Adventist: amalgamation in CERTAIN races of men.

[LoveGodsWord]

What I have insisted on with LGW is that he not try to change the definition of race. You have not done that. And I am working with your definition, which matches what Ellen White says, and what Uriah Smith says about race (he lists several groups of humans for instance). Again, I am not talking about different "species" of humans when evaluating your interpretation.

I actually find this quote quite amusing. I was the one who provided the definition and Historical use of "race" showing that the error in the OP was in not understanding the full definition and uses of the word "race" by narrowing it's definition and application outside of contexts of pre and post-flood application and to the full context of the SOP quote references from your OP (see post 47 linked and see also post # 167 linked). Now your trying to say here it is me that is changing the definition of race when I have been consistent is showing from the beginning of our conversation that it is your narrow definition and application of "race" that is at fault? Your claims here do not match up to the conversations had in this OP.

 

[tall73]

I actually find this quote quite amusing. I was the one who provided the definition and Historical use of "race" showing that your error in this OP was in your not understanding the definition of race by narrowing it's definition outside of contexts of pre and post-flood application to the context of the quote you provide and you say here it is me that is changing the definition of race when I have been the only one that has provided the definition of race? This must be the funniest post I have ever seen from you to be honest.

I find it funny you could never state the definition other than to post a link to wikipedia or copy the whole thing.

Bob posted a definition and was fine with it being referenced. Every time I tried to clarify the definition or copy the summary you said it was wrong.

But I showed usage by Ellen White.

You can still plug your definition in now.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I find it funny you could never state the definition other than to post a link to wikipedia or copy the whole thing.

But I showed usage by Ellen White.

You can still plug your definition in now.

Post 47 linked proves this claim is not truthful as does my response to your quotes earlier in post 270 linked. Even in the quote you provided in your post to 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.

 

[tall73]

Post 47 linked proves this claim is not truthful

Post 47 is rambling. I asked several times about the post-flood definition summary you gave, and that didn't work for you.

Post a one sentence definition of race that we can plug into the statement.

Bob provided a definition. And it is not like it is some mystery what the word race means.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Post 47 is rambling. I asked several times about the post-flood definition summary you gave, and that didn't work for you.

Post a one sentence definition of race that we can plug into the statement.

Bob provided a definition. And it is not like it is some mystery what the word race means.

No. Post 47 linked shows the definition of "race" and it's historical uses. It seems you do not like it though because it shows your use of the word is too narrow to the quotes context you provide pre and post-flood which leads you to misinterpret the quote outside of it's context. Understanding the full definition of "race" connected to the quotes contexts does not need anything plugged into it.

 

[tall73]

Post 47 linked proves this claim is not truthful as does my response to your quotes earlier in post 270 linked. Even in the quote you provided in your post to 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.

I tried to plug in your definition earlier. But we will do it again:

Race post-flood: populations of people, communities; Ethnic groups; common languages and physical traits

amalgamation: unification with believers and unbelievers through intermarriage leading into idolatry


And we can get rid of the animal element altogether to not confuse that part.
--------------------------------------

Since the flood there has been unification with believers and unbelievers through intermarriage leading into idolatry of man as may be seen in certain populations of people, communities; Ethnic groups; common languages and physical traits of men.

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

So after the flood, in Ellen White's time, since amalgamation may only be seen in "certain races", that means it is not seen in other races.

So explain which races, after the flood, in Ellen White's time did not have unbelievers or intermarriage?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I tried to plug in your definition earlier. But we will do it again:

Race post-flood: populations of people, communities; Ethnic groups; common languages and physical traits

amalgamation: unification with believers and unbelievers through intermarriage leading into idolatry


And we can get rid of the animal element altogether to not confuse that part.
--------------------------------------

Since the flood there has been unification with believers and unbelievers through intermarriage leading into idolatry of man as may be seen in certain populations of people, communities; Ethnic groups; common languages and physical traits of men.

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

So after the flood, in Ellen White's time, since amalgamation may only be seen in "certain races", that means it is not seen in other races.

So explain which races, after the flood, in Ellen White's time did not have unbelievers or intermarriage?

No. Your just twisting what I posted to pretend that the full definition of race has no meaning. You really need to stop doing that as it is dishonest (see post 47 linked and see also post # 167 linked).

 

[tall73]

No. Your just twisting what I posted to pretend that the full definition of race has no meaning. You really need to stop doing that as it is dishonest.

I quoted your words:

but according to definition so does populations of people' communities; Ethnic groups; common languages and physical traits (plural).

You refuse to insert definitions. You reject the definition that even you presented.

But please do keep bumping the thread so people can see your theology of pure races and defiled races.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I quoted your words:

You refuse to insert definitions. You reject the definition that even you presented.

But please do keep bumping the thread so people can see your theology of pure races and defiled races.

No, you pulled some of my words out of their contexts to the full posts written (see post 47 linked and post # 167 linked)

 

[tall73]

This is simply you being dishonest as I have always stated that understanding the definition of "race" in application to contexts of the quote you provided pre- and post-flood does not need anything plugged into it.

Of course it is not me being dishonest. Bob can give a simple definition and you refuse to. And then even when you do and I quote it you reject it.

You won't plug it in because then your view would be plain and would make no sense.

But let's skip the definition.

Which races, by your definition, are amalgamation not seen in after the flood, in Ellen White's time?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Of course it is not me being dishonest. Bob can give a simple definition and you refuse to. And then even when you do and I quote it you reject it.

You won't plug it in because then your view would be plain and would make no sense.

But let's skip the definition.

Which races, by your definition, are amalgamation not seen in after the flood, in Ellen White's time?

I gave you the full definition of "race" along with it's historical use and application. You provided a partial definition of "race". The use of the word race and application to definition is always to the context to which it is used. The context to which it is used in the quote you provided is pre and post-flood that have different circumstances and conditions applied to the human race pre and post-flood. Once the context and definitions to race are correctly understood there no plugging in anything is required. I am not sure why you are finding this so difficult to understand but this is where your error lies in not being able to understand the quote you provided in your OP. Your just repeating yourself here with your questions that have already been answered (see post 47 linked and post # 167 linked)

 

[tall73]

I gave you the full definition of "race" you provided a partial definition of "race". The use of the word race and application to definition is to the context to which it is used. The context to which it is used in the quote you provided is pre and post-flood that have different circumstances applied to the human race and different conditions and application pre and post-flood. Once the context and definitions to race are understood there no plugging in anything is required. I am not sure why you are finding this so difficult to understand.

Probably because your definition still doesn't make sense with the quote.

Feel free to answer the question: Which races, by your definition, are amalgamation not seen in after the flood, in Ellen White's time?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Probably because your definition still doesn't make sense with the quote.
Feel free to answer the question:
Which races, by your definition, are amalgamation not seen in after the flood, in Ellen White's time?

Sure the definitions make sense. It was just explained to you in the post you were quoting from and supporting linked posts. It seems you do not like this answer though as it shows why your OP claims are in error. Races pre and post-flood are already answered very early in the thread (see post 47 linked and post # 167 linked)

 

[tall73]

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..

You keep pointing to this as your answer. It doesn't even address what I am asking. I did not say it is man WITH beast as you keep repeating.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You keep pointing to this as your answer. It doesn't even address what I am asking. I did not say it is man WITH beast as you keep repeating.

I will re-write this so it is more applicable shortly.

 

[tall73]

No post the full post with all it's contexts and please stop micro-quoting me if you wish to quote me.

Why bother? You are not even replying to what I am saying.

 

[tall73]

No post the full post with all it's contexts and please stop micro-quoting me if you wish to quote me.

I am quoting the part that shows you are not responding to my claims.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Why bother? You are not even replying to what I am saying.

Sure I am replying to what your saying. I guess you do not like the responses.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I am quoting the part that shows you are not responding to my view.

My posts respond to your view even if I add other content that might be helpful to the conversation and understanding of others. The rest of the post you left out responds directly to your view in regards to the definitions of race pre and post-flood as well as the contexts of the quotes you left out of your OP's quote. (see post 47 linked and post # 167 linked)

 

[tall73]

Sure I am replying to what your saying. I guess you do not like the responses because they show why your thread OP is simply a distraction from discussing the scriptures.

I would say believing in pure and defaced races is a distraction from the Scriptures from Ellen White.

And no, you don't get to make up claims I didn't make.