Adventist: amalgamation in CERTAIN races of men.

[tall73]

So was the corruption due to sin generally or worldliness? Were not the wicked also not far removed from Eden?

Cain and Abel are a perfect example of Godly men and wicked men, but you knew that already. Feigning ignorance.

I am asking you to reconcile disparate point of your view. Cain was ungodly. Able was Godly. Seth followed the Lord.

They were not different races. They were all brothers. And even if you take from there that different nations formed, does that mean that if someone from Cain's line regarded the Lord, they could not marry someone from Seth's line?

Was the issue race or fidelity to the Lord? You might read my responses to Bob and LGW above.

And later, foreigners were joined to Israel. So although Israelites were warned against marrying people of other nations who drag their heart from the Lord, if someone from another nation worshipped the Lord, there was no issue. It was not about race. Race was brought into this by Ellen White without warrant. And "seeing" evidence of it in races is without warrant.

Were you proposing giants in Ellen White's day? Because she indicated it was seen in certain races.

You know I meant preflood. Again, feigning ignorance.

I know you meant pre-flood. But again, I am trying to get you to apply your definitions from the pre-flood statement to the later statement. Unless you are changing the meaning of amalgamation between statements, which seems unwarranted. Your definition then is applied throughout all that she said to see if it works.

In Ellen White's times she sees evidence of the "base crime" of amalgamation in "certain races" of men.

Now you said there were no giants today in one of your statements. But you also said you think all races now are corrupt.

So I was trying to see what you thought changed from Ellen White's time to today, if then certain races were corrupt, and now you think all are. And I was trying to figure out if you meant there were giants in Ellen White's day. Some actually do think that and mention accounts of Giants in North America. So I am trying to understand. Again, you are presenting your view, and I am trying to understand it and apply it to both quotes.

So in Ellen White's day she sees "certain races" that have amalgamation and the defacement of the image of God.

But does that really make sense with your view of what she is saying? If the image of God is debased by turning away from God then it is not physical, but spiritual. And it is not therefore an issue of race. People of any race can worship the Lord. People of any race can turn away from the Lord.

And there has never been any race that did not have people turning from the Lord. Israel at points was filled with idolatry.

Also, can you explain what you mean by races? Why would worldliness be associated with race?

Leading the witness and again, feigning ignorance. It was Ellen that specified races. We are discussing the limited scope of her mere paragraphs about amalgamation. I posted what she said, with context.

Yes, indeed, it was Ellen White who "specified" races, or brought race into it at all.

However, you are here trying to explain what she meant by that. So we do have to understand what you are now trying to say. And it is a very real question to me how race is a sign of holiness or fidelity to the Lord.

I would think people's faithfulness to the Lord is the test, regardless of race.

Now Ellen White indicated race, but you are the one describing that in terms of believers and unbelievers. I don't think that was the meaning of race in Ellen White's time. There were believers and unbelievers in various races in her time, correct? And belief is not tied to race.

No, I am just asking why you think certain races showed these effects, and asking if you know which ones. You make it sound like a mystery, but she said it was visible, could be seen. So what are the markers?

Again, I told you, Ellen didn't name races, neither can I. I mentioned giants, men of renown, what else does scripture say? That's a rhetorical question.

A few questions. Is it your suggestion that giant people are by default ungodly? Or only certain giants or families of giants mentioned in the Scriptures that were described as evil? I am trying to understand your viewpoint on this again.

And no, Ellen White did not mention which races. But the notion of godly or ungodly races is a problem whether she specified or not. Because there can be godly or ungodly people of all races.

And the idea of mixing of races being a base crime is a problem.

Cain's line by your reasoning was evil from day one, and everyone in it. But do we know that? And how did his line become a different race overnight?

So you see the Spirit of God as associated with races? Some have it, and some don't? Some races sin and are corrupt, and others are not?

Did you read my post or did you completely ignore it?

Genesis 6:3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.​

The Spirit of God (the Holy Spirit) lingered with men, but began to wane because of the corruption of Satan; because of the disconnect from God due to sin. The Holy Spirit is a key aspect that distinguishes people of God from people of the world—spiritual. But you knew that. Again, leading the witness and feigning ignorance.

No! I am saying that it has nothing to do with race! The Holy Spirit comes upon people of all races who trust in the Lord.

And this is where I decided to put a stop to this line of questioning.

Twisting my words into new questions that lead to your foregone conclusions is not a discussion, it's a bait and switch. How this? How that? When you know the answers already. I explained each point in detail, there should be no question what my point of view is.

No, there are some aspects I really don't understand about your view. And applications to the quotes that I am not sure fit your view. Are you saying once you post your view no clarification or challenge may be provided?

You are proposing an explanation for her view. I am saying that explanation makes spirituality about race. And that is a problem.

Allow me to quote everything I said about race, so there's no confusion here.

• As to who the corrupt races of men are, I think all races are inherently corrupted to some degree at this late stage of the end time (as per the days of Noah).

Exactly. And I am asking you how that changed from Ellen White's statement, which you seem to claim is legitimate, that in her time it was only CERTAIN races that had this corruption.

And I am asking you why race has anything to do with it.

We don't have giants in this day and age, but the corruption is everywhere to be seen.

Right, and I asked you if you thought they had them in Ellen White's day, because some do think that, and I don't know if you are one of them.

• I mentioned the giants. If it's not in the Bible, I can't tell you what other races or creatures there were.

Right, but the problem is that you associate it with race in the first place, rather than whether someone follows the Lord. Races are not monolithic in that regard.

• You're asking me to put words in Ellen's mouth by naming races she herself didn't name anywhere in her writings. I don't think you can say Uriah Smith quoted Ellen when he named names.

I am trying to get you to reason out the statements you have made in relation to the statements she made.

She said certain races of men show this corruption.

You say today all do.

well....

That means you had some, certain corrupt races in her day.

And now you have all races corrupt.

And what exactly does that even mean? As soon as one person of a race turns to idolatry didn't that end the purity of the race, no marriage needed?

Was there any nation in Ellen White's day that was uniformly following the Lord?

• ...and why do you think those races were more likely to be worldly? Satanic corruption, as was stated.

So some races....physical traits, etc. are associated with ungodliness? Or at least in Ellen White's day? But now all are?

Does that mean there are no faithful people left?

Or was it just not about race to begin with.

• How did some races manage not to be worldly? The Spirit of God, as was stated.

So races were holy? Everyone in Seth's line was holy as long as they didn't marry into Cain's line?

Is the primary mechanism of unholiness marriage to an unholy person, or can you become unholy by turning away from the Lord?

I included your quotes in italics in the last two bullet points for reference.​

Ellen said what she said. I quoted context in my first post. You can think what you want about what she said. Uriah Smith said what he said. You can think what you want to think about what he said.

I think folks can guess what I think about what she said. But I have been asking Adventists what they think.

Uriah Smith posited a blurring of the line between man and animal.

I am still trying to figure out what you are saying, but it appears to be positing holy and unholy races in Ellen White's time.

 

[tall73]

Interesting detail - is that Earth now has amalgamation of man WITH beast (in two forms) and it does not produce new races of mankind - but rather different human-animal species.

That brings up the third view some Adventists offer, though as you say it may share some challenges to Uriah Smith's view.

The Possibility of Pre-flood Amalgamation

Thus, since such crossings between species are naturally impossible, Ellen White's statements appear to suggest some sort of technologically advanced process in the pre-Flood civilization. As we shall see later in another statement, she referred to amalgamation being done through "ingenious methods."

Could illustrious scholars of our time be placed in contrast with men of the same age who lived before the Flood, they would appear as greatly inferior in mental as in physical strength. As the years of man have decreased, and his physical strength has diminished, so his mental capacities have lessened. There are men who now apply themselves to study during a period of from twenty to fifty years, and the world is filled with admiration of their attainments. But how limited are these acquirements in comparison with those of men whose mental and physical powers were developing for centuries!—Patriarchs and Prophets, pp. 82, 83.


This may have actually been Uriah Smith's view, however poorly he phrased it. It has the advantage of treating those who were against their will subjected to such as still men and still capable of salvation.

But there is the argument they would not be fully human. He addressed this in the link which I posted earlier:

But, says the objector, Paul says that “God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all face of the earth,” and then they add, “Which shall we believe, Paul or E. G. White?” You need not disbelieve E. G. White, in order to believe Paul; for there is no contradiction between them. Paul’s language will apply to all classes of men who have any of the original Adamic blood in their veins; and that there are any who have not this, is not taught by the visions, nor claimed by any one. But for this text to weigh anything in favor of the objector, he must take the ground that God made every particle of blood that exists in any human being. Is this so? Then God made all the scrofulous, leprous,, or syphilitic blood that courses in the worst transgressors’s veins! From any view which leads to such a blasphemous conclusion, we prefer to be excused. But what has the ancient sin of amalgamation to do with any race or people at the present time? Are they in any way responsible, or to be held accountable for it? Not at all. Has any one a right to try to use it to their prejudice? By no means. The fact is mentioned simply to show how soon men relapsed into wickedness,, and to what degree. But we are to take all races and peoples as we find them.
Uriah Smith

The Visions of Mrs. E.G. White


However, that would not explain how this happened after the flood until such technology again developed.

 

[BobRyan]

This may have actually been Uriah Smith's view, however poorly he phrased it. It has the advantage of treating those who were against their will subjected to such as still men and still capable of salvation.

Ellen White addressed both new species and new races of men - but did not say that the new species were "new species of men" or "new species of mankind" -- so we are left with her explanation of it in Genesis 6 - as mixed marriages between believers and non-believers.

Meanwhile outside of Adventism is a VERY popular doctrine on amalgamation - hybrid beings in Genesis 6 as a cross between a human and a fallen angel.

So there is outright claims to "the new species idea" for humans - outside of Adventism that is very popular and that is rejected by Adventists.

Far more agreement on that point for Adventists than the idea that Uriah Smith was right and Ellen White was wrong to claim no new human species only "races of men" as we see them today - which are most certainly not new species of humans.

 

[tall73]

Meanwhile outside of Adventism is a VERY popular doctrine on amalgamation - hybrid beings in Genesis 6 as a cross between a human and a fallen angel.

Agreed, that is a very popular view.

So there is outright claims to "the new species idea" for humans - outside of Adventism that is very popular and that is rejected by Adventists.

Agreed.

Far more agreement on that point for Adventists than the idea that Uriah Smith was right and Ellen White was wrong to claim no new human species only "races of men" as we see them today - which are most certainly not new species of humans.

Oh agreed. There is more universal rejection of the angel theory among Adventists than there is universal acceptance of the Uriah Smith view.

But that is the point. There is no agreement across all Adventist views. And that has been pointed out by the Geo-Research institute, etc. There are various views, and none of them are particularly satisfying.

Probably because of Ellen White's introduction of "races" into the issue.

The issue of fidelity to God is not about race.

 

[tall73]

Ellen White addressed both new species and new races of men - but did not say that the new species were "new species of men" or "new species of mankind" -- so we are left with her explanation of it in Genesis 6 - as mixed marriages between believers and non-believers.

Believers and non-believers are not "races".

Were everyone in Seth's line believers?

No inter-marriage is necessary to be an unbeliever. You can just turn away from the Lord.

Do you have evidence that every member of Cain's line was a non-believer? And by what period?

We will grant by the time of the flood all of humanity had turned away. But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.

 

[BobRyan]

Believers and non-believers are not "races".

True - but as we see in Gen 6:1-2 the two groups did have very different notions on the subject of rebellion vs obedience. Cain's people rejected God and Seth's people accepted God until they began to "mix" as Gen 6 indicates.

No inter-marriage is necessary to be an unbeliever.

And yet the history of Israel shows how often that very thing happened.

 

[BobRyan]

Oh agreed. There is more universal rejection of the angel theory among Adventists than there is universal acceptance of the Uriah Smith view.

Indeed - angel-human hybrid amalgamation is flat out rejected by Adventists as the reading for Genesis 6. Rather it is an issue of defacing the "image of God" by having the people of God compromised in marriages with the daughters of Cain's people-group.

That same problem occurred after the flood and some races of men were more marked by 1000's of years of separation from the knowledge of God - than others (as would have been apparent in the 1700's and 1800's and early 1900's).

 

[tall73]

That same problem occurred after the flood and some races of men were more marked by 1000's of years of separation from the knowledge of God - than others (as would have been apparent in the 1700's and 1800's and early 1900's).

You seem to have more knowledge on this topic than some of the other posters claim. So please answer some questions.

Which races are you speaking of?

And to be clear, are you saying that all the people from these races were disobedient, or that God was unknown among them?

And which races do you think are separated from God today, or do you think all are? Or do you think that more are closer to God now?

And I am guessing you don't think the animal species multiplying had anything to do with believing or unbelieving animals?

And finally, do you think inter-racial marriage is wrong in general?

 

[tall73]

True - but as we see in Gen 6:1-2 the two groups did have very different notions on the subject of rebellion vs obedience. Cain's people rejected God and Seth's people accepted God until they began to "mix" as Gen 6 indicates.

Can you explain how you get Cain's people out of daughters of men?

And how you get Seth's line out of sons of God?

And if they were sons of God, and Seth's line was faithful, why were they even around the daughters of men?

And if they all lived together, then how were these different races?

And how did the combination of Cain's line and Seth's line result in mightier men than either Seth or Cain's line separately, when they were both brothers?

In fact Ellen White sees all of them as tall and Seth's line taller yet.

To me it sounds like people multiplied. And the people were evil.

The idea of two separate races is not mentioned. And all the people were evil, not just the one.

Gen 6:5 The LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intention of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

 

[tall73]

And yet the history of Israel shows how often that very thing happened.

Yes. And it also showed the nation turning away from God in mass numbers without having to marry others.

Now are you saying there are physical signs of this in the species itself? Ie, physical changes due to long periods of being without God, more so than other humans who are close to God?

If so is it more pronounced in nations that have a longer history of fidelity? You will have to explain.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I have already posted enough showing the claims of your OP are not true. This will be the last one I am going through then I will leave it between you and God.

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 which defaced the image of God. Now I am asking questions to make sure I understand. You are stating that the base crime of amalgamation was intermixing of groups, believers and non-believers, pre-flood through intermarriage, correct? And this led some of the people of God to idolatry.

So let's see where we agree. I agree that God forbade someone to marry someone else who did not worship God. And I agree that in the case of Israel this often meant not taking foreign wives, etc. with the rationale that they did not worship the Lord.

In the New Testament context Paul talked about a widow could remarry, but in the Lord, etc.

However, if a person from another race did worship the Lord, then there is certainly no "base crime" in mixing of races. And we see foreigners joining themselves to God. And that is the point. Races are not monolithic. They are just shared characteristics. Races can and do contain people who worship the Lord and people who do not.

So if someone from the line of Cain worshiped the Lord in the time of Seth would it be wrong to marry that person?

In other words, it is not the mixing of races that is the issue, but the mixing of belief and unbelief. Race is brought into this without warrant.

No. What I shared with you earlier with you was not what I said, but was the context to the quotes you provided that you left out!

As posted earlier Before sin entered the world man was made in the image of God. He was like God in character and walked and talked with God being like God in "behavior" which is one of the definitions of "race" used in the days of EGW writings (definitions already provided from the last post).

So as posted earlier the fall of the sons of God from Seth's descendants through intermarriage (amalgamation of the two races of different behavior; believers and unbelievers which was a definition of behavior in the days of EGW) is what the chapter is talking about through intermarriage (context) into idolatry defaced he image of God that the sons of God were created in.

Another words we deface the image of God by our behavior and the things we do. The application of "race" here pre-flood is to behavior of those who believed and followed God and those who did not believe and follow God. The quote context you left out is to intermarriage between the two groups of people that led God's people into idolatry and sin defacing the image of God through their behavior.

Context to the quotes you provided was this which I paraphrased earlier that you left out.

"As the sons of God mingled with the sons of men, they became corrupt {defacing the image of God}, and by intermarriage with them, lost, through the influence of their wives, their peculiar, holy character, and united with the sons of Cain in their idolatry. (SG3 p75)

So when we add context back to your quotes you leave out they do not say what you are claiming they are saying.

Now discussing her second quote: 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 you note after the flood:

LGW: Post-flood we not only see a continuation of intermarriage between the people of God and unbelievers but now intermarriages between races of different cultures, regions and languages. Not very hard not is it?

Yes, it is hard to see how mixing of races is a base crime.

I am not sure why you think that intermarriage of believers with unbelievers leading both people into Idolatry is not a base crime and sin in God's eyes.

Sin according to the scriptures is the breaking of anyone of Gods' 10 commandments (including the Sabbath) according to James 2:10-11; 1 John 3:4; Romans 7:7 and Romans 3:20 this of course being the context of the quote you provided as committing idolatry is sin in God's eyes as shown in the first two commandment in Exodus 20:3-5.

Humans are humans, and God made them all and sent His Son to die for them all, and does not want any to perish, but to repent. All have sinned. There has never been a "race" that did not have godless people. And even Israel at times was filled with idolatry.

The writings and context you left out were applying the term races to two groups of people that had different behaviors. Those who believed and followed God and his Word and those who did not follow God and his Word.

Of course all have sinned and Gods' people have always known according to the old covenant scriptures about the laws for remission of sins and what was required to seek Gods' forgiveness. (e.g. Genesis 4:4; 22:2-8; 13; 26:5; Exodus 18:12).

What made Gods' people God's people though was that they believed and followed Gods' laws and when they sinned they sought out God for forgiveness of their sins according to His laws. Those who believe God but do not do what God says they should do of course are not God's people but unbelievers professing to be Gods' people.

But why would you associate following God with race? Why would you say in some races in Ellen White's time we have the defacing of the image of God that can be seen? And would you say in Ellen White's race that we did not see that? Was it really her race that was the issue? Are you going to argue for pure and impure races? Are you saying any marriage between races is wrong?

This was already answered in detail already in post # 46 linked. One of the definitions of "race" used in EGW's day was application to behavior as is the context to defacing the image of God through intermarriage leading to idolatry. Well this is my last post to you here.

We will of course agree to disagree as I think we are going about in circles now and I believe your pulling the SOP quotes from their context seeking to apply an interpretation they are not saying. I will leave you with the last reply as I think you need it more than I do.

Thank you for the brief discussion here. I will say goodbye for now

 

[BobRyan]

Yes. And it also showed the nation turning away from God in mass numbers without having to marry others.

Indeed it happened multiple ways. But in Gen 6 is was intermarriage and in the case of Noah - everyone was on the same page - but eventually the various lines of grandchildren segmented into those of faith and those of paganism - where some groups were more heavily impacted than others.

Now are you saying there are physical signs of this in the species itself?

Well God is Creator - God told us what is best for health - you could go to some very backwards areas of the world in the 1700's and 1800's and find entire people groups living in conditions that do not promote good health for centuries ... some over 1000 years or more in that condition. Health has consequences.

 

[tall73]

Thanks, Dan!

I think working through Ellen White's views on race would have to look at a broad range of statements.

However, she, along with Uriah Smith, didn't think that they were not people, or that God was not interested in them. So whatever might be alleged from these statements, it would not be that.

God cares no less for the souls of the African race that may be won to serve Him, than He cared for Israel. He requires far more of His people than they have given Him in missionary work among the people of the South of all classes, and especially the colored race. Are we not under even greater obligation to labor for the colored people than for those who have been more highly favored? Who is it that held these people in servitude? Who kept them in ignorance?... If the race is degraded, if they are repulsive in habits and manners, who made them so? Is there not much due to them from the white people? After so great a wrong has been done them, should not an earnest effort be made to lift them up? The truth must be carried to them.—The Southern Work, 11, 12, written March 20, 1891.

How little of the spirit of Christ has been manifested in the treatment given to the colored race in this so-called Christian country! The Negro's color, the features that tell of his African descent, are a badge of humiliation to the whole race, because of the prejudice of the white people against them. They are often treated as if it were a disgrace to sit by their side, or even to worship in the same congregation. There is a large class with white blood in their veins, and bearing in their faces only the slightest traces of African descent, whose lives are embittered by the prejudice against them, being stigmatized as unworthy to associate with the whites, even in the worship of God. It is a shame for Christians who profess to be themselves redeemed by the blood of the Lamb to take a position to make these men feel that the mark of a humiliated race is upon them—men standing in God's broad sunlight with mind and soul like other men, with as goodly a frame as has the best developed white man. There are keenly sensitive minds that brood long and intensely over the oppressions suffered, and the slights they are made to feel. Many become jealous, soured, embittered, because of these prejudices, which make them feel every day that they are not like other men, not entitled even to worship God except in a prescribed manner. Even commiseration is humiliating, because it calls the sensitive mind to the misfortune that excites pity. 4MR8

There will be colored people there in heaven. Do you think that Christ has a separate apartment for them? Not at all. Heaven is broad, and they come right in. 4MR34

 

[tall73]

As posted earlier Before sin entered the world man was made in the image of God. He was like God in character and walked and talked with God being like God in "behavior" which is one of the definitions of "race" used in the days of EGW writings (definitions already provided from the last post).

I saw nothing in that post that suggested this. And I think we have a far more contemporary example from Uriah Smith, who lived in Ellen White's time, and wrote to defend her, of how they used the word "race" in Ellen White's times.

But more than that we have her own writings. Most of her comments on race refer to the human race. Some however speak to races of people. For instance:

Most decided efforts should be made to educate and train colored men and women to labor as missionaries in the Southern States of America. Christian colored students should be preparing to give the truth to their own race. Those who make the fear of the Lord the beginning of their wisdom and give heed to the counsel of men of experience can be a great blessing to the Negro race by carrying to their own people the light of present truth.

If you want to demonstrate some usage of Ellen White that says what you claim then post the examples. But given she clearly spoke of races, and Uriah Smith certainly took it to mean races, you have a lot of work to do in that regard.

So as posted earlier the fall of the sons of God from Seth's descendants through intermarriage (amalgamation of the two races of different behavior; believers and unbelievers which was a de

finition of behavior in the days of EGW) is what the chapter is talking about through intermarriage (context) into idolatry defaced he image of God that the sons of God were created in.

That still leaves only two: Believer and non-believer.

But she said this defacing of the image of God was seen in certain races--plural. Only the non-believer could have that in your scenario. So it wouldn't be plural.

I am not sure why you think that intermarriage of believers with unbelievers leading both people into Idolatry is not a base crime and sin in God's eyes.

Because it is not talking about that. See above. That would only be one race--unbelievers-- but she mentions certain races plural.

Also, please review my posts to BobRyan if you want more of my view on the point. I already indicated that God does not want believers to marry unbelievers. However, believers and unbelievers are not "races". And both are in all races.

The writings and context you left out were applying the term races to two groups of people that had different behaviors. Those who believed and followed God and his Word and those who did not follow God and his Word.

Which just shows it doesn't work to explain it. She said this defacing of the image of God was seen in certain races--plural.

Unbelievers are not a race. And they are only one group, not multiple.

 

[BobRyan]

So as posted earlier the fall of the sons of God from Seth's descendants through intermarriage (amalgamation of the two races of different behavior; believers and unbelievers which was a definition of behavior in the days of EGW) is what the chapter is talking about through intermarriage (context) into idolatry defaced he image of God that the sons of God were created in.

That still leaves only two: Believer and non-believer.

In the case of Gen 6:1 only two groups - those who lived according to Seth and those who lived according to Cain - but even those living according to Seth's faith - could change and become evil.

Multiple races of man can show the effects of living according to Cain's rule of ignoring all that God says regarding health and long life. That cannot be disputed. And they can live that way for over a thousand years of time going into such darkness as to be able to see "we have never even heard of such a thing as a Bible".

 

[tall73]

Indeed it happened multiple ways. But in Gen 6 is was intermarriage and in the case of Noah - everyone was on the same page - but eventually the various lines of grandchildren segmented into those of faith and those of paganism - where some groups were more heavily impacted than others.

Ok, so you plainly are speaking of races, people groups, and you say some show evidence of a defaced image of God. I will examine other answers as they come in.

Well God is Creator - God told us what is best for health - you could go to some very backwards areas of the world in the 1700's and 1800's and find entire people groups living in conditions that do not promote good health for centuries ... some over 1000 years or more in that condition. Health has consequences.

I think you may have changed topics. Are you asserting those who debased themselves by not following God are denied health instruction? Do you think everyone who follows God has such health instruction in all cultures?

I am asking if not worshiping God in itself changes the form regardless of diet or exercise, etc.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I saw nothing in that post that suggested this. And I think we have a far more contemporary example from Uriah Smith, who lived in Ellen White's time, and wrote to defend her, of how they used the word "race" in Ellen White's times.

But more than that we have her own writings. Most of her comments on race refer to the human race. Some however speak to races of people. For instance:

Most decided efforts should be made to educate and train colored men and women to labor as missionaries in the Southern States of America. Christian colored students should be preparing to give the truth to their own race. Those who make the fear of the Lord the beginning of their wisdom and give heed to the counsel of men of experience can be a great blessing to the Negro race by carrying to their own people the light of present truth.

If you want to demonstrate some usage of Ellen White that says what you claim then post the examples. But given she clearly spoke of races, and Uriah Smith certainly took it to mean races, you have a lot of work to do in that regard.




That still leaves only two: Believer and non-believer.

But she said this defacing of the image of God was seen in certain races--plural. Only the non-believer could have that in your scenario. So it wouldn't be plural.



Because it is not talking about that. See above. That would only be one race--unbelievers-- but she mentions certain races plural.

Also, please review my posts to BobRyan if you want more of my view on the point. I already indicated that God does not want believers to marry unbelievers. However, believers and unbelievers are not "races". And both are in all races.



Which just shows it doesn't work to explain it. She said this defacing of the image of God was seen in certain races--plural.

Unbelievers are not a race. And they are only one group, not multiple.

Please stop trying to twist what has been shared with you from my posts. I have posted pre-and post-flood application to races plural to the quotes you have provided as application to those quotes are both pre and post flood also adding in the context you left out which was intermarriages of God's people with unbelievers leading into idolatry. Perhaps you need to go back and consider what has already been shared with you as you do not seem to be following the discussion or are not willing to. Anyhow I am out for now. Please do not respond to me if your not willing to have an honest discussion with me. The word race has many meanings and applications as shown through my posts earlier (here) being used for pre and post flood application and the meaning it has today was different to the meanings it had and was used in the day the quotes you provided were written as shown earlier.

 

[tall73]

In the case of Gen 6:1 only two groups - those who lived according to Seth and those who lived according to Cain - but even those living according to Seth's faith - could change and become evil.

Genesis 6:1 doesn't mention Seth or Cain. And it doesn't mention races.

And if you just mean obedient or disobedient, there is no reason to bring race into it at all. Seth and Cain were not different races. They had the same parents. And as you mention even those who were of Seth could be evil.

And they can live that way for over a thousand years of time going into such darkness as to be able to see "we have never even heard of such a thing as a Bible".

Turning away from God and not having a Bible are not the same thing. Even natural revelation reveals God. And none of the races post-flood would have any of the writings in our Scripture, as none of them were written yet.

So you cannot think that people have to have the Bible to follow God. And I know you don't believe that because you have posted miraculous testimonies of people even today who didn't know Christ but He showed Himself to them.

But more to the point, none of the races who do have the Bible are characterized by anywhere near race-wide fidelity to God.

Following God is not a characteristic of race.

 

[BobRyan]

Genesis 6:1 doesn't mention Seth or Cain. And it doesn't mention races.

And it doesn't mention fallen angels or demons etc.

But there are clearly two groups "Sons of God" vs "daughters of men"

And if you just mean obedient or disobedient, there is no reason to bring race into it at all. .

That would create more problems than it solves since it then appears that all men were good and all women were bad.

 

[tall73]

Please stop trying to twist what has been shared with you from my posts. I have posted pre-and post-flood application to races plural to the quotes you have provided as application to those quotes are both pre and post flood . Perhaps you need to go back and consider what has already been shared with you as you do not seem to be following the discussion or are not willing to. Anyhow I am out for now. Please do not respond to me if your not willing to have an honest discussion with me. The word race has many meanings and applications as shown through my posts earlier (here) and the meaning it has today was different to the meanings it had and was used in the day the quotes you provided were written.

I certainly did read your earlier posts, and responded to them. In your earlier post you indicated post-flood that it involved various people groups. You know, the usual definition of race.

POST FLOOD APPLICATION TO RACE; populations of people' communities; Ethnic groups; common languages and physical traits.

And funny enough that is in keeping with "certain races" of men.

Which is why it is very strange that you are arguing two different definitions of race for two quotes one chapter apart. And one you have not supported by her usage at all, and the other you admit which is in line with her usage, is referring to people groups.


The notion of believer and unbeliever being races is not accurate. There are believers and unbelievers throughout the races.

It is the second quote, referring to post flood, that was considered controversial, before I was ever born, in her own time. And it is still considered controversial today by many Adventists. And for that one you admit it is speaking of people groups.

So, which races did she think had the image of God defaced in them?

And which race doesn't have unbelievers?