Adventist: amalgamation in CERTAIN races of men.

[tall73]

No the whole post is the summary (see post 258 linked). The quote from your OP is provided with contexts and word definitions to "race" pre and post-flood application as the quote is provided twice pre and post-flood right?

So that whole long post discussing various views of race throughout history is your definition of race in the post-flood context?

Yeah, that is just a way of obfuscating.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

So that whole long post discussing various views of race throughout history is your definition of race in the post-flood context? Yeah, that is just a way of obfuscating.

Not at all it is the definition of race while also providing the contexts you left out of your OP (see post 47 linked and see also post # 167 linked). The definitions are applied both pre and post-flood to context and as circumstances between the two periods changed. This was already explained in the linked posts. This is all repetition which is why I was leaving.

 

[tall73]

Not at all it is the definition of race while also providing the contexts you left out of your OP (see post 67 linked and see also post # 167 linked).

Obfuscating.

You won't post a simple definition of race to put into the quote. Because then you would have to make sense of it.

But Uriah Smith knew what race meant.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Obfuscating.

You won't post a simple definition of race to put into the quote. Because then you would have to make sense of it.

But Uriah Smith knew what race meant.

Not at all. There is no point in continuing our discussion as we are both in disagreement which was the reason I was leaving. I have posted both context and historical use and definition of "race" with application to both pre and post-flood which when applied to the two quotes pre and post flood make perfect sense to me and puts an end to your OP. Of course you are free to believe as you wish.

 

[tall73]

Not at all. There is no point in continuing our discussion which was the reason I was leaving. I have posted both context and historical use and definition of "race" with application to both pre and post-flood which when applied to the two quotes pre and post flood make perfect sense to me and puts an end to your OP. Of course you are free to believe as you wish. Thanks again for the discussion.

There are no races who have not had intermarriage or unbelievers. So your view makes zero sense. However, if you wish to keep bumping the thread up, feel free.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

There are no races who have not had intermarriage or unbelievers. So your view makes zero sense. However, if you wish to keep bumping the thread up, feel free.

Read the definitions of races already provided and it's historical use from Wiki (see post 47 linked and see also post # 167 linked) with the full context of the quotes you provided. Your trying to change the meaning of "race" into something it is not based on time periods pre and post-flood. When this is understood the quotes you provided make perfect sense.

 

[tall73]

Still trying to twist the discussion into something else. Read the definitions of races already provided and it's historical use from Wiki? Your trying to change the meaning of "race" into something it is not.

It is pretty clear what race means. Uriah Smith knew it. I posted what Ellen White said. There is no mystery.

There is only the mystery of why you have developed a theology of defaced and non-defaced races to defend Ellen White.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

It is pretty clear what race means. Uriah Smith knew it. I posted what Ellen White said. There is no mystery.

There is only the mystery of why you have developed a theology of defaced and non-defaced races to defend Ellen White.

Here you go. Wikipedia - Race. You are wrong because your seeking to change the definitions of race to what she was not saying pre and post-flood by leaving out the quote context of the quote you provided in the OP (see post 47 linked and see also post # 167 linked). Your accusations in this post are not true and not worth my time so we might leave it here.

 

[tall73]

Here you go. Wikipedia - Race You are wrong because your seeking to change the definitions to race pre and post-flood and leaving out the quote context of the quote you provided in the OP.

You don't need wikipedia's article on race to know how Ellen White uses it:


I know that if we attempt to meet the ideas and preferences of some of the colored people, we shall find our way blocked completely. The work of proclaiming the truth for this time is not to be hindered by an effort to adjust the position of the Negro race --9T 215

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You don't need wikipedia's article on race to know how Ellen White uses it:

I know that if we attempt to meet the ideas and preferences of some of the colored people, we shall find our way blocked completely. The work of proclaiming the truth for this time is not to be hindered by an effort to adjust the position of the Negro race --9T 215

It seems you do need that Wikipedia article on the historical use and definition of "race" as you are misapplying definitions of "race" trying to narrow down definition to something it is not as outlined in the Wikipedia article from the quotes you provided in this OP from different time periods pre and post-flood.

Even in the quote you provided in your post here negro race has application post flood but according to definition so does populations of people' communities; Ethnic groups; common languages and physical traits (plural). All of which are consistent to post flood application of the quote you provided for discussion in this OP.

Context and word definition determines interpretation and application no matter what EGW quote you pull up. I believe this is where your mistake is here in this OP. You have not considered the context of the quote you provided and neither have you considered the definition and historical uses of the word "race" and also it's application to the quote pre and post-flood. Anyhow this has all been said before.

Let's agree to disagree. Time to bury this one as it already died some time ago.

Thanks for the discussion though

 

[BobRyan]

If you could only see amalgamation in CERTAIN races in Ellen White's time, then which races did not have intermarriage or unbelievers from the time of the flood to Ellen White's time?
.

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".

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.

Your repeated question as if this simple concept is hugely confusing --- IS The confusing part here.

 

[BobRyan]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑
Here you go. Wikipedia - Race You are wrong because your seeking to change the definitions

You don't need wikipedia's article on race to know how Ellen White uses it:

Or how Matthew Henry used it in the case of the "race of Cain".

I don't see how this is even a "little" confusing...

 

[BobRyan]

It is pretty clear what race means. Uriah Smith knew it.

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.

 

[BobRyan]

It is pretty clear what race means. Uriah Smith knew it. I posted what Ellen White said. There is no mystery.

The mystery is why you think you got Ellen White to quote Smith's ideas - when you never did that.

 

[BobRyan]

My point is that if you use Ellen White to decide biblical disputes, that is not letting the Bible be the test of doctrine.

We don't use Ellen White to define, teach and promote doctrine - and you know it.

But when it comes to non-biblical questions like "how many children did Adam have" -- where the detail is NOT in the Bible - but rather some educated guessing... we choose not to ignore anything God may have communicated on that detail. (As has been stated repeatedly).

Because she speaks to many things the Bible is not clear on, and you never disagree with her view.

I have asked you several time to show the BIBLE position on what to do when one of God's prophets speaks on a detail not already in scripture at the time - and you refuse. you just circle back to that statement above. You are deliberately ignoring the Bible study on that super easy topic.

How could we not "notice"??

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
As all Bible scholars admit , there are a great many topics where the scholarship infers some detail based on clues from various Bible texts to come up with a detail not explicitly written in the Bible. This is not "NEW" to the world with Adventist views on those sorts of Bible details. In some cases we are left guessing with no more info than the next guy - and in a few cases we do have some added insight -- but in every case it is not a Bible doctrine.

You are possibly conflating sola-scriptura testing of all doctrine with solo-scriptura source, and in the examples you give "like authorship" you argue even more narrowly that even if evidence exists for Paul - unless the text outright says "I Paul am writing this letter" -- well then the Bible doesn't say it so it should not be believed or everyone should claim they are "just guessing" even if God sends them Word from heaven on the right answer..

Thank you for demonstrating for any who are following along that you put Ellen White on the same level as Scripture.

That is not logical.

The whole statement was in context of "details not explicit in the Bible" -- you are ignoring it.

The question put to you many times now (which you refuse to answer) is in regard to the flawed "solo scriptura" idea that you seem to be promoting and what the Bible says one should be doing if a valid Prophet gets a "detail" not already mentioned in Scripture. you ... refuse to answer - it is a really easy Bible study as it turns out

Agabus gives a "detail" to Paul that was "not already in scripture" and Agabus was not a Bible writer. Your answer appears to be 'that is not possible' --

you use Ellen White to fill in gaps when you can't decide from the Bible.

If the Bible does not have the detail BUT God is still communicating it via some other avenue - we do not reject the Bible teaching on prophecy. As was the case with EVERY single prophet in the Bible!

A Bible topic you keep ignoring though repeatedly asked to address it.

 

[BobRyan]

That was my point all along. If you accept Ellen White there is no limiting factor. Inspired is inspired. So you can't say Scripture is what you judge things by.

This brings up another related question. On this thread you say you are a former Adventist pastor which means that at one time in your life as a pastor you were giving Bible studies to new members / seekers, who wanted to see Adventist doctrine "from the Bible alone". And you also knew that laity in the Adventist church were doing that very same thing all over the world - every day. Adventist doctrine "sola scriptura". AND you also had to have had early days in your ministry - where just like those members of the laity you also accepted that Ellen White was a true Bible prophet.

So the question about your logic in that post above comes up. What made you think that if God said a single word to Ellen White about anything - then you would have to toss your Bible out the window??

Where in the Bible does scripture teach that you can "either" listen to message God gives through valid prophets OR you can test all doctrine sola scriptura - but never "both"????

Yes. However, I also kept reviewing each statement. And Adventists objected to that.

And I kept reviewing Adventist theology. And Adventists object to that as well.

More like if I wanted to look at the Bible for what it said I could not do so with people who only go by what Ellen White said.

have you given even one example of such a thing here??

If that is your point why not post something to illustrate it??

So far you are only posting about details NOT in the Bible where Ellen White AGREES with non-SDA Bible scholars. That seems a bit self defeating.

 

[BobRyan]

And yet Bible scholars when faced with possibilities spell them out and weigh the evidence.

When the Bible is not explicit that is how it is done. That is why we have groups like the "Adventist Theological Society" -- Home

It is not how it is done in Adventism.

The Adventist Theological Society is "Adventism" digging into Bible details. This is irrefutable.

When the Bible is not clear you consult Ellen White.

You have carefully avoided the super easy Bible review of what the Word of God says we are to do when some new detail is explained by a contemporary Bible prophet that was not already explained by in scripture.

Were we simply not supposed to notice?

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

As already asked --


"hmmm - since you say you are interested in "what doe the Bible actually say" -- tell me this - "What does the Bible actually say we should do when some message comes to us directly from God"?? That should be a pretty easy Bible study."

 

[BobRyan]

1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world

Of course we would always test - but "the test" is never "prophets only paraphrase existing scripture" - that would be the "solo-scriptura" test not the sola-scriptura test.

But I assume you are posting that because as an non-SDA you do not accept an SDA as a prophet that passes the 1 John 4:1 test ... and... neither should SDAs??. You realize of course that that is a circular argument . Why would one "assume" that SDAs all come to a non-SDA POV on Ellen White when it comes to 1 John 4:1 test of a prophet?

So back to my initial question above - - "What does the Bible actually say we should do when some message comes to us directly from God"?? your answer is sort of like "view it as a non-SDA would - reject it".

Admittedly when a message comes it either is from God or is not - but given the first option - what is your POV for the response of the Christian "according to the Bible"??

The question is not "a message that did not come from God" but rather when a message "did" come from God -- I think you are still avoiding that part.

Agreed. And I am pointing out that once you accept her you will then have to apply any interpretation of the Bible that she gives.
Which means you are not in fact going just by the Bible to determine doctrine.

You have yet to show a single doctrine among our 28 where we say this can't be taught without Ellen White because the Bible does not address it.

We have 28 of them... you could choose to show something to support your claims about our Bible doctrine.

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

the question you keep ignoring --

"What does the Bible actually say we should do when some message comes to us directly from God"?? your answer is sort of like "view it as a non-SDA would - reject it".

 

[BobRyan]

I was talking about levels of inspiration.

As what level do you claim to be inspired?

Numbers 12 says this - regarding levels of inspiration

Then Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married (for he had married a Cushite woman); 2 and they said, “Is it a fact that the Lord has spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well?” And the Lord heard this. 3 (Now the man Moses was very humble, more than any person who was on the face of the earth.) 4 And the Lord suddenly said to Moses and to Aaron and Miriam, “You three go out to the tent of meeting.” So the three of them went out. 5 Then the Lord came down in a pillar of cloud and stood at the entrance of the tent; and He called Aaron and Miriam. When they had both come forward, 6 He said,


“Now hear My words:
If there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, will make Myself known to him in a vision.
I will speak with him in a dream.
7 It is not this way for My servant Moses;


As a new Adventist Pastor what level did you claim to have and which of those examples did Ellen White fit in in your POV?