Adventist: amalgamation in CERTAIN races of men.

[tall73]

I demonstrated that even non-SDA Bible scholars like Matthew Henry point out races in Genesis 6 - such as the "race of Cain's" descendants. This has nothing at all to do with Ellen White at that point.

Quoting Matthew Henry "again" --

"The sons of God (that is, the professors of religion, who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name), married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done, both for the preservation of their own purity and in detestation of the apostasy. They intermingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain:"

That part is irrefutable.

I note that Matthew Henry shares her view. I also note that he didn't get it from Ellen White.

However, he also didn't get it from what the text of what Genesis 6 said. He simply imposed those definitions as Ellen White and you did.

Now why when I asked you to make your case from the Bible did you make it from Matthew Henry?

And does Matthew Henry help you identify the post-flood races that did not have idolaters? Does he share that view as well?

 

[BobRyan]

I have not claimed others do not hold that Paul wrote it. The scholarship is divided.

Then you do agree that those scholars arguing for Paul's authorship of the book of Hebrews "do not need to read Ellen White's writings to believe that" .

So then it is like saying "Adventists believe the world is round... Ellen White said the world was round... how awful to believe what Ellen White wrote". It does not make sense. You should have picked something unique.

(No matter the existence of some flat-earthers on planet Earth)

 

[tall73]

Or are you like the OP seeking to just pull quotes from their context

I did not. I posted the quotes, and let you give the context. And I am still waiting for you to finish that task:

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.

Please plug in your definition of "amalgamation" and "races". Since you are the one doing it there should be no confusion.

If you like you can include any context you want. Just make sure the definitions are filled in.

 

[BobRyan]

I note that Matthew Henry shares her view. I also note that he didn't get it from Ellen White.

Which means that it is not the best candidate for your agenda. Because it is very obvious that this is not a detail that all those other Bible scholars needed Ellen White to discover. They knew it to be true anyway.

you're down to "well yes many know that is true that do not read Ellen White's writings, but I object to you knowing that it is true after reading something she wrote".

What kind of argument is that???

 

[tall73]

Then you do agree that those scholars arguing for Paul's authorship of the book of Hebrews "do not need to read Ellen White's writings to believe that" .

So then it is like saying "Adventists believe the world is round... Ellen White said the world was round... how awful". It does not make sense.

(No matter the existence of some flat-earthers on planet Earth)

As I explained in the other thread Ellen White has a number of views that are not unique. The difference is Adventists believer all of her views on the basis of her saying it.

So do you know any Adventists who see her statement about Paul writing it and then think otherwise?

 

[tall73]

Which means that it is not the best candidate for your agenda. Because it is very obvious that this is not a detail that all those other Bible scholars needed Ellen White to discover.

As explained many times to you in the other thread, your perception of my agenda is not the same as my agenda.

You will find very few things Ellen White said that were original. In fact, we both agreed with that in regards to Adventist doctrine.

And in her various works she often used sources of others (again so did Luke, so that in itself is not an issue indicating inspiration).

The issue is why on all of these controversial issues Adventists believe what she said, rather than taking any of the other various views.

And the answer can be seen in LGW's response in the other thread. He heard Adventists thought Moses wrote Job. He was unaware of it. I quoted Ellen White, then he noted other scholars.

Which was the key factor you think in his view of who wrote Job?

 

[Freth]

As I explained in the other thread Ellen White has a number of views that are not unique. The difference is Adventists believer all of her views on the basis of her saying it.

So do you know any Adventists who see her statement about Paul writing it and then think otherwise?

Official Beliefs of the Seventh-day Adventist Church

18. The Gift of Prophecy

The Scriptures testify that one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit is prophecy.

This gift is an identifying mark of the remnant church and we believe it was manifested in the ministry of Ellen G. White. Her writings speak with prophetic authority and provide comfort, guidance, instruction, and correction to the church.

They [her writings] also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.

Numbers 12:6, 2 Chronicles 20:20, Amos 3:7, Joel 2:28-29, Acts of the Apostles 2:14-21, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, Hebrews 1:1-3, Revelation 12:17, Revelation 19:10, Revelation 22:8-9​

 

[BobRyan]

As I explained in the other thread Ellen White has a number of views that are not unique. The difference is Adventists believer all of her views on the basis of her saying it.

1. All Adventist doctrines are established/tested/promoted "sola scriptura" and that this also how we do all of our evangelism (as I am sure you recall). Something that should not even be possible if what you were saying was even half-true.

2. It is fairly obvious that you are avoiding Adventist doctrine on this thread - maybe for that reason stated in #1.

3. Ellen White also knew that 2+2 is 4. That does not make it wrong to know it. And a lot of non-SDAs do know it.

 

[tall73]

Matthew Henry writes in that quote above - about Job "It is the opinion of many of the ancients that this history was written by Moses himself in Midian" - While Matthew Henry joins to the point of arguing that Moses wrote the intro and the last chapters but presumes Moses did not write the chapters inbetween.



And yet the point remains that Matthew Henry and and "many of the ancients" needed no "Ellen White reading" for that detail.

I said that you say it, and Ellen White says it, but the Bible doesn't say it.

Now if we add Matthew Henry says he wrote part of it, Ellen White says he wrote it and you say it, but the Bible doesn't say it, guess what we still have?

The Bible doesn't say it.

Now you note that Matthew Henry does not actually think he wrote the whole thing. And he is talking about what some believe.

In other words, he is looking at views and evidence.

However, when every Adventist lines up on every position Ellen White took, are they doing so only by evidence, or by her statement?

Perhaps LGW, who previously didn't know her statement can tell us if he now think Job was written by Moses.

I would be surprised to find otherwise.

 

[BobRyan]

The issue is why on all of these controversial issues Adventists believe what she said, rather than taking any of the other various views.

Have you thought about your statement much?

Let's say that scholars hold to 3 positions on the authorship of Hebrews and people more-or-less divide up choosing one group or another because an outright winner is almost impossible for all to see.

But Ellen White claims that God informed her that position #2 is the right one so Adventists join with all those non-SDA Bible scholars selecting option 2.

Your argument amounts to "that is cheating - you should have to just-guess like everyone else with no more confidence that your guess would be right in the end - than the next guy"

 

[tall73]

They [her writings] also make clear that the Bible is the standard by which all teaching and experience must be tested.

​

Great, show me interpretations on the Bible that Ellen White stated that you disagree with. And then we will know you test her by it.

Do you think Moses wrote Job while in Midian? Can you show it from the Bible?

Do you think Paul wrote Hebrews? Can you show it from the Bible?

 

[tall73]

Have you thought about your statement much?

Let's say that scholars hold to 3 positions on the authorship of Hebrews and people more-or-less divide up choosing one group or another because an outright winner is almost impossible for all to see.

But Ellen White claims that God informed her that position #2 is the right one so Adventists join with all those non-SDA Bible scholars selecting option 2.

Your argument amounts to "that is cheating - you should have to just-guess like everyone else with no more confidence that your guess would be right in the end - than the next guy"

Have you thought much about what you said? You just admitted the point. You go by what Ellen White said.

So she settles disputes.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Plug in your own definitions. Every attempt to understand your view has failed per you. This is your chance to remedy it.

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.

Please plug in your definition of "amalgamation" and "races". Since you are the one doing it there should be no confusion.

Sorry dear friend but I respectfully disagree. It is you who have failed here. You have already been provided both context to the quotes you have provided in the OP here as well as the word meaning and historical uses of "races" that have application to both pre-flood and post-flood quotes that agree with the quote provided above. There is no need to plug anything in here if you understand the application and definition of "races". Your trying to change the meaning of what "races" means and your trying to replace "man and beast" with "man with beast" which is not what the quote is saying combining the above with pulling the quote from its context and subject matter like many do with the scriptures. The quote is fine as it is. Your OP died some time ago.

 

[tall73]

There is no need to plug anything in here. Your trying to change the meaning of what "race" means and your trying to replace "man and beast" with man with beast

This is not true. I have not favored either view. I even said in the early comments that you can read the English either way.

And I have let people post their view. Which is why it is strange when you won't plug in your definitions with the context of your choice.

Are your definitions so strange that you cannot plug them into the quote and make them work? Then maybe you need new ones.


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.

Please plug in your definition of "amalgamation" and "races". Since you are the one doing it there should be no confusion

 

[LoveGodsWord]

This is not true. I have not favored either view. I even said in the early comments that you can read the English either way.

And I have let people post their view. Which is why it is strange when you won't plug in your definitions with the context of your choice.

Are your definitions so strange that you cannot plug them into the quote and make them work? Then maybe you need new ones.

Sure it is true. Although you do not want it to be true. I have posted both context and word definitions and both disagree with your interpretation of the SOP quote you provided. Of course they are not my definitions I posted you the source some time ago (post # 46 linked).

 

[tall73]

Sure it is true. Although you do not want it to be true. I have posted both context and word definitions and both disagree with your interpretation of the SOP quote you provided.

I didn't provide an interpretation. I simply tried to plug your definitions in.

You may do so then:



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.

Please plug in your definition of "amalgamation" and "races". Since you are the one doing it there should be no confusion

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I didn't provide an interpretation. I simply tried to plug your definitions in.

You may do so then:

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.

Please plug in your definition of "amalgamation" and "races". Since you are the one doing it there should be no confusion

So there is no misunderstanding please explain your interpretation of what you think the above statement is saying and why you used it for your OP? As posted earlier if you understand the context of the quote you provided outside of context and the definition and use of the word "race" then there is no problem with the statement as it stands therefore nothing needs to be plugged into it. You seem to be ignoring this.

 

[BobRyan]

Matthew Henry writes in that quote above - about Job "It is the opinion of many of the ancients that this history was written by Moses himself in Midian" - While Matthew Henry joins to the point of arguing that Moses wrote the intro and the last chapters but presumes Moses did not write the chapters inbetween.

And yet the point remains that Matthew Henry and and "many of the ancients" needed no "Ellen White reading" for that detail.

It is not helping you to keep pointing out details where non-SDA Bible scholars agree with something Ellen White said - to make your case "you could only believe that by reading Ellen White's writings".

I think this point is irrefutable.

I said that you say it, and Ellen White says it, but the Bible doesn't say it.

Let's include the missing piece of your statement

"you say it, Matthew Henry believes it, other non-SDA Bible scholars believe it, Ellen White wrote about it as well with that same POV -- but the Bible does not say it".

I said that you say it, and Ellen White says it, but the Bible doesn't say it.
Now if we add Matthew Henry says he wrote part of it, Ellen White says he wrote it and you say it, but the Bible doesn't say it, guess what we still have?

The Bible doesn't say it.

As all Bible scholars admit , there are a great many topics where the scholarship infers some detail based on clues from various Bible texts to come up with a detail not explicitly written in the Bible. This is not "NEW" to the world with Adventist views on those sorts of Bible details. In some cases we are left guessing with no more info than the next guy - and in a few cases we do have some added insight -- but in every case it is not a Bible doctrine.

You are possibly conflating sola-scriptura testing of all doctrine with solo-scriptura source, and in the examples you give "like authorship" you argue even more narrowly that even if evidence exists for Paul - unless the text outright says "I Paul am writing this letter" -- well then the Bible doesn't say it so it should not be believed or everyone should claim they are "just guessing" even if God sends them Word from heaven on the right answer..

However, when every Adventist lines up on every position Ellen White took, are they doing so only by evidence, or by her statement?

You're circling back to "they should always be limited to just guessing if the Bible does not already spell that detail explicitly even if it is not on a doctrinal topic".

 

[BobRyan]

Have you thought much about what you said? You just admitted the point. You go by what Ellen White said.

So she settles disputes.

When it comes to "we're all just guessing" vs "oh no wait - God did provide a message to the church on this particular issue on which all scholars are merely guessing" -- what is "the logical" course of action in your POV?

Given that all doctrine still has to be tested sola scriptura --- of course.

Without an explicit Bible statement on some detail then a lot of "educated guessing" to get that detail is expected and "opinions may vary". Every Bible scholar in every Christian denomination already accepts that fact.

Hopefully this adds clarity -

For the sake of "Clarity" on this thread... A simple Example.

Scenario A. IF a bunch of Bible scholars were sitting in a room making "a best guess" about how many sons and daughters Adam and Eve actually had (excluding all grandchildren etc) before they died - and 10 scholars came up with 10 guesses we might argue (anyone of them could be right or none of them ).

But if God sent an Angel to tell one of the scholars "that number is 101" - then that scholar "should" change his guess to "101" - no matter what the other folks sitting around guessing -- may think of it.

• Clearly that is not a doctrine.
• IT is also not a detail (regarding the number children for Adam) - spelled out in the Bible -- although we do know that number has to be more than 5 since Cain and Seth both had wives

========================

On this thread we have two proposed responses to scenario "A" above.

1. Ignore what God just told you and stick with your original guess so you can be on a level playing field with the other guessers.

2. Go with what God tells you is the right answer and be thankful for the added help.

 

[tall73]

So there is no misunderstanding please explain your interpretation of what you think the above statement is saying and why you used it for your OP?.

I posted it to see how Adventists relate Ellen White's writings to the Bible. I am not sure what she meant. When I was an Adventist I examined various interpretations but did not find one that fit all the details. Apparently I am not alone on that:

“Amalgamation”: Ellen White’s Most Controversial Statement

However, since you have it figured out, fill on your definitions.