Adventist: amalgamation in CERTAIN races of men.

[tall73]

It is "races of man" -- so then one species.
Vs species of animals - so then many species.

So why would worldly men marrying non-wordly men result in a different race, but ...er...wordly animals marrying non-wordly animals would result in different species?

Or do you see a different mechanism?

 

[tall73]

I'm not playing that game, I'm sorry. Feigned ignorance and leading the witness, not my cup of tea.

I have read a lot of Ellen White books. But claiming I am feigning ignorance on how Ellen White sees, and expects others to see, how certain races show signs of amalgamation, is not accurate.

I am one hundred percent ignorant in regards to how Ellen White saw "certain" races showing amalgamation.

This is your explanation. I am asking you to explain it. How do you see the evidence in some races of amalgamation?

 

[tall73]

I hope you find the answers you're looking for.

I have intentionally not given my personal view. I am asking questions to get your view, or that of other Adventists.

If I comment on Ellen White's writings it is usually claimed that I am taking it out of context.

So in this case I am allowing Adventists to explain it. However, I am asking questions to see if the various explanations are internally consistent and match the details in the quotes.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Here's the complete quote surrounding amalgamation.

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. —Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, page 64​

If you look at Ellen White's other uses of the same word, amalgamation, they were specifically in reference to the various means of corruption of by Satan.

Those who profess to be followers of Christ, should be living agencies, co-operating with heavenly intelligences; but by union with the world, the character of God’s people becomes tarnished, and through amalgamation with the corrupt, the fine gold becomes dim. When worldly agencies are introduced into the church, it is evident that Satan is carrying out his devices, working through those who profess to be followers of Christ, making them ready at any time to engage with him in disheartening and discouraging those who are faithful, who would stand wholly on the Lord’s side. —Review and Herald, August 23, 1892

Genesis 3:18—Amalgamation Brought Noxious Plants—Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord’s great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the Master, “Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? how then hath it tares?” The Master answered, “An enemy hath done this.” All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. —Bible Commentaries, vol. 1, page 1086.2
​

I think what Ellen meant (the source material) is clear enough in her writings.
As to why James adamantly supported the work of Uriah, the 1800's was a different time and people thought differently than we do now.

Since none of them are here to clear this up, that's all I have for you.

You no I think its quite amazing to be honest. It is the same with scripture. Many seek to pull the scriptures from their context to make them say things they never say or seek to read into the scriptures what the scriptures do not speak. Many seek to do the same thing with the SOP. This OP is no different. I have had similar conversations with people in the past only to go read the full statement in context in comparison to other subject matter quotes from the SOP only to find out that it was the interpretation of those doing the accusing that were in error as they have pulled quotes from context trying to make them say things never intended. I have yet to read one of these "supposed quotes" showing EGW to be in error and saying things she never said once the quote is added back into context and other quotes on the same subject matter are reviewed. I see this as a rabbit hole and a distraction for all those who do not want to discuss the scriptures to be honest. That is why I do not bother with these type of OP's as they are only spreading misinformation.

God bless.

 

[BobRyan]

If belief that Ellen White's writings were inspired is part of your fundamental beliefs, how are statements she made not doctrinal?

That is kind of funny -- the idea that every text in the Bible is a "doctrine" as long as the writer was inspired - is not an argument we see all that much.

31,102 verses in the entire Bible.

You are of course free to go there - you have free will but I don't see much interest in that extreme view in general on boards like this one.

 

[tall73]

You no I think its quite amazing to be honest. It is the same with scripture. Many seek to pull the scriptures from their context to make them say things they never say or seek to read into the scriptures what the scriptures do not speak. Many seek to do the same thing with the SOP. This OP is no different. I have had similar conversations with people in the past only to go read the full statement in context in comparison to other subject matter quotes from the SOP only to find out that it was the interpretation of those doing the accusing that were in error as they have pulled quotes from context trying to make them say things never intended. I have yet to read one of these "supposed quotes" showing EGW to be in error and saying things she never said once the quote is added back into context and other quotes on the same subject matter are reviewed. I see this as a rabbit hole and a distraction for all those who do not want to discuss the scriptures to be honest. That is why I do not bother with these type of OP's as they are only spreading misinformation.

God bless.

I see you didn't bother to not bother. Given it was a big enough stir in her own day for Uriah Smith to have to defend her on the point, it is clearly not just me that is curious about these quotes.

If you change your mind and want to explain which races she meant by "certain" ones feel free to drop by.

 

[tall73]

That is kind of funny -- the idea that every text in the Bible is a "doctrine" as long as the writer was inspired - is not an argument we see all that much.

The point being if you make one of your doctrines that her writings are inspired, then that is a doctrine, and evaluating her statements is therefore evaluating that doctrine.

But apart from that, this is certainly an interesting doctrine that amalgamation was a base crime that more than any other led to the flood. It is just that all Adventists don't agree what that means.

In the case of Uriah Smith it meant that the line between human and animal was blurred. That certainly sounds like a notable teaching.

In the case of Freth some races are not worldly, and some are, until now when apparently almost all are is also an interesting proposed doctrine.

Perhaps you can fill us in more on this doctrine.

 

[BobRyan]

The point being if you make one of your doctrines that her writings are inspired,

one of our doctrine is that all scripture is inspired by God 2 Tim 3:15
And related to that "holy men of old - moved by the Holy Spirit - spoke from God" 2 Peter 1:20-21

Unsurprisingly - that did not lead us to conclude that we have 31,102 doctrines since we have 31,102 verses and of course Bible authors are inspired.

That is a basic view of how each verse does not translate into a doctrine even with Bible writers much less with non-Bible writers.

 

[BobRyan]

In the case of Uriah Smith it meant that the line between human and animal was blurred.

Uriah Smith is a good example of someone that I never claimed to have been an inspired prophet and as far as I know - he never claimed it either.

But for the record "new species of humans" or the like would be expected rather than "races of men" if one was using Uriah Smith's guesses about this topic as if they were inspired.

 

[tall73]

I have yet to read one of these "supposed quotes" showing EGW to be in error and saying things she never said once the quote is added back into context and other quotes on the same subject matter are reviewed.

The entirety of the work that the "supposed quotes" are drawn from is linked, on the Ellen White writings website. Feel free to demonstrate the truth of her statements with full context.

Uriah Smith didn't doubt the supposed quotes. And he put them in context. He was certainly an Adventist, and an Ellen White defender. So since you don't like my context, why not his? He knew her personally. Her husband endorsed his effort.

Can we pencil you in for agreeing with Uriah Smith?


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 Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country, etc. Moreover, naturalists affirm that the line of demarcation 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.

 

[tall73]

Uriah Smith is a good example of someone that I never claimed to have been an inspired prophet and as far as I know - he never claimed it either.

Oh I agree. I wouldn't claim inspiration for him. But I was just noting his defense, contemporary to her time and endorsed by her husband certainly has a strange teaching in it. I would call it doctrine, but not good doctrine.

Do you disagree with it?

 

[tall73]

one of our doctrine is that all scripture is inspired by God 2 Tim 3:15
And related to that "holy men of old - moved by the Holy Spirit - spoke from God" 2 Peter 1:20-21

Unsurprisingly - that did not lead us to conclude that we have 31,102 doctrines since we have 31,102 verses and of course Bible authors are inspired.

That is a basic view of how each verse does not translate into a doctrine even with Bible writers much less with non-Bible writers.

But it did lead people through time to discuss whether Bible writers were inspired.

And of course this is not a generic statement.

Are you saying you don't think there was amalgamation?

 

[BobRyan]

So you don't think that Uriah Smiths take of the line between humanity and animal blending is a teaching?

1. It is a guess on his part.
2. It is nothing that has ever showed up in one of our statements of beliefs as a denomination
3. He is not an inspired writer so I don't know why every statement he made would be considered a doctrine - if it ever was by anyone on planet Earth - I never heard it.

I think he was a good person, a good Bible student and had a lot of good ideas, but he was not an inspired writer particularly when it comes to guesses like that one.

 

[tall73]

1. It is a guess on his part.
2. It is nothing that has ever showed up in one of our statements of beliefs as a denomination
3. He is not an inspired writer so I don't know why every statement he made would be considered a doctrine - if it ever was by anyone on planet Earth - I never heard it.

Ah so let me clarify then. Are you saying that Ellen White's statement that there was amalgamation in "certain" races of men is false?

It is a teaching. Apparently an important one since this base crime led more than any other to the destruction of the world by flood.

So are you saying you don't believe it? This is one teaching of Ellen White you don't accept?

 

[BobRyan]

However - Not man with beast.
It is "races of man" -- so then one species.
Vs species of animals - so then many species.

In Gen 6 mixing of humans - descendants of Cain vs descendants of Able defaced the image of God which was being preserved in the case of the descendants of Able who kept to the true faith.

As compared to some of Uriah Smith's guesses on that topic.

Genesis 6 is pretty clear - starting off with that mixing of Cains descendants as compared to Seth's descendants - and ending up with "the flood"

So are you saying you don't believe it? This is one teaching of Ellen White you don't accept?

Uriah Smith is not Ellen White.

 

[tall73]

As compared to some of Uriah Smith's guesses on that topic.



Uriah Smith is not Ellen White.

No Ellen White is not Uriah Smith. We agree. I asked you if you believe Ellen White's teaching on this subject.

To refresh your memory:

Ah so let me clarify then. Are you saying that Ellen White's statement that there was amalgamation in "certain" races of men is false?

It is a teaching. Apparently an important one since this base crime led more than any other to the destruction of the world by flood.

So are you saying you don't believe it? This is one teaching of Ellen White you don't accept?


So Bob, do you not accept this teaching of Ellen White?

 

[BobRyan]

Are you saying you don't think there was amalgamation?

No one can deny that various species of animals have come into being because of some interaction between species of animals.

And no one can deny that when the descendants of Cain mixed with the descendants of Seth the light of faith went very dim and in Genesis 6 the planet was doomed.

Not too difficult to see those points.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
However - Not man with beast.
It is "races of man" -- so then one species.
Vs species of animals - so then many species.

In Gen 6 mixing of humans - descendants of Cain vs descendants of Seth defaced the image of God which was being preserved in the case of the descendants of Seth who kept to the true faith.
As compared to some of Uriah Smith's guesses on that topic.

Genesis 6 is pretty clear - starting off with that mixing of Cains descendants as compared to Seth's descendants - and ending up with "the flood"

No Ellen White is not Uriah Smith. We agree. I asked you if you believe Ellen White's teaching on this subject.

As noted above - I believe that Genesis 6 shows that it lead to the destruction of the world by a flood when the two groups of mankind mixed. Ellen White said this led to the flood and the reader can see it reading Genesis 6.

 

[tall73]

No one can deny that various species of animals have come into being because of some interaction between species of animals.

And various breeds of animals is a base crime?

And no one can deny that when the descendants of Cain mixed with the descendants of Abel the light of faith went very dim and in Genesis 6 the planet was doomed.

Not too difficult to see those points.

Now Bob, you changed a few things.

Were they different races? I thought they were brothers. Now in the case of Ellen White she saw this amalgamation reflected in certain races of men.

That is plural. And this is after the flood. So it can't simply be Seth and Cain.

Also, that means not all races were so impacted. So are you saying some races are debased and some are not?

How does that work?

And if Ellen White is seen as a prophet per Adventists she must be from a non debased race?

 

[tall73]

As to why James adamantly supported the work of Uriah, the 1800's was a different time and people thought differently than we do now.

...and why do you think those races were more likely to be worldly?

Satanic corruption, as was stated.

How did some races manage not to be worldly?

The Spirit of God, as was stated.

I think this may even be worse than Uriah Smith's statements. At least he thought that those certain races in which you could see amalgamation were not to be discriminated against.

Now you are saying some races have the Spirit and others don't?

In context this would be saying Ellen White saw certain races that were debased, and others not, in her day.

Are you sure you don't want to revise this theory? I know sometimes that as you start responding it makes sense until you start to try to match up the details.

But leaving a statement like this seems ill advised.

Any other Adventists have a theory better than some races being godly and other races not?