Adventist: amalgamation in CERTAIN races of men.

tall73 said:

Now, if this is your post-flood definition of race all you have to do is say which of these

"Populations of people" are the "certain races" (plural) that show amalgamation.

And which are the "populations of peole" that are not of the certain races of men that show amalgamation.

Click to expand...

Easy there were many and people and populations that fit the definitions of race already provided that Gods' people intermarried with resulting in idolatry. If you look at lineage what we are discussing only needs to start with one marriage to develop many people that can depart God and His Word even within God's own Church (e.g. Solomon).

tall73 said:

Great. Now which of the races in Ellen White's day did not have this amalgamation? (See we are making progress).

Click to expand...

We are not making any progress but going around in circles again. The definitions of "races" that you refuse to accept of course has already been provided here and elsewhere. So to me this is just repetition with you trying to make the definition of "race" something it is not as the heart of the quote is unification (amalgamation) with believers and unbelievers through intermarriage leading into idolatry defacing the image of God. Anyhow thanks for the chat. I have other things to do now.

tall73 said:

Oh we are definitely making progress.



You already defined race post-flood: Populations of people
So we need to plug that in place of the word "race" in the post-flood quote.

And you defined amalgamation: unification with believers and unbelievers through intermarriage leading into idolatry
So we need to plug that in place of the word "amalgamation" in the post-flood quote.

--------------------------------------

Since the flood there has been unification with believers and unbelievers through intermarriage leading into idolatry of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain Populations of people of men.

-------------------------------------


So now all you have to do is identify the "certain populations of people" who have such unification.

AND

You have to identify those "populations of people" who are not those certain ones and who do not have such unification.

Click to expand...

No. Please stop trying to twist what I posted to you to try and make my posts say things I am not saying. Go and google amalgamation and unification if your not sure of the meanings;

Amalgamation meaning noun; the action, process, or result of combining or uniting.
Unification meaning noun; the process of being united or made into a whole.

The definitions of race have already been provided please stop pretending that they have not while trying to put your own interpretations on race and stop avoiding the contexts you have left out and refuse to acknowledge. As posted earlier your only posting repetition let me know when you have something new to offer. Your OP has already been debunked

.............

PRE-FLOOD CONTEXT AND STATEMENT

Those who honored and feared to offend God, at first felt the curse but lightly; while those who turned from God and trampled upon his authority, felt the effects of the curse more heavily, especially in stature and nobleness of form. The descendants of Seth were called the sons of God—the descendants of Cain, the sons of men. As the sons of God mingled with the sons of men, they became corrupt, 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. Many cast aside the fear of God, and trampled upon his commandments. But there were a few who did righteousness, who feared and honored their Creator. Noah and his family were among the righteous few. The wickedness of man was so great, and increased to such a fearful extent, that God repented that he had made man upon the earth; for he saw that the wickedness of man was great, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. {3SG 64}

...........

Instead of doing justice to their neighbors, they carried out their own unlawful wishes. They had a plurality of wives, which was contrary to God's wise arrangement. In the beginning God gave to Adam one wife—showing to all who should live upon the earth, his order and law in that respect. The transgression and fall of Adam and Eve brought sin and wretchedness upon the human race, and man followed his own carnal desires, and changed God's order. The more men multiplied wives to themselves, the more they increased in wickedness and unhappiness. If one chose to take the wives, or cattle, or anything belonging to his neighbor, he did not regard justice or right, but if he could prevail over his neighbor by reason of strength, or by putting him to death, he did so, and exulted in his deeds of violence. They loved to destroy the lives of animals. They used them for food, and this increased their ferocity and violence, and caused them to look upon the blood of human beings with astonishing indifference.

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 and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before him. He would not suffer them to live out the days of their natural life, which would be hundreds of years. It was only a few generations back when Adam had access to that tree which was to prolong life. After his disobedience he was not suffered to eat of the tree of life and perpetuate a life of sin. In order for man to possess an endless life he must continue to eat of the fruit of the tree of life. Deprived of that tree, his life would gradually wear out. {3SG 64}

.................

Note this is the pre-flood quote it does not say as you would like to think amalgamation with man with beast but man and beast. That is the unification of amalgamation of mankind with mankind sons of Seth and the sons of Cain and beast with beast. Context here is shown to the species of beast that God did not create and the endless varieties of species of animals and in certain races of men (compare with post-flood quote and the definitions of races already provided)

................

POST FLOOD STATEMENT

Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood (post-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 72}

.................

Note this is the post-flood quote it does not say as you would like to think amalgamation with man with beast but man and beast. That is the unification or amalgamation of mankind with mankind and beast with beast. Context here is shown to the species of beast that God did not create and the endless varieties of species of animals and in certain races of men (see post-flood definitions of races already provided).

Sorry dear friend the contexts and the definitions of "races" disagree with your interpretation here. All you have provided is repetition. Your OP should have ended long ago..

Bonus question answered beasts are not married into idolatry. The quote as shown above does not say this. It is the amalgamation of the beasts in making different species of animals (the confused species that God did not create) therefore amalgamation with beast with beast.


Really time to leave now.

tall73 said:

I tried to plug in your definitions. Here, you plug in your definitions the correct way 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.

Click to expand...

The contexts have already been provided in my last post and elsewhere to you even providing the word meanings of both "unification", "amalgamation" and race (here)." The quote says what it says in context to what was written before with an understanding of the word meaning to provide correct interpretation so we do not need to add to them. I believe where your misunderstanding is in neglecting the quote contexts and key word definitions as already shown in the linked posts to you earlier (see post # 43; post # 46; post # 71; post # 83). Anyhow this is all repetition. You are of course free to believe as you wish. Time to get off this merry go round for me though. Please no longer talk about me behind my back or seek to pull my quotes from their context to try and make them say things they do not. Lets talk more when you want to discuss the scriptures with me. Until then let's agree to disagree on this one.

tall73 said:

The irony is that Adventists are the "Ellen White all the time" group.

Click to expand...

Not on this thread ....

Not on CF...

LGW said Paul wrote Hebrews. The Scriptures do not say that, but Ellen White does.

Click to expand...

And so also does Matthew Henry notice that Paul is the author

Matthew Henry on Hebrews 1

"Some have assigned it to Clemens of Rome; other to Luke; and many to Barnabas, thinking that the style and manner of expression is very agreeable to the zealous, authoritative, affectionate temper that Barnabas appears to be of, in the account we have of him in the acts of the Apostles; and one ancient father quotes an expression out of this epistle as the words of Barnabas. But it is generally assigned to the apostle Paul; and some later copies and translations have put Paul’s name in the title. In the primitive times it was generally ascribed to him, and the style and scope of it very well agree with his spirit, who was a person of a clear head and a warm heart, whose main end and endeavour it was to exalt Christ. Some think that the apostle Peter refers to this epistle, and proves Paul to be the penman of it, by telling the Hebrews, to whom he wrote, of Paul’s having written to them, 2 Pt. 3:15. We read of no other epistle that he ever wrote to them but this. And though it has been objected that, since Paul put his name to all his other epistles, he would not have omitted it here; yet others have well answered that he, being the apostle of the Gentiles, who were odious to the Jews, might think fit to conceal his name, lest their prejudices against him might hinder them from reading and weighing it as they ought to do. III.

Click to expand...

You might consider a bit more objectivity in your all-Ellen-White-all-the-time objection theme. (Unless you want to argue the all who affirm Paul as the writer of Hebrews are followers of Ellen White)

Here you indicate Seth's line was not idolatrous but Cain's was until they intermarried. The Bible doesn't say that, but Ellen White does.

Click to expand...

Matthew Henry says that -- were you supposing that Matthew Henry was a follower of .... Ellen White?

I think you are losing your objectivity a bit here.

BobRyan said:

Matt Henry Commentary – Gen 6:1-2

Verses 1-2

"For the glory of God’s justice, and for warning to a wicked world, before the history of the ruin of the old world, we have a full account of its degeneracy, its apostasy from God and rebellion against him. The destroying of it was an act, not of an absolute sovereignty, but of necessary justice, for the maintaining of the honour of God’s government. Now here we have an account of two things which occasioned the wickedness of the old world:-1. The increase of mankind: Men began to multiply upon the face of the earth. This was the effect of the blessing (ch. 1:28), and yet man’s corruption so abused and perverted this blessing that it was turned into a curse. Thus sin takes occasion by the mercies of God to be the more exceedingly sinful. Prov. 29:16, When the wicked are multiplied, transgression increaseth. The more sinners the more sin; and the multitude of offenders emboldens men. Infectious diseases are most destructive in populous cities; and sin is a spreading leprosy. Thus in the New-Testament church, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring (Acts 6:1), and we read of a nation that was multiplied, not to the increase of their joy, Isa. 9:3. Numerous families need to be well-governed, lest they become wicked families. 2. Mixed marriages (v. 2): 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: They took them wives of all that they chose. But what was amiss in these marriages? (1.) They chose only by the eye: They saw that they were fair, which was all they looked at. (2.) They followed the choice which their own corrupt affections made: they took all that they chose, without advice and consideration. But, (3.) That which proved of such bad consequence to them was that they married strange wives, were unequally yoked with unbelievers, 2 Co. 6:14. This was forbidden to Israel, Deu. 7:3, 4. It was the unhappy occasion of Solomon’s apostasy (1 Ki. 11:1-4), and was of bad consequence to the Jews after their return out of Babylon, Ezra 9:1, 2. Note, Professors of religion, in marrying both themselves and their children, should make conscience of keeping within the bounds of profession. The bad will sooner debauch the good than the good reform the bad. Those that profess themselves the children of God must not marry without his consent, which they have not if they join in affinity with his enemies."

Click to expand...

tall73 said:

You believe Moses wrote Job. LGW didn't even know Adventists believe that, but when shown the Ellen White quote also seemed to then know that Adventists believe that. The Bible doesn't say it, but Ellen White does.
.

Click to expand...

And of course as is "the pattern" so far - you seem to be blaming Ellen White for comments by non-SDA scholars -

==============================================
Author of JOB –
Matthew Henry – Job 1

Job 1 Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible

I. “We are sure that it is given by inspiration of God, though we are not certain who was the penman of it. The Jews, though no friends to Job, because he was a stranger to the commonwealth of Israel, yet, as faithful conservators of the oracles of God committed to them, always retained this book in their sacred canon. The history is referred to by one apostle (James 5:11) and one passage (ch. 5:13) is quoted by another apostle, with the usual form of quoting scripture, It is written, 1 Co. 3:19. It is the opinion of many of the ancients that this history was written by Moses himself in Midian, and delivered to his suffering brethren in Egypt, for their support and comfort under their burdens, and the encouragement of their hope that God would in due time deliver and enrich them, as he did this patient sufferer. Some conjecture that it was written originally in Arabic, and afterwards translated into Hebrew, for the use of the Jewish church, by Solomon (so Monsieur Jurieu) or some other inspired writer. It seems most probable to me that Elihu was the penman of it, at least of the discourses, because (ch. 32:15, 16) he mingles the words of a historian with those of a disputant: but Moses perhaps wrote the first two chapters and the last, to give light to the discourses; for in them God is frequently called Jehovah, but not once in all the discourses, except ch. 12:9. That name was but little known to the patriarchs before Moses, Ex. 6:3. If Job wrote it himself, some of the Jewish writers themselves own him a prophet among the Gentiles; if Elihu, we find he had a spirit of prophecy which filled him with matter and constrained him, ch. 32:18.

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

As already stated in my previous post - I think you are losing some objectivity on this thread.

tall73 said:

Otherwise, this is just believing Ellen White, and not Scripture.

Click to expand...

Prior to following this discussion I had had little exposure to her writings.

Yikes. Now that I've read some of them, not only is so much of what she said extra-Biblical, some of it is just plain wrong. I don't think she was ever a prophet. I don't doubt she was a sister, but when I read her writings I recall a phrase from Paul: "...going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind...".

Long ago I was once a member of a church led by a man considered so godly that his words were not to be questioned. It's taught me to such people's words to the test.

ChetSinger said:

Prior to following this discussion I had had little exposure to her writings.

Yikes. Now that I've read some of them, not only is so much of what she said extra-Biblical, some of it is just plain wrong. I don't think she was ever a prophet. I don't doubt she was a sister, but when I read her writings I recall a phrase from Paul: "...going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind...".

Long ago I was once a member of a church led by a man considered so godly that his words were not to be questioned. It's taught me to such people's words to the test.

Click to expand...

What is exactly plain wrong in your view? Let's talk scripture and put your claims to the test? Or are you like the OP seeking to just pull quotes from their context to try and make them say things they have never said as already shown here (see post # 43; post # 46; post # 71; post # 83)? Do you not believe that God gives spiritual gifts to the Church and that Prophecy is one of them and while we are at it who does God give His Spirit to those who obey him or those who disobey him?

tall73 said:

Of course you are.

You have not demonstrated races in Genesis 6.

Click to expand...

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.

tall73 said:

You claim amalgamation is intermarriage between believers and unbelievers, leading to idolatry. .

Click to expand...

As does Matthew Henry -- without any appeal at all to Ellen White's writings by Mathew Henry.

You might as well say "this entire thread is about Matthew Henry" as anyone else, once you settle in on a detail that is not at all unique to Ellen White. I assume this was an "oversight" on your part - but very problematic for where you are trying to take this thread.

tall73 said:

Otherwise, this is just believing Ellen White, and not Scripture.

Click to expand...

Hint : Matthew Henry is not -- just "believing Ellen White and not scripture". The detail about the "race" of Cain vs Seth - has nothing to do with Ellen White at that point.

tall73 said:

I did not claim no one else held the view. I claimed you cannot prove it from Scripture.

Click to expand...

Sadly you did not make your case that way - instead you are falling on your sword over the idea that to take the view that Matthew Henry takes in Genesis 6 - one must be reading Ellen White so as to "believe Ellen White and not scripture" as you stated above.

Totally fails in the case of all Bible scholars that agree with Matthew Henry when it comes to that Genesis 6 detail - and need no "reading of Ellen White" to do it.

your case in that regard falls below the level of "weak" trying to pin it all on "Ellen White and not the Bible" - as if "no one would believe that unless they read it from Ellen White not the Bible"

BobRyan said:

tall73 said:

You believe Moses wrote Job. LGW didn't even know Adventists believe that, but when shown the Ellen White quote also seemed to then know that Adventists believe that. The Bible doesn't say it, but Ellen White does.
.

Click to expand...

And of course as is "the pattern" so far - you seem to be blaming Ellen White for comments by non-SDA scholars -

==============================================
Author of JOB –
Matthew Henry – Job 1

Job 1 Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible

I. “We are sure that it is given by inspiration of God, though we are not certain who was the penman of it. The Jews, though no friends to Job, because he was a stranger to the commonwealth of Israel, yet, as faithful conservators of the oracles of God committed to them, always retained this book in their sacred canon. The history is referred to by one apostle (James 5:11) and one passage (ch. 5:13) is quoted by another apostle, with the usual form of quoting scripture, It is written, 1 Co. 3:19. It is the opinion of many of the ancients that this history was written by Moses himself in Midian, and delivered to his suffering brethren in Egypt, for their support and comfort under their burdens, and the encouragement of their hope that God would in due time deliver and enrich them, as he did this patient sufferer. Some conjecture that it was written originally in Arabic, and afterwards translated into Hebrew, for the use of the Jewish church, by Solomon (so Monsieur Jurieu) or some other inspired writer. It seems most probable to me that Elihu was the penman of it, at least of the discourses, because (ch. 32:15, 16) he mingles the words of a historian with those of a disputant: but Moses perhaps wrote the first two chapters and the last, to give light to the discourses; for in them God is frequently called Jehovah, but not once in all the discourses, except ch. 12:9. That name was but little known to the patriarchs before Moses, Ex. 6:3. If Job wrote it himself, some of the Jewish writers themselves own him a prophet among the Gentiles; if Elihu, we find he had a spirit of prophecy which filled him with matter and constrained him, ch. 32:18.

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

As already stated in my previous post - I think you are losing some objectivity on this thread.

Click to expand...

tall73 said:

I did not claim no one else held the view. I claimed you cannot prove it from Scripture.

Click to expand...

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.

tall73 said:

And in the case of LGW he didn't even know Adventists did believe it. But when I posted Ellen White, now he knew why.

Click to expand...

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.