Indeed that summarizes it well. Ellen White's statement had nothing to do with amalgamation of man with beast. It had to do with mixing non-Christian with Christian as we see in Genesis 6 - that resulted in the extinction of pre-flood Christianity and then the flood.
Bob, you have been so keen on not agreeing with Uriah Smith that you may not realize what you have managed to do here.
I agree Uriah Smith's explanation does not hold up. As an animal/human hybrid, chimera would not be fully human.
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.
And I saw the same article last night, and it is unfortunately only one in a long line of horribly unethical experiments. I even highlighted such on a website I ran at one point before these stories were in the mainstream news regularly. And I would agree THAT is a base crime, and a terrible sin.
And I understand you are not saying that is what is happening in this quote. So let's agree, the English of the sentence could be read man with man and beast with beast.
And you will note, I allowed Adventists to give their own interpretation. I am aware of at least three Adventist explanations of this text. I did not dictate that you must accept Uriah Smith's view.
But now you have the very strange sight of multiple Adventist posters triumphing that they have proved it is not a mix of human and animal. However, the rest of the onlookers are amazed that multiple Adventist posters have tied physical characteristics of race to the question of loyalty to God.
She said it is seen in certain races of men--in her day. She is saying that some races have the characteristic of this "base crime".
(And obviously - all races of mankind come from one single family ... Noah. (and before that Adam))
Agreed. And all are human, which I assume you agree with. And while various nations may have trends in behavior, including idolatry, which they are judged on, that is different than associating race, or groups of shared physical characteristics with "the base crime of amalgamation."
Edom and Israel are said to be brothers, and they were likely not radically different in physical characteristics. Each of them as a nation was given time in the land, as even the Ammorites before them were until they filled up their full measure of wrath. All of these nations certainly went through times of idolatry, Israel included.
She says this base crime of amalgamation "defaced the image of God". And she is also saying that post-flood you can "see" this in "certain races" of men, parallel to seeing mixing of animals.
So if we take your definition that the "base crime of amalgamation" is when holy and unholy people intermarry, you have now established in your claim groups of people who share physical characteristics which are visible who you associate with idol worship, turning from the Lord, etc. And you have also by implication established races, people who share physical characteristics, who have not turned away from the Lord.
You literally have multiple Adventist posters in this thread arguing for defiled and pure "races", with visible characteristics that can be "seen".
So you have avoided saying human was mixed with animal only by saying some groups of human traits are associated with a defaced image of God, and a base crime.
The Genesis 6 context that Ellen White used - results deforms the image of God via loss of the true faith and no longer reflecting God's character.
The human-with-animal idea that Uriah Smith supposed - as noted above creates new human-animal species not races of men.
Well when applied to her second quote the principle you give above winds up with you classifying pure and defiled races that she can see in her day. That is not a solution I would think was good.
All races of man come from the exact same family of Noah -- which came from the single family of Adam and the children in both cases were "brothers".
I think we all knew that right?
Indeed we do. See above.
And she explained this in the case of Genesis 6 with image of God being erased from the descendants of Cain - vs Seth where they held to the true faith but were compromised by mixing the two until the world was destroyed.
Different races is very different from different species.
Yes Bob, it is. However, you do realize you are saying that race mixing through marriage is destroying the world, right?
It was not race that was the problem, even in your own logic. Cain and company in your view turned from the Lord quickly enough that they are a distinct group. But they would not be a distinct "race" of physical characteristics immediately. They were a group who shared cultural and moral characteristics. You could say they formed nations. And God certainly judges nations, as well as individuals.
But now you are saying mixing of races is a base crime, and Ellen White is saying, and you are claiming to agree with her, that the evidence of this base crime (which you define as godlessness) can be seen in "certain" races of men in her day, just as mixture of animals can be "seen".
You may need to go back to the drawing board on this one.
Agreed - after the flood the one single family of Noah results in all races of mankind. And some have experienced 1000's of years of no connection with Christian faith at all.
And the other "races" have been pure? You think following God is a function of physical characteristics? What race is pure in following God?
Bob, everyone is sinful. Some people, some families follow the Lord. Even some nations follow the Lord at some points in their experience. But God judges nations on where they go over time. He gives them time before they fill up their measure of wrath. Israel also was filled with idolatry in a number of points in their history.
========== context for terms used in the 1800's and 1900's ======
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."
So you have now defended Ellen White by saying in her time she saw "certain" phenoytypes as godless.
Are you sure that is what you want people to know?