Adventist: amalgamation in CERTAIN races of men.

[BobRyan]

Perhaps Adventists could answer a question that would clarify the issue. Are beefalo farmers committing a base crime, such as brought on the flood?

Beefalo - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Are they different "kinds"?? Simply another example of speciation within a kind?

Suppose someone with a first or second grade education did not realize that there were likely -- no poodles on the ark, would that be sufficient grounds for mocking the Holy Spirit and inspiration?

What are your thoughts?

There are legitimate criticisms of the SDA and of Ellen White but I am not persuaded that this is one of them.

It does appear to be a bit extreme in its efforts to find "just any ol' thing"

Feel free to posit your answer.

seems obvious to me

I am waiting to hear the explanation of the amalgamation among species of animals,

Chimeras come to mind

Discover Chimeras - A Closer Look at Stem Cells

Learn about how chimeric research is improving human health.

www.closerlookatstemcells.org

More specifically for humans ... we have this #376

 

[tall73]

If people are falsely accusing the SDA of racism, I would be the first to rush to its defense, given SDA efforts at missionary activities around the world, and frankly based on my knowledge of Adventists and their expansion around the world, including proselytzing Orthodox Christians of various ethnicities, which I think they ought not to have done, the idea that the Adventists would prohibit interracial marriage or have any kind of systemic racism seems absurd, so I am fully prepared to defend Adventists from a scurrilous attack on this point, as I hope Adventists would be pre[pared to defend my own church. And the accusation of racism, aside from the case of Uriah Smith, who clearly was a racist, albeit whose views were unfortunately typical of that era (and frankly, King Edward VIII expressed an even more horrid racism towards the Aboriginal Australians, and they paled in comparison of the likes of Hitler, Franco, Mussolini and Salazar, among other racist-fascists, or someone like Louis Farrakhan in the present day).

There are legitimate criticisms of the SDA and of Ellen White but I am not persuaded that this is one of them.

I have not accused Adventists of racism.

It is a theological statement that the sin that more than any other brought the flood on humanity was a specific sin of amalgamation. I am trying to get Adventists to explain the statement.

This has been controversial long before I was born among Adventists. And all of the explanations are unsatisfactory. I have not posited any explanation of the statements. I am reviewing the Adventist explanations.

The issue is not racism. The issue is a very strange harmitology that Adventists cannot explain.

To review:

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. {3SG 64.1}

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. {3SG 75.2}

Do you know which races of men showed evidence of the "sin" the "base crime" of amalgamation in Ellen White's day? It was only certain races, per her statement.

I am asking

- what is the nature or mechanism of the "sin" the "base crime" of amalgamation, that more than any other brought the flood on the earth.

- How did the amalgamation bring about nearly endless species in animals

- how could Ellen White see evidence of this base crime in "certain" "races" of men.

 

[BobRyan]

Feel free to posit your answer.

I am waiting to hear the explanation of the amalgamation among species of animals, and we can start with beefalo.

Perhaps ligers would also be something to look at. If you feel they fall in the Genesis "kind", and do not pose any problem, then state those that brought about the problem and we can look at them.

Do you know which races of men showed evidence of the "sin" the "base crime" of amalgamation in Ellen White's day? It was only certain races, per her statement.

I am asking

a. which races?

b. what was the evidence that Ellen White saw?

c. what was the amalgamation involving animals?

You will have to ask her.

How does your beefallow topic address your question? two different species of the bovid family

Meanwhile where there some cultures more devoid of Christianity than others at that time?
Is it true that all mankind had one religion at the time of Noah?

Some easy things to ponder while you wait.

 

[tall73]

It does appear to be a bit extreme in its efforts to find "just any ol' thing"

Bob, we have been entertaining Adventist's own explanation of the statements which have been controversial, even in the opinion of the denomination, long before I was born.

Nor have I claimed Adventists are racist. Nor have I given my own view of the statement.

I have been asking Adventists to explain the statement in a way that is internally consistent.

But Adventists don't want to deal with all the elements.

 

[tall73]

Chimeras come to mind

This was in answer to:

tall73 said:
I am waiting to hear the explanation of the amalgamation among species of animals,

So are you positing gene experiments that created chimeras after the flood, evidence of which was seen in Ellen White's day?

Which animal species in Ellen White's day showed evidence of this chimeric activity?

But you are not positing chimera manipulation of humans in Ellen White's day?

So to be clear, you are suggesting two different mechanisms entirely for the "base crime" among animals and men?

 

[tall73]

You will have to ask her.

How does your beefallow topic address your question?

There is amalgamation among men and animals in the statement Bob.

I am trying to understand what you think comprised each.

Meanwhile where there some cultures more devoid of Christianity than others at that time?
Is it true that all mankind had one religion at the time of Noah?

Some easy things to ponder while you wait.

You now changed your definitions Bob. You not only seem to be suggesting two different mechanisms entirely for the base crime of man and animal, one through believers marrying unbelievers, and one through possible chimeric manipulation, but you have also forgotten the details of the one mechanism.

If in people amalgamation is believers marrying unbelievers, then there is no race without that. There are not only "certain" races of men that show that. Every race shows evidence of unbelievers marrying unbelievers.

But why don't you list the races in Ellen White's day that showed unbeliever marriage, and those that didn't.

You continue to refuse to do this, but she said it was evident.

 

[tall73]

I have edited my post #382 to give a more full explanation to @The Liturgist and want to point out that @BobRyan was responding to an earlier version, I wanted to let Bob know in case he wanted to address the additional information.

 

[tall73]

And the accusation of racism, aside from the case of Uriah Smith, who clearly was a racist, albeit whose views were unfortunately typical of that era

This is from a denominational publication, Ministry Magazine:

Does our past embarrass us?

Is our theological history an embarrassment to present faith and proclamation? How do we bridge the chasm between faith and history of faith?

www.ministrymagazine.org

In the 1860s Uriah Smith sought to defend Ellen White from 52 objections raised by her critics. James White applauded Smith's articles in the Review and Herald and sold them widely when they were reprinted in book form. In one of those articles, Smith defended Ellen White's statement on the amalgamation of man and beast. He not only contended that amalgamation was a fact but also declared that its "effect is still visible in certain races of men," and identified examples from peoples living on two continents. Smith further claimed support for his theory from naturalists who found it impossible "to tell just where the human ends and the animal begins."

James White, Ellen White's husband, promoted Uriah Smith's defense. Don't you find that a little odd?

There are legitimate criticisms of the SDA and of Ellen White but I am not persuaded that this is one of them.

The denomination didn't write defenses on the topic several times over because it was not an issue.

 

[Freth]

I believe I addressed the question of amalgamation in my initial post in this thread, but I'll address it again.

Ellen:

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​

​

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​

Conclusion:

• "The race" refers to the human race as all were destroyed by the flood.
• "The world" refers to the world of sin.
• "Union with the world" concerns the human race being in union with the world of sin.
• "The tarnishing of the character of God's people" concerns people of all races; again, the human race.
• "Amalgamation with the corrupt" occurs within the human race.

Ellen:

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​

Conclusion:

• Satan is the enemy, the evil one.
• The noxious herb is of his sowing.
• By his ingenious methods of amalgamation (union with the world, as was shown previously).
• He has corrupted the earth with tares.
• "The earth" is an all-encompassing statement; the human race.

Interesting side note... Ellen wrote concerning the character of God's people long before Martin Luther King made this statement.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."​

​

 

[tall73]

the idea that the Adventists would prohibit interracial marriage

It is a bit more complicated than that.

I discussed more fully Ellen White's views on race earlier in the thread. Her statements make plain she thought God regarded all people, regardless of race, who seek Him.

However, she did say "there should be no intermarriage between the white and the colored race", due to, from her perspective, practical concerns. She claims this prohibition was based on light the Lord gave to her.

Here are some statements;

We are one brotherhood. No matter what the gain or the loss, we must act nobly and courageously in the sight of God and our Saviour. Let us as Christians who accept the principle that all men, white and black, are free and equal, adhere to this principle, and not be cowards in the face of the world, and in the face of the heavenly intelligences. We should treat the colored man just as respectfully as we would treat the white man. And we can now, by precept and example, win others to this course. 2SM 343.1


But there is an objection to the marriage of the white race with the black. All should consider that they have no right to entail upon their offspring that which will place them at a disadvantage; they have no right to give them as a birthright a condition which would subject them to a life of humiliation. The children of these mixed marriages have a feeling of bitterness toward the parents who have given them this lifelong inheritance. For this reason, if there were no other, there should be no intermarriage between the white and the colored race.—Manuscript 7, 1896. 2SM 343.2

----

In reply to inquiries regarding the advisability of intermarriage between Christian young people of the white and black races, I will say that in my earlier experience this question was brought before me, and the light given me of the Lord was that this step should not be taken; for it is sure to create controversy and confusion. I have always had the same counsel to give. No encouragement to marriages of this character should be given among our people. Let the colored brother enter into marriage with a colored sister who is worthy, one who loves God, and keeps His commandments. Let the white sister who contemplates uniting in marriage with the colored brother refuse to take this step, for the Lord is not leading in this direction. 2SM 344.1


Time is too precious to be lost in controversy that will arise over this matter. Let not questions of this kind be permitted to call our ministers from their work. The taking of such a step will create confusion and hindrance. It will not be for the advancement of the work or for the glory of God.—Letter 36, 1912. 2SM 344.2


The Lord looks upon the creatures He has made with compassion, no matter to what race they may belong. God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” Speaking to His disciples the Saviour said, “All ye are brethren.” God is our common Father, and each one of us is our brother's keeper.—The Review and Herald, January 21, 1896. 2SM 344.3

 

[tall73]

Ellen:

• "...the amalgamation of man and beast."
• "...but by union with the world, the character of God's people become tarnished, and through amalgamation with the corrupt."
• "Amalgamation brought noxious plants; by his [Satan] ingenious methods of amalgamation he corrupted the earth with tares."

Conclusion:

• Union with the world concerns the human race.
• The tarnishing of the character of God's people concerns people of all races; again, the human race.
• Amalgamation with the corrupt occurs within the human race.

You say all races. She says in her day she saw it in CERTAIN races.

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. {3SG 75.2}

Do you think only certain races in Ellen White's day showed signs of corruption?

Your explanation still does not fit the statement.

 

[tall73]

Interesting side note... Ellen wrote concerning the character of God's people long before Martin Luther King made this statement.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."​

​

I have noted, and posted statements of her saying so, that Ellen White agreed with the statement of Acts that all men are of one blood.

That doesn't fix her harmotological statement.

 

[BobRyan]

I have noted, and posted statements of her saying so, that Ellen White agreed with the statement of Acts that all men are of one blood.

Indeed - all descend from Noah today and before that all descended from the single couple Adam and Eve

It helps explain why the Gen 6:1-3 statement is so significant. Has nothing to do with their blood.
It helps explain why the NT forbids the marriage of Christians with non-christians

 

[BobRyan]

It is a theological statement that the sin that more than any other brought the flood on humanity was a specific sin of amalgamation. I am trying to get Adventists to explain the statement.

Adventists typically will not give more detail on what she said than she did. And she did not explain what you want to try and "get Adventists to explain" in much more detail than that.

This has been controversial long before I was born among Adventists. And all of the explanations are unsatisfactory.

ask her about it next to you see her.

The issue is not racism. The issue is a very strange harmitology

Adventists have a pretty good statement on "what is sin" as it turns out.
Paul says not to marry with unbelievers.

To review:

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. {3SG 64.1}

1. Does not say "man with beast" (even though today we have some chimeras of that sort)

period

 

[The Liturgist]

However, she did say "there should be no intermarriage between the white and the colored race", due to, from her perspective, practical concerns. She claims this prohibition was based on light the Lord gave to her.

Woah. That’s deeply disturbing. I can’t say I am familiar with any Patristic teachings that would support such a view, and indeed if we look at Oriental Orthodoxy, a branch of Christianity almost universally admired for its conservative approach towards the Patristic tradition of the Nicene Fathers, given that the Solomonic Dynasty that ruled Ethiopia from Prince Solomon until the martyred Emperor St. Haile Selassie, who was the last Christian Emperor of any country and who was killed by the Derg Communists for refusing to renounce, among other things, the Christian faith, was the result of the affair between the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon of Israel, as @dzheremi and @Pavel Mosko can attest.

Indeed since Emperor Haile Selassie was killed for refusing to repudiate the Christian religion, that makes him a martyr, and a saint of the Church Triumphant automatically, for in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches anyone who is martyred is regarded as immediately glorified, unlike in Roman Catholicism where there is still a formal process of canonization which can persist at length, which is why the Copts and the Ghanaian who identified with them (declaring to the Muslims “their God is my God” were killed by ISIS in Libya were the subject of immediate veneration and a beautiful icon of them appeared within weeks, and shortly thereafter a group of sixty Ethiopian expat workers met the same fate, and likewise were glorified as martyrs).

Thus it seems to me frustrating that had the Queen of Sheba and King Solomon actually married, which would have been morally correct, for although a Saint of the Old Testament, King Solomon’s major character flaw was a failure to live within the strictures of Holy Matrimony, such an hypothetical marriage would be deemed to be theoretically inconvenient.

 

[The Liturgist]

This is from a denominational publication, Ministry Magazine:

Does our past embarrass us?

Is our theological history an embarrassment to present faith and proclamation? How do we bridge the chasm between faith and history of faith?

www.ministrymagazine.org

In the 1860s Uriah Smith sought to defend Ellen White from 52 objections raised by her critics. James White applauded Smith's articles in the Review and Herald and sold them widely when they were reprinted in book form. In one of those articles, Smith defended Ellen White's statement on the amalgamation of man and beast. He not only contended that amalgamation was a fact but also declared that its "effect is still visible in certain races of men," and identified examples from peoples living on two continents. Smith further claimed support for his theory from naturalists who found it impossible "to tell just where the human ends and the animal begins."

James White, Ellen White's husband, promoted Uriah Smith's defense. Don't you find that a little odd?




The denomination didn't write defenses on the topic several times over because it was not an issue.

Well that’s properly horrifying. But surely the Adventists of the present have repudiated such a view?

 

[tall73]

Indeed - all descend from Noah today and before that all descended from the single couple Adam and Eve

It helps explain why the Gen 6:1-3 statement is so significant. Has nothing to do with their blood.
It helps explain why the NT forbids the marriage of Christians with non-christians

Sorry Bob, doesn't match up. Believer and unbeliever are not races.

And Ellen White said that CERTAIN races--plural-- of men showed signs of this amalgamation in her day. Unbelievers would only be one race.

And you already abandoned that model anyway for post-flood because you talked about people groups. But all people groups have corruption, unbelievers, etc.

If your theory doesn't fit the specifications then repetition won't change that.

 

[tall73]

Adventists typically will not give more detail on what she said than she did. And she did not explain what you want to try and "get Adventists to explain" in much more detail than that.

Bob, you tried to give details, they just don't match her statement.

And of course she never decided to elaborate on which CERTAIN races showed these signs after her statements proved controversial. And I think those reading can figure out why. Any explanation would make the controversy worse. It is a flawed theological statement.

But she didn't object to Uriah Smith's answer publicly either.

ask her about it next to you see her.

Adventists have a pretty good statement on "what is sin" as it turns out.

Except for the one that most brought the flood on the world?

Paul says not to marry with unbelievers.

Not at all an answer that matches the criteria of EGW's amalgamation statements, but yes, for instance, remarrying widows were to marry in the Lord, etc.

1. Does not say "man with beast" (even though today we have some chimeras of that sort

But of course Uriah Smith indicated such, and they promoted his book.

If we apply your view of amalgamation from the humans you have unbelieving animals mating with believing animals resulting in new species! That sounds quite odd Bob.

You are going to have to come up with some criteria for the sin, base crime, of amalgamation that fit the criteria in her statements, instead of what you have so far.

 

[tall73]

Woah. That’s deeply disturbing.

Yes.

The most charitable interpretation one could give is that it is a parallel situation to slavery in NT times. Paul indicated if you can buy your freedom you should, and we should not be slaves to men in I Corinthians 7. He urged Philemon to release Onesimus. But he also recognized in a culture where slavery was ubiquitous that the church had to also have some guidance that would put the gospel in the best light.

 

[tall73]

Well that’s properly horrifying. But surely the Adventists of the present have repudiated such a view?

Yes, I don't hear many advocating for such in recent times.

Ellen White did not repudiate Uriah Smith's defense in her own time, however.

It seems any clarifications would wind up requiring more explanation of the statements, which would highlight the strange harmatology. So she said nothing while Uriah Smith promoted this view.