There is "the game" -
1. to "not quote Ellen White" and then blame Ellen White for whatever you quote.
2. To ignore the fact established on page one - that today we do have animal-human chimera experiments that result in new genome-SPECIES but not new races.
3. To ignore that Ellen White said there were SPECIES of animals that resulted but not SPECIES of humans that resulted - rather races that were affected by mixing with unbelievers - the "mixing" termed "amalgamation" in the case of humans. And since it is not animal-human it results in no new species nor even new races - rather it puts some races in the fallen state of the race of Seth having mixed with the race of Cain and adopting their pagan forms.
I have not insisted on it being man with beast. I have let you develop your own definition, and then tested that against the quote. You keep arguing against the man with beast interpretation, but I have not insisted on that.
What I have insisted on with LGW is that he not try to change the definition of race. You have not done that. And I am working with your definition, which matches what Ellen White says, and what Uriah Smith says about race (he lists several groups of humans for instance). Again, I am not talking about different "species" of humans when evaluating your interpretation.
And we discussed earlier that Uriah Smith's view did seem to have the limitation that if the line were blurred then it would be a different species. He even realized this and tried to argue against it.
The mystery is why you think you got Ellen White to quote Smith's ideas - when you never did that.
Nor did I claim Ellen White quoted Smith's ideas about what she meant.
I noted that Smith knew what races were in his day. And so did Ellen White, which is why I quoted an example.
And so do you, and they all agree:
Race: "A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society. The term was first used to refer to speakers of a common language and then to denote national affiliations. By the 17th century the term began to refer to physical (phenotypical) traits."
And so now we come to your answer:
I have answered this question many many times. The answer is the one you keep avoiding in Genesis 6 - one that even Matthew Henry admits to - which is that the problem "the mixing" (what Ellen White calls "amalgamation" - which is also "mixing") in Genesis 6 was marriage with unbelievers affecting an entire race. In the case of Gensis 6 - the race of Seth vs what Matthew Henry calls "the race of Cain".
I have already stated Genesis 6 can be believer mixing with unbeliever. However, he injected race into the text as it is not there. Ellen White and you do the same. And none of you give a biblical reason. Henry is interpreting based on inference, as you acknowledged earlier. And you are accepting Ellen White's comments.
I note that you see that as the solution to the pre-flood argument. While it does read into the text, I don't have an issue with your proposal that it is consistent with Ellen White's other comments, and so makes an internally consistent resolution to the pre-flood quote, and therefore most Adventists have not had any problem with that part of the equation. As I noted earlier, it is the post flood comment where things do not match up. Some Adventists have noted this as well:
“Amalgamation”: Ellen White’s Most Controversial Statement
The author notes he co-authored the Ellen White Encyclopedia with Timothy Standish. In that they reviewed the arguments for this quote. He thinks it is her most difficult quote to resolve. And there are a number of reasons for that, but they all involve the post-flood part of the quote.
If that was all she wrote, then this would not be her most controversial statement. Yet she goes on to state:
“[T]he 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.”
So let's look at your resolution of the post-flood statement.
And it is "irrefutable" that given the unmixed state of Noah's family ALL believing in the one true God - they eventually divided up into race where some had embraced full-on paganism and a very few retained the true faith of God.
You seem to be treating Noah as a new race, though by your earlier logic he is part of the already corrupted race of Seth. However, that is fine, the flood is a reset, where all the amalgamated animals were not let in the ark per Ellen White, and Noah's family started fresh. And then you posit they eventually divided up into races, some embracing paganism, and some not.
That is where the breakdown occurs. First of all, there was no one to intermarry with. So when someone departed it was not from intermarrying initially.
Second, her quote says:
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.
Now because I am working in your framework of men with men, let's take the animal portion out completely.
Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man as may be seen in certain races of men.
This quote is only referring to after the flood. It is saying that it can be seen in her day that there is amalgamation in certain races of men.
That means there are at least two races in her day that she can see this intermarriage and idolatry.
But it also means there are other races she cannot. You have not identified those. None of the various races today are without intermarriage or unbelievers. There is no race after the flood that has been pure. Israel was God's chosen people and they had many times when nearly the whole nation was idolatrous. So if there are signs of amalgamation you can see it would be seen in all races.
Now spell out what the signs are that you can see. And spell out the races not so effected. And you can't say Noah's race, because it is not longer here other than the various races it broke into, and they all have "amalgamation" by your definition. And the first apostasy in Noah's line was not by intermarriage, because there was no one else to marry but their own line.
The whole notion that you are stating there were pure races and defaced races in Ellen White's time is ridiculous. Every race has intermarriage and unbelievers.
That is why the experts writing the Ellen White Encyclopedia found the quote the most difficult. Because the proposed solutions don't make sense with the post-flood quote.
And that is why there are multiple ones to begin with. And it is why he at the end of the article says that Ellen White edited it out of the later versions such as Patriarchs and Prophets, and so he seems to indicate that was her revising her position.
