Adventist: amalgamation in CERTAIN races of men.

[Freth]

...

You said: "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."

My response: Truth is established through scripture.

 

[tall73]

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.

And yet Bible scholars when faced with possibilities spell them out and weigh the evidence.

You have said just go with Ellen White. That is why I said just own the fact that if Adventists see her as inspired, then she will function as inspired interpreter.

And now you admit if it is not clear you go with her view.

 

[tall73]

You said: "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."

My response: Truth is established through scripture.

Bob says if it is unclear go with Ellen White.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Given that even Matthew Henry speaks to the topic of the "race of Cain" and given that all the races of mankind that existed 1000B.C. all came about in the same 1600 year period of time (since the flood) that the races of mankind would have had at the time of Noah in Genesis 6 since the birth of Cain -- then races are what is already known to have exists when starting from "just brothers" whether they are Cain and Seth or the sons of Noah as the "just brothers" starting point.

 

[tall73]

Given that even Matthew Henry speaks to the topic of the "race of Cain" and given that all the races of mankind that existed 1000B.C. all came about in the same 1600 year period of time (since the flood) that the races of mankind would have had at the time of Noah in Genesis 6 since the birth of Cain -- then races are what is already known to have exists when starting from "just brothers" whether they are Cain and Seth or the sons of Noah as the "just brothers" starting point.

Name the post flood race that didn't have amalgamation. She said certain.

 

[BobRyan]

And yet Bible scholars when faced with possibilities spell them out and weigh the evidence.

When the Bible is not explicit that is how it is done. That is why we have groups like the "Adventist Theological Society" -- Home

You have said just go with Ellen White.

So you are saying this is a "detail" someone is trying to guess at - where that detail has already been given via direct message from God??

hmmm - since you say you are interested in "what doe the Bible actually say" -- tell me this - "What does the Bible actually say we should do when some message comes to us directly from God"?? That should be a pretty easy Bible study.

(Admittedly when a message comes it either is from God or is not - but given the first option - what is your POV for the response of the Christian "according to the Bible"??)

 

[BobRyan]

Name the post flood race that didn't have amalgamation. She said certain.

None of them had it starting with Noah - his religion was a pure one. God called him righteous. It's what happens over time from that point on that is "cause and effect" yielding "the result". And just as Matthew Henry points out - mixing with unbelievers gave the "poor result" in Genesis 6.

I am wondering if you are really getting the statement that even Matthew Henry gets clearly on the subject of believers marrying unbelievers from what he calls "The race of Cain".

 

[BobRyan]

Bob says if it is unclear go with Ellen White.

I think you mean

"Bob says if everyone is just guessing because there is no explicit statement on that detail in the Bible -- BUT THEN it turns out you have a definite statement from God on whatever the detail is that you are looking into - THEN go with what God said not just some guess" - and my question to you is this "What does the Bible say you should do in that case in your POV?" -- because the answer to that question IS an easy and obvious Bible detail we do have in front of us.

 

[tall73]

When the Bible is not explicit that is how it is done. That is why we have groups like the "Adventist Theological Society" -- Home

Do they ever disagree with Ellen White? I haven't seen them do so.

So you are saying this is a "detail" someone is trying to guess at - where that detail has already been given via direct message from God??

I am saying it covers the range. If you see her as inspired then you must accept her Bible interpretation.

hmmm - since you say you are interested in "what doe the Bible actually say" -- tell me this - "What does the Bible actually say we should do when some message comes to us directly from God"?? That should be a pretty easy Bible study.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world

 

[tall73]

None of them had it starting with Noah - his religion was a pure one. God called him righteous. It's what happens over time from that point on that is "cause and effect" yielding "the result".

Which shows the point. If all on the ark were righteous who did they marry to turn idolator?

Now you skipped the question. Which races post-flood in Ellen White's time didn't show amalgamation. Only certain ones did

 

[tall73]

I am wondering if you are really getting the statement that even Matthew Henry gets clearly on the subject of believers marrying unbelievers from what he calls "The race of Cain".

Yes, I am. Did you get that "race of Cain" is not in Genesis 6? You could have posted it if it were.

 

[BobRyan]

And yet Bible scholars when faced with possibilities spell them out and weigh the evidence.

When the Bible is not explicit that is how it is done. That is why we have groups like the "Adventist Theological Society" -- Home

You have said just go with Ellen White.

So you are saying this is a "detail" someone is trying to guess at - where that detail has already been given via direct message from God??

hmmm - since you say you are interested in "what doe the Bible actually say" -- tell me this - "What does the Bible actually say we should do when some message comes to us directly from God"?? That should be a pretty easy Bible study.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world

Of course we would always test - but "the test" is never "prophets only paraphrase existing scripture" - that would be the "solo-scriptura" test not the sola-scriptura test.

But I assume you are posting that because as an non-SDA you do not accept an SDA as a prophet that passes the 1 John 4:1 test ... and... neither should SDAs??. You realize of course that that is a circular argument . Why would one "assume" that SDAs all come to a non-SDA POV on Ellen White when it comes to 1 John 4:1 test of a prophet?

So back to my initial question above - - "What does the Bible actually say we should do when some message comes to us directly from God"?? your answer is sort of like "view it as a non-SDA would - reject it".

Admittedly when a message comes it either is from God or is not - but given the first option - what is your POV for the response of the Christian "according to the Bible"??

The question is not "a message that did not come from God" but rather when a message "did" come from God -- I think you are still avoiding that part.

 

[tall73]

I assume you are posting that because as an non-SDA you do not accept an SDA as a prophet that passes the 1 John 4:1 test ... and... neither should SDAs??. You realize of course that that is a circular argument . Why would one "assume" that SDAs all come to a non-SDA POV on Ellen White when it comes to 1 John 4:1 test of a prophet?

I didn't.

I alleged in the other thread and you showed here that if Adventists accept Ellen White then they cannot escape making her an inspired interpreter.

 

[BobRyan]

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.

Yes, I am. Did you get that "race of Cain" is not in Genesis 6? .

And yet Bible scholars like Matthew Henry note that the "race of Cain" is the correct interpretation for "daughters of men" in Genesis 6

Which brings us once again back to --

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.

Here I noted this tendency to go to an extreme form of "solo scriptura" where nothing is true if it is not an explicitly stated detail in the Bible on a topic that is not Bible doctrine.

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..

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".

 

[tall73]

Admittedly when a message comes it either is from God or is not - but given the first option - what is your POV for the response of the Christian "according to the Bible"??

The question is not "a message that did not come from God" but rather when a message "did" come from God -- I think you are still avoiding that part.

I am not avoiding it. That was my point all along. If you accept Ellen White there is no limiting factor. Inspired is inspired. So you can't say Scripture is what you judge things by. Especially when you use Ellen White to settle questionable matters in Scripture.

 

[tall73]

And yet Bible scholars like Matthew Henry note that the "race of Cain" is the correct interpretation for "daughters of men" in Genesis 6

Which brings us once again back to --

You are back to interpretation not stated in the text.

But it agrees with Ellen White so you accept that as authoritative. Again you make the point.

Now which races didn't have amalgamation in EGW's day?

 

[BobRyan]

So back to my initial question above - - "What does the Bible actually say we should do when some message comes to us directly from God"?? your answer is sort of like "view it as a non-SDA would - reject it".

Admittedly when a message comes it either is from God or is not - but given the first option - what is your POV for the response of the Christian "according to the Bible"??

The question is not "a message that did not come from God" but rather when a message "did" come from God -- I think you are still avoiding that part.

I am not avoiding it. That was my point all along. If you accept Ellen White there is no limiting factor.

There is a few

1. She was not given a message on an infinite number of topics/details.. so "a limit".
2. All messages are tested "sola scriptura" to see if they are in harmony with the Bible.
3. All of our doctrine stand or fall "sola scriptura" -- with that testing alone. And that is how all of our evangelism works as well (as you may recall).

But your statement is possibly more revealing than you may have intended. Your argument is that no matter the test of the Bible - the sola scriptura test and a person that passes that test as a genuine prophet - then once you find that to be true... "there is no limit" in your mind right? and apparently "that is also bad"...

so no matter if they pass or fail the sola scriptura test - you view it as a negative?

But it agrees with Ellen White so you accept that as authoritative. Again you make the point.

What point would that be - that a genuine prophet should be ignored?? or listened to in your POV?

(this is case with you going after Adventists on this point - it is not a context where SDAs reach out to non-SDAs on Genesis 6 and Ellen White, which we do not see here)

your point seems to be that when we exclude doctrinal topics - and just look at "details" that are not spelled out in the Bible (like the number of Children Adam had above 5) - then guessing is fine - but God can never tell someone the answer to that detail - because doing so would mean we have to banish all sola-scriptura testing of doctrine. That my friend is not logical.

 

[BobRyan]

You are back to interpretation not stated in the text.

as already noted

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.

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.

Here I noted this tendency to go to an extreme form of "solo scriptura" where nothing is true if it is not an explicitly stated detail in the Bible on a topic that is not Bible doctrine.

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..

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]

That was my point all along. If you accept Ellen White there is no limiting factor. Inspired is inspired. So you can't say Scripture is what you judge things by.

That flawed logic would result in no NT Christian having any capacity to engage in sola-scriptura testing of any doctrine at all as long as they lived along with a NT Apostle/prophet or were members of the church in 1Cor 14 -- they would just wait for someone to tell them what to think and have no Bible doctrine at all using such flawed logic.

Acts 17:11 shows that this is not what was the case then nor is it now.

Your Bible doctrine is of the form

"you can either accept God's prophets when they speak or you can test all doctrine sola scriptura - but you can't do both" -- that is very flawed Bible doctrine

your point seems to be that when we exclude doctrinal topics - and just look at "details" that are not spelled out in the Bible (like the number of Children Adam had above 5) - then guessing is fine - but God can never tell someone the answer to that detail - because doing so would mean we have to banish all sola-scriptura testing of doctrine. That my friend is not logical.

I am about to start a thread on this point.
19 minutes ago #1

So we promote "the main point" to page 1 --

That was my point all along. If you accept Ellen White there is no limiting factor. Inspired is inspired. So you can't say Scripture is what you judge things by.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

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.

The quote contexts and word definitions have already been provided. If we know the quote contexts and word definitions then as shown already we do not need anything else as the quote stands within their own contexts and definitions to race.

I do not accept the other views of the linked article if that is your belief unless they align with what has already been shared with you here. If I am being honest with you all I see from your OP is attempts to spread misinformation about what SDA's believe even after you have been corrected.

This is where I should leave the discussion now as you have not provided anything new and we are going round and round over the same material that has already been addressed in some detail already so we will agree to disagree.