Adding to the Word?

Mankin · Dec 20, 2007

moicherie said:
When she implied that black people were from men and beast who inspired that or was she just plain wrong?
I am not anti EGW just anti the Pope Ellen that some Adventists seem to place her.

Probably inspired by the racism of the time.

RC_NewProtestants · Dec 21, 2007

Mankin said:
Probably inspired by the racism of the time.

I did not expect MVA to actually deal with the problems his view of EGW creates. It is completely unworkable and totally illogical. But it is necessary because otherwise he has to re-examine the reasons for what he believes. Fundamentalism hates the idea of change and examining why they believe what they believe, so they cling to what is artificial and pretend it is true so that they don't have to even consider the possibility of change. When pressed against the way they either lash out like Red has done on his latest thread or they go silent and talk only among themselves. It is a religion that stands only upon general ideas but falls apart when dealing with specifics. Thus so many claims of having the truth and so little evidence that what they claim is truth is even true.

mva1985 · Dec 21, 2007

moicherie said:
When she implied that black people were from men and beast who inspired that or was she just plain wrong?
I am not anti EGW just anti the Pope Ellen that some Adventists seem to place her.

I know of the quote you are referring to and I don't believe that is the intent of the quote.

mva1985 · Dec 21, 2007

Mankin said:
Probably inspired by the racism of the time.

Exactly Mankin!!! Whatever.

That's why she told the people in the North that they were to directly disobey the law when it came to slaves.

mva1985 · Dec 21, 2007

RC_NewProtestants said:
First of all there was no name calling, second you seem to be hung up on the nonsense of yet your yes be yes and your no be no as if that means one has to answer a question by a yes or no answer. So it appears you don't understand that Bible verse. For instance I could ask you if you stopped beating your wife yet. Remember you can only answer yes or no. So please give that a rest.

So you believe that everything Ellen White published was from God. Such as when she said. "The Lord loves those little children who try to do right, and he has promised that they shall be in his kingdom. But wicked children God does not love." That was from a letter to her son but she published in a book An Appeal To Youth 1864. Later years however she said that people should not tell their children that God does not love them. Which message was from God?

Then look at the 7 scienfic errors of Ellen White, are those really the message of God?
http://ellenwhiteexposed.com/science.htm

Which do you believe the account in the Bible of Peter walking on water or Ellen White's account where Peter looks back in pride. Could God not agree with His previous inspiration on that one?

If your yes is yes I very much doubt that you accept all of her statements.

And again you don't answer the question.

mva1985 · Dec 21, 2007

RC_NewProtestants said:
I did not expect MVA to actually deal with the problems his view of EGW creates. It is completely unworkable and totally illogical. But it is necessary because otherwise he has to re-examine the reasons for what he believes. Fundamentalism hates the idea of change and examining why they believe what they believe, so they cling to what is artificial and pretend it is true so that they don't have to even consider the possibility of change. When pressed against the way they either lash out like Red has done on his latest thread or they go silent and talk only among themselves. It is a religion that stands only upon general ideas but falls apart when dealing with specifics. Thus so many claims of having the truth and so little evidence that what they claim is truth is even true.

I am not going to deal with those questions until you answer the question that I originally posed.

When you do then I'll deal with the other things.

RC_NewProtestants · Dec 21, 2007

mva1985 said:
I am not going to deal with those questions until you answer the question that I originally posed.

When you do then I'll deal with the other things.

All right lets take a vote who here believes I did not answer MVA's question when I said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by mva1985

Interesting that even herself she says the work is of God or of Satan. So who do you think it originated with?

My Answer:
I think she was wrong and many of her writings came from her own mind. That is why she got in trouble and got others in trouble because she heard rumors while in Australia and said Kellogg was building a building in a place and she said God was against him doing it. Kellogg was not building a building so he realized her words did not necessarily come from God she was passing on rumors.

My Answer to clarify the above answer (I cut out the first line because it may be too accurate and is kind of scary):
When Ellen White claimed that her writings were either from God or Satan I said she was wrong. Wrong means that she does not know herself whether everything either came from God or Satan. Wrong means her statement is logically impossible to accept. First it supposes that "all "of anything can be true or untrue. Rarely does "all" of anything fit that generalization. Since she has been demonstratively wrong before her claim begins with the presupposition that she has never been wrong and as such she is again wrong. So we see that her beginning premise is logically untrue and because of her other incorrect statements we see that her presupposition is also untrue. therefore my answer began by saying :
"I think she was wrong"

I will abide by the majority on this decision.

SoldierOfTheKing · Dec 21, 2007

mva1985 said:
You say that they are from her own mind. You are trying to dodge the question by adding an alternative that is not even available according to her. God or Satan? One or the other?

It doesn't have to be availible according to her. If one does not believe that EGW was a prophet, then that she insists that her Testimonies come from either God or Satan is irrelevant. One is then free to consider other possibilities. To the question, "God or Satan?" the answer that has been given is "Neither". False dilemna.

NightEternal · Dec 21, 2007

RC, of course you answered him. But, like I said, he thinks in black and white as most Trads do, so your answer is not going to be acceptable to him.

OntheDL · Dec 21, 2007

moicherie said:
When she implied that black people were from men and beast who inspired that or was she just plain wrong?
I am not anti EGW just anti the Pope Ellen that some Adventists seem to place her.

I don't know if you had replied to my previous post. Do you have a quote from EGW that says the african bushmen were almalgamations of men and beasts?

Haggai · Dec 21, 2007

How can we believe everything Paul or John said? They too were imperfect sinners.
My point being, though I don't think EGW was infallible, i think her writings were inspired by God. But how do we know which are inspired and which are just her personal suggestions, advice, and admonitions: Whichever are convenient or according to our desire? EGW wrote in her time and for her time, as well as ours. Jesus and the apostles did likewise. They discussed issues of that time.

As far as frightening people or making them feel guilty? When can we begin to call sin, sin. Christianity isn't about making you feel good. It's about your salvation and following Christ. Jesus didn't say we'd feel good, he said we'd encounter many trials and tribulations. God promised that if we confess, he will forgive. That's a promise. If we confess, we know we are forgiven not by how good/bad we feel, but by the word of God.

I think the bickering about trivial EGW things is just that..trivial. Christ said go and teach the gospel to all nations. He said keep my commandments, take up your cross, and follow me. It does not serve us well to argue over EGW and parables. Most can understand the parable regardless of it being a real occurance or not. You can get the point Christ is trying to make.

NightEternal · Dec 21, 2007

DL, do you honestly not know this or are you just baiting her? Because I thought most SDA's were aware of this issue.

NightEternal · Dec 21, 2007

Oh what the heck. You will just dismiss this because of the source, but you asked for it:

Amalgamation

A Denominational Embarrassment

By D. Anderson

Many Adventists agree that these statements are the most shocking ever penned by Ellen White:

"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."2

A Summary of Mrs. White's main points about Amalgamation

It was "a sin" serious enough to require "the destruction" of the human race.
It was a vile, "base crime".
This vile sin "defaced the image of God."
It occurred both before and after "the flood."
Its effects can be seen "in certain races of men."

Analysis

There is no doubt that Ellen White understood her statements to be describing the sexual union between man and beast. At the time Mrs. White penned this "inspired" section, it was believed by some...

"...that crosses between men and animals had created a no-man's-land between man and beast, populated by gorillas, chimpanzees, wild bushmen of Africa, Patagonians, and Hottentots."3

Of course, we now know that to be false. Science has long ago proven that it is impossible for humans and animals to produce offspring.

This leads to the question: If she did not receive the amalgamation ideas from God, then where did she get them? One likely source is the Book of Jasher. Many of Mrs. White's statements about the pre-flood era appear astonishingly similar to statements in the Book of Jasher, a fictional account of earth's early history published in 1840. In that book we find that the pre-flood humans experimenting with amalgamation...

"... the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other."4

Which race is a product of amalgamation?

Mrs. White said the results of amalgamation could be seen "in certain races of men." The question that has haunted the SDA Church for more than 140 years is, which races are the result of amalgamation of man and beast?

Ellen White's statement provoked instant controversy and stinging criticism of her in the 1860s forced church leaders to attempt to defend their prophet. In 1868, four years after the amalgamation statements first appeared in print, Adventist leader Uriah Smith5 published his defense of Ellen White. In that book he conjectured that the union of man with beast had created "[SIZE=+1]such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country[/SIZE]".6

http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/critica.htm

NightEternal · Dec 21, 2007

6. Uriah Smith, The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White, A Manifestation of Spiritual gifts According to the Scripture, p. 103, (Steam Press, Battle Creek Michigan, 1868). NOTE: This book is not available in any SDA bookstores today. Here is the full quotation from pages 103-104:

"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." This view was given for the purpose of illustrating the deep corruption and crime into which the race fell, even within a few years after the flood that signal manifestation of God's wrath against human wickedness. There was amalgamation; and the effect is still visible in certain races of men." Mark, those excepting the animals upon whom the effects of this work are visible, are called by the vision, "men." Now we have ever supposed that anybody that was called a man, was considered a human being. The vision speaks of all these classes as races of men; yet in the face of this plain declaration, they foolishly assert that the visions teach that some men are not human beings! But does any one deny the general statement contained in the extract given above? They do not. If they did, they could easily be silenced by a reference to such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country, &c. Moreover, naturalists affirm that the line of demarkation between the human and animal races is lost in confusion. It is impossible, as they affirm, to tell just where the human ends and the animal begins. Can we suppose that this was so ordained of God in the beginning? Rather has not sin marred the boundaries of these two kingdoms?

OntheDL · Dec 21, 2007

I'm aware of EGW's amalgamation comments. But I was asking and did not get an answer from the anti-adventist web you quoted from for Ellen White's writing that remotely implied african bushmen was the amalgamation of men and beasts.

I threw in the phrase 'wild bushmen of africa' and the word bushmen in the white estate search. I wasn't able to find a match for either.

Not that these anti-adventist sites deserve any of my time, but just to let the inquiring minds what amalgamation might mean.

Amalgamation means fixing two different elements together. In the case of men and beasts, it does not have to mean through sexual union.

We certainly have seen through the genetic engineering (stem cell research), human organs now can be harvested in animals.

NightEternal · Dec 21, 2007

You are correct. It was Uriah Smith who made the specific African bushmen connection. However, does it matter? 'Certain races of men' is the statement left for us to deal with.

African bushmen could very well be a part of that group.

NightEternal · Dec 21, 2007

White Estate Plays Word Games: What does Amalgamation mean?

While the current defenders of Mrs. White at the White Estate cannot seem to provide a definitive explanation as to what Mrs. White was talking about, they assure us on their web site that whatever it was that Mrs. White was talking about, it was not the union between man and beast:

"No dictionary has ever used 'amalgamation' to describe the cohabitation of man with beast. ... Mrs. White never hinted of subhuman beings or any kind of hybrid animal-human relationship. ... The burden of proof rests on those who affirm that Mrs. White gave a new and alien meaning to the term."12

The word "amalgmation" comes from "amalgam" which has two primary meanings:

1 : an alloy of mercury with another metal that is solid or liquid at room temperature according to the proportion of mercury present and is used especially in making tooth cements
2 : a mixture of different elements14

How was the word used in the 1800s? Webster's 1828 dictionary:

Amalgamation - The mixing or blending of different things.15

Webster's 1913 dictionary:

A*mal`ga*ma"tion (#), n. [Cf. F. amalgamation.]
The mixing or blending of different elements, races, societies, etc.; also, the result of such combination or blending; a homogeneous union.16

While dictionaries do not explicitly describe amalgamation as the union of man and beast, they certainly allow for that definition. The word "amalgamation" is widely used in the English language to describe a mixture of any two or more different elements. For example, the word is used today to describe the following combination of the human with the non-human:13

The mythical creature called a Werewolf--a being that is part human and part wolf--has been described as an "amalgamation".
The Sphinx is described as an amalgamation of a lion and a human.
Science Fiction buffs use it to describe the offspring of the union between human and alien beings!

Thus we can see by these few examples that it is a perfectly valid usage of the word to describe the combination of an animal with a human.

A "new and alien meaning"?

The White Estate claims that we are under a "burden" to prove that Mrs. White was talking about the union of man and beast because that specific definition never appears in a dictionary. They write:

"The burden of proof rests on those who affirm that Mrs. White gave a new and alien meaning to the term."17

Is that true? Are we under the burden to prove the word can be used in that manner? Or is this simply a "smoke-screen" used to hide the truth?

Let us examine some of Mrs. White's other uses of the word to determine whether or not they appear in the dictionary:

"Every noxious herb is of his [Satan's] sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares."18 "...by union with the world, the character of God's people becomes tarnished, and through amalgamation with the corrupt, the fine gold becomes dim."19

No dictionary specifically describes Satan mixing evil properties into herbs to produce tares as amalgamation. Neither does any dictionary specifically describe the union of Christians with the world as a process of amalgamation. Therefore, is Mrs. White giving a "new and alien meaning to the word" by such uses? Of course not! All of Mrs. White's usages of the word amalgamation clearly fit within the dictionary's definition of the word. The word is used in thousands of ways to describe the hybrid union of any two things that are different. How could a dictionary possibly list every potential use of the word amalgamation? It would take thousands of pages for just a single word! Just because a particular usage of a word does not appear in the dictionary does not prove that the usage is incorrect! For Mrs. White to use the word to describe the union of man and beast is not "new and alien," nor is it without precedent. As noted above, the word is used in reference to the Sphinx, the Werewolf, half-human, half-alien beings, and a host of similar unions.

moicherie · Dec 22, 2007

OntheDL said:
I'm aware of EGW's amalgamation comments. But I was asking and did not get an answer from the anti-adventist web you quoted from for Ellen White's writing that remotely implied african bushmen was the amalgamation of men and beasts.

I threw in the phrase 'wild bushmen of africa' and the word bushmen in the white estate search. I wasn't able to find a match for either.

Not that these anti-adventist sites deserve any of my time, but just to let the inquiring minds what amalgamation might mean.

Amalgamation means fixing two different elements together. In the case of men and beasts, it does not have to mean through sexual union.

We certainly have seen through the genetic engineering (stem cell research), human organs now can be harvested in animals.

If Uriah Smith's comments were not acceptable and were totally far from the meaning of her comments why no come back at the time from the Whites? If you wrote a statement and one of church colleague's and supporters gave it a racist meaning would you not make some kind of statement to clarify your intended meaning if you disagreed?

honorthesabbath · Dec 22, 2007

NightEternal said:
And who can blame them? SDA's who pooh-pooh such trauma and scarring psychological abuse as merely melodrama and exaggeration usually do so from the perspective of someone who has been taught these things as an adult. But tell an impressionable child these same things and watch the damage happen.

And the Trads question why we have some of the residual anger and lashing out we see on FAF!

Gee, I WONDER.

Crimeney's sake, Messages To Young People is enough to warp a kid and wrack them with crippling guilt, let alone some of the stuff in the Testimonies To The Church!

HHmm--and what SCARS or psychological damage have children suffered from their parents deliberately LYING to them and going to GREAT lengths to preserve the pagan characters of SANTA CLAUSE and the EASTER BUNNY and the TOOTH FAIRY? What don't I see you griping about this issue as well?

I'm on my way over to Mom and Dad's right now and lash out at them in my residual anger for lying to me about these things! WHAT NERVE!!! 'I HATE THEM FOR THIS ATROCITY!!!!!

sentipente · Dec 22, 2007

honorthesabbath said:
HHmm--and what SCARS or psychological damage have children suffered from their parents deliberately LYING to them and going to GREAT lengths to preserve the pagan characters of SANTA CLAUSE and the EASTER BUNNY and the TOOTH FAIRY? What don't I see you griping about this issue as well?

Do you know of any kids who were threatened with hell fire for not accepting those myths?

Adding to the Word?

A Strange Mixture of Random Components.

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Christian Spenglerian

Evangelical SDA

OntheDL

Guest

Active Member

Evangelical SDA

Evangelical SDA

Evangelical SDA

OntheDL

Guest

Evangelical SDA

Evangelical SDA

True Brit

Senior Veteran

Senior Contributor

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency