debate merely because a person offers their reasons for making a claim. I would think others might like to know his reasons also.

 

[honorthesabbath]

I read 20 of the 75 pages of this pdf file. Waste your time if you want to but it is seriously flawed.

MVA-I too visited that link and read to page 27. I agree--it's garbage and nonsensical. A huge waste of time. Did you notice they misquoted her amalgamation sentence with the word 'with' instead of 'and'? Small words do make BIG differences in meaning.

 

[honorthesabbath]

Asking him for his reasons is not debating. Neither is the slippery slope argument (it is in fact a logical fallacy). You cannot assume something will move into debate merely because a person offers their reasons for making a claim. I would think others might like to know his reasons also.

Well--just let me say that experience with this forum has taught me that it would be the case. As a matter of fact--your post I am responding to makes my point perfectly.

Perhaps you could engage MVA in another sub-forum for this 'discussion'.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

MVA-I too visited that link and read to page 27. I agree--it's garbage and nonsensical. A huge waste of time. Did you notice they misquoted her amalgamation sentence with the word 'with' instead of 'and'? Small words do make BIG differences in meaning.

Slide 13 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 which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful long- lived race that had corrupted their ways before him. He would not suffer them to live out the days of their natural life, which would be hundreds of years. It was only a few generations back when Adam had access to that tree which was to prolong life…” EGW. 3SpG. 1864. p. 34. Republished in ’70 & ’71.
From A. White. The Progressive Years 1862- 1876. R & H. 1986.

Slide 14 says:

“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.” EGW. 3SpG. 1864. p. 75. Republished in ’70 & ’71.
“I was informed that those who lived in thedays of Noah and Abraham were more like the angels in form, in comeliness and strength.” (1SpG. p. 70.)

So you can see your charge dos not line up with reality. It may be you are looking at the page which gives possible interpretations. It says (slide 16):

1.
Amalgamation of man with beast confused the image of God.
2.
Caused Noah’s flood.
3.
Not sure if it was a man or beast?
4.
Evidenced today by “ape-man.”
5.
Neanderthal is a degenerate Homo sapien.

Remember these are only the slides of the presentation not the accompanying talk. But they have many quotes which do show the history of the idea of man and beast an races of man of course someone who stops at slide 27 will most most of them.

 

[mva1985]

MVA--if we can avoid debating with the opposition in our area--let's do it, ok? I'm not going to do it anymore myself.

We have to have ONE area where we can discuss topics of our choice without their interference.

Honor,

I respect that. And you are probably right. Sometimes it is nice to retreat to a safe haven!

 

[mva1985]

MVA-I too visited that link and read to page 27. I agree--it's garbage and nonsensical. A huge waste of time. Did you notice they misquoted her amalgamation sentence with the word 'with' instead of 'and'? Small words do make BIG differences in meaning.

You made it further then I did, and yes I did notice that. Little words can make a big difference.

 

[mva1985]

Well--just let me say that experience with this forum has taught me that it would be the case. As a matter of fact--your post I am responding to makes my point perfectly.

Perhaps you could engage MVA in another sub-forum for this 'discussion'.

I am not sure that I can do that right now - I have been feeling drained by all the debating. I'll have to see.

 

[mva1985]

Slide 13 says:


Slide 14 says:


So you can see your charge dos not line up with reality. It may be you are looking at the page which gives possible interpretations. It says:


Remember these are only the slides of the presentation not the accompanying talk. But they have many quotes which do show the history of the idea of man and beast an races of man of course someone who stops at slide 27 will most most of them.

RC,

Without debating I'll try and find some time to finish it out, and then maybe we can chat in another forum. Would that be okay with you?

Merry Christmas brother!