Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It is "races of man" -- so then one species.
Vs species of animals - so then many species.
I'm not playing that game, I'm sorry. Feigned ignorance and leading the witness, not my cup of tea.
I hope you find the answers you're looking for.
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.
I think what Ellen meant (the source material) is clear enough in her writings.
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
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.
If belief that Ellen White's writings were inspired is part of your fundamental beliefs, how are statements she made not doctrinal?
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.
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,
In the case of Uriah Smith it meant that the line between human and animal was blurred.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
So are you saying you don't believe it? This is one teaching of Ellen White you don't accept?
As compared to some of Uriah Smith's guesses on that topic.
Uriah Smith is not Ellen White.
Are you saying you don't think there was amalgamation?
No Ellen White is not Uriah Smith. We agree. I asked you if you believe Ellen White's teaching on this subject.
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 Abel the light of faith went very dim and in Genesis 6 the planet was doomed.
Not too difficult to see those points.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?