Adding to the Word?

[tall73]

Illegal immigration is a bit off the topic though. Do you all think EGW meant that those of different ethnic backgrounds should not intermarry? That sure seems to be what Honor is getting at.

 

[StormyOne]

Illegal immigration is a bit off the topic though. Do you all think EGW meant that those of different ethnic backgrounds should not intermarry? That sure seems to be what Honor is getting at.

exactly..... illegal immigration is a side issue.... someone deal with the suggestion that there is "cross-breeding...."

 

[mva1985]

Illegal immigration is a bit off the topic though. Do you all think EGW meant that those of different ethnic backgrounds should not intermarry? That sure seems to be what Honor is getting at.

Yes, Tall it is a little off topic - sorry.

I can't speak for Honor, but wouldn't you agree that the inter marrying of races is accepted more today then it was say 50 years ago? I know it still happened, but I think at the time then it was more difficult for a couple then it is right now.

I know of a lovely JW couple who are a mixed couple (male white/female black). They have been married for 27 years and are still going strong.

 

[StormyOne]

Yes, Tall it is a little off topic - sorry.

I can't speak for Honor, but wouldn't you agree that the inter marrying of races is accepted more today then it was say 50 years ago? I know it still happened, but I think at the time then it was more difficult for a couple then it is right now.

I know of a lovely JW couple who are a mixed couple (male white/female black). They have been married for 27 years and are still going strong.

first... there is ONE race... it is human... so explain how there can be "cross-breeding" between humans?

 

[tall73]

Yes, Tall it is a little off topic - sorry.

I can't speak for Honor, but wouldn't you agree that the inter marrying of races is accepted more today then it was say 50 years ago? I know it still happened, but I think at the time then it was more difficult for a couple then it is right now.

I know of a lovely JW couple who are a mixed couple (male white/female black). They have been married for 27 years and are still going strong.

What is accepted and what is right are two different things. What evil is there in people from different ethnic backgrounds marrying or procreating? The only reference I see to not marrying from the nations is because they would be led astray to their gods.

In any case, you need not speak for honor. Do you think that is what EGW was talking about? Do you think she meant people from different ethnic backgrounds inter-marrying?

Now the website you linked to presents the notion that she meant the sons of God and the sons of men--so then which ones does she see in the modern examples that she speaks of?


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.”

She does not just reference historical events but says it may be SEEN in certain races of men. So, which modern races did she feel were the sons of Seth, and therefore the sons of God? Which modern races are the sons of Cain? And which ones are an amalgamation?

 

[mva1985]

What is accepted and what is right are two different things. What evil is there in people from different ethnic backgrounds marrying or procreating? The only reference I see to not marrying from the nations is because they would be led astray to their gods.

In any case, you need not speak for honor. Do you think that is what EGW was talking about? Do you think she meant people from different ethnic backgrounds inter-marrying?

That would be one reason not to marry outside of our faith.

Back in the 1800's do you think it would have been a good idea to marry someone of a different ethic background? Would it have made life more difficult for the couple, and possibly any offspring?

 

[mva1985]

What is accepted and what is right are two different things. What evil is there in people from different ethnic backgrounds marrying or procreating? The only reference I see to not marrying from the nations is because they would be led astray to their gods.

In any case, you need not speak for honor. Do you think that is what EGW was talking about? Do you think she meant people from different ethnic backgrounds inter-marrying?

Now the website you linked to presents the notion that she meant the sons of God and the sons of men--so then which ones does she see in the modern examples that she speaks of?

She does not just reference historical events but says it may be SEEN in certain races of men. So, which modern races did she feel were the sons of Seth, and therefore the sons of God?

I guess it has been a while - did I link to a website in this thread?

 

[StormyOne]

That would be one reason not to marry outside of our faith.

Back in the 1800's do you think it would have been a good idea to marry someone of a different ethic background? Would it have made life more difficult for the couple, and possibly any offspring?

the statement in question is not even talking about people of different colors marrying.... reread the statement....

 

[mva1985]

the statement in question is not even talking about people of different colors marrying.... reread the statement....

Tall specifically mentioned different ethic backgrounds in his post.

 

[tall73]

I edited a bit for more clarity.

Incidentally, here is the website you linked to:

http://adventist-defense-league.blogspot.com/2007/09/did-egw-teach-amalgamation-of-man-with.html

here is where you linked to it:

http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=41823155&postcount=1



So, we have several possible interpretations out there now:

1. man and beast fusion.

2. mixing of men of different ethnic backgrounds.

3. mixing of the sons of Seth and the sons of Cain.

Which do you hold to MVA and others? Or do you have an alternate view.

 

[StormyOne]

the statement she made:

"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."1 "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 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."

who are the "certain races of men?" historically it was believed that africans were the "race" in question.... in the formation of this country blacks were considered 3/5ths human....

 

[mva1985]

She does not just reference historical events but says it may be SEEN in certain races of men. So, which modern races did she feel were the sons of Seth, and therefore the sons of God? Which modern races are the sons of Cain? And which ones are an amalgamation?

Just to be clear. I don't believe she is referring to men and animals breeding together.

Aside from that I don't think that I have a clue as to which races she is referring.

 

[tall73]

Just to be clear. I don't believe she is referring to men and animals breeding together.

Aside from that I don't think that I have a clue as to which races she is referring.

Alrighty one possibility down.

Now, do you think then that this base crime was the marrying and copulation of people of different backgrounds in some way?

That is the only real possibility left is it not?

Moreover, she seems to think it EVIDENT to the reader that there is some evidence of amalgamation in the current races. Why would that be?

 

[mva1985]

Quote:
"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."1 "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 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."


I don't think that EGW refers to any specific races does she?

 

[StormyOne]

Quote:
"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."1 "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 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."


I don't think that EGW refers to any specific races does she?

then to whom is she referring?

 

[mva1985]

Alrighty one possibility down.

Now, do you think then that this base crime was the marrying and copulation of people of different backgrounds in some way?

That is the only real possibility left is it not?

Moreover, she seems to think it EVIDENT to the reader that there is some evidence of amalgamation in the current races. Why would that be?

While I can't offer you any solid proof. I do believe that the antediluvians were very smart and probably were aware of genetics and using that to breed a "confused" race that was destroyed at the flood. The same would go for the animals.

As for your last question I am not sure.

 

[mva1985]

then to whom is she referring?

Well, Stormy she is referring to the human race and that the antediluvians were doing something that was "defacing" the image of God i.e. mankind.

 

[tall73]

How would two humans marrying and procreating be a base crime?

And why does she draw it not along religious lines but along RACIAL lines...certain races of men.

 

[Adventtruth]

Night--you see what YOU WANT to see my friend. Many years ago when I read EGW's 'amalgamation' statement, not once did I think that she was referring to man and animals procreating--not once! How absurd to even imagine such a thing.

I understood immediately that she was referring to peoples intermingling and man's incessant cross-breeding of animals that they themselves wouldn't do in nature that resulted in the variations. Today it's hard to find a 'purebred' race upon this earth (if there ever truly was) .Races and nationalities of people interbreed now without much of a thought. But hundreds of years ago--cross marriage was rare. I know this is what she meant.

When it was brought to my attention a few years ago on Yahoo that some were saying that she meant that man and animals were procreating--I laughed till I cried. I thought to myself' "how could any idiot actually think that she was referring that"? It still amazes me.

hts...can you kindly explain this for me so that I can clearly understand you.

I understood immediately that she was referring to peoples intermingling and man's incessant cross-breeding of animals that they themselves wouldn't do in nature that resulted in the variations.

AT

 

[mva1985]

How would two humans marrying and procreating be a base crime?

And why does she draw it not along religious lines but along RACIAL lines...certain races of men.

Well, I had to go look up the phrase base crime in EGW writings. The two word phrase appears only six times. Four of those in reference to Joseph being charged with a base crime in regards to the incident with Potiphar's wife.

So it seems that the "base crime" is something of a sexual nature. The Bible tells us that they were marrying and giving in marriage right up until the flood.

If a man rapes a woman does he not deface the image of God with his act?
If I commit sexual sins do I not deface the image of God by my acts?