Adventist: amalgamation in CERTAIN races of men.

[tall73]

And it doesn't mention fallen angels or demons etc.

But there are clearly two groups "Sons of God" vs "daughters of men"

That would create more problems than it solves since it then appears that all men were good and all women were bad.

No, I don't see that it would at all. It means that once people were born some were daughters-women. Some were sons-men. Men like women. So they married them.

1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.

There is no mention of races. Unlike marriage in the garden where there was one man, and woman taken from man, here there are multiple men, and multiple women and people chose. The man is to leave father and mother and cleave to his wife.

After this a description of the sinfulness of man is given.

3 And the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not strive with man forever, for he is indeed flesh; yet his days shall be one hundred and twenty years.” 4 There were giants on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men and they bore children to them. Those were the mighty men who were of old, men of renown. 5 Then the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

But even if you take the sons of God to be not only male, but believers, and the daughters of men to be not only female, but non-believers, and see this as part of the evil, that still doesn't bring race into it.

You could just have believing men attracted to non-believing women who entice them. But nothing is said about them having to be from a race.

Seth and Cain were not separate races anyway but brothers.

Bringing race into it certainly is not necessitated by the text. And it is not stated in the text, even if you see believer and unbeliever as referenced.

 

[tall73]

That same problem occurred after the flood and some races of men were more marked by 1000's of years of separation from the knowledge of God - than others (as would have been apparent in the 1700's and 1800's and early 1900's).

And they can live that way for over a thousand years of time going into such darkness as to be able to see "we have never even heard of such a thing as a Bible".

Which races are you speaking of? You mentioned some that would be obvious around Ellen White's time or in the 1700's, or early 1900's. Which races are you able to see amalgamation in? Or at least a couple examples so we can get an idea of what you mean.

And I am guessing you don't think the animal species multiplying had anything to do with believing or unbelieving animals? So what would make it a base crime for them?

 

[LoveGodsWord]

I certainly did read your earlier posts, and responded to them. In your earlier post you indicated post-flood that it involved various people groups. You know, the usual definition of race.

And funny enough that is in keeping with "certain races" of men.

Which is why it is very strange that you are arguing two different definitions of race for two quotes one chapter apart. And one you have not supported by her usage at all, and the other you admit which is in line with her usage, is referring to people groups.


The notion of believer and unbeliever being races is not accurate. There are believers and unbelievers throughout the races.

It is the second quote, referring to post flood, that was considered controversial, before I was ever born, in her own time. And it is still considered controversial today by many Adventists. And for that one you admit it is speaking of people groups.

So, which races did she think had the image of God defaced in them?

And which race doesn't have unbelievers?

It is not strange at all having two sets of definitions pre and post flood application as they were different periods and different circumstances. Pre-flood all peoples spoke the same languages, there were two classes of people (Sons of God and the Sons of men; believers and unbelievers).

Pre-flood application to two races of people based on behavior which is a definition of race who believed and followed God's Word and those who did not believe and follow Gods' Word. Post-flood application includes the tower of Babel and classes of people now separated by not just behavior but language, locations, physical characteristics etc which are all definitions of "race" as shown earlier increasing the definitions and application of "race".

This of course was all provided earlier. We are going around in circles it seems. Application of the races being pre-flood to the Sons of God (Seth's descendants) and application to the descendants of Cain in behavior. Two races is plural application.

Post flood application after the flood and Gods' separation of the peoples by language, regions, nations, physical characteristics is plural application to races that have changed through circumstance over time. I am not sure why you are finding this difficult to understand unless you just do not want to.

Anyhow you are free to believe as you wish. It makes no difference to me. You seem to be only seeing what you want to see while disregarding with the contexts already provided to you that disagree with you including the word definitions of "race" and their application to times and circumstances pre and post-flood to the amalgamation of the races defacing the image of God through intermarriage leading to idolatry which are all contexts your disregarding in your OP.

 

[tall73]

It is not strange at all having two sets of definitions pre and post flood application as they were different periods and different circumstances. Pre-flood all peoples spoke the same languages, there were two classes of people (Sons of God and the Sons of men; believers and unbelievers).

Those who believed and followed God's Word and those who did not believe and follow Gods' Word. (two races based on behavior which is a definition of race).

I notice you dropped reference to Ellen White's time or writings. Are you going to find an example of her using the word race in that way? I already demonstrated her using the word race in regards to people groups, and you have admitted it as well in regards to the second quote.

Post flood application after the flood and Gods' separation of the peoples by language, regions, nations, physical characteristics is plural application to races that have changed through circumstance over time. I am not sure why you are finding this difficult to understand unless you just do not want to.

You think some races have a defaced image of God and others don't, due to idolatry.

So since Ellen White said in her day amalgamation could be seen in certain races of men, name some examples of those races. Which races are characterized by all non-believers in Ellen White's day?

And more importantly, name the race that doesn't have any unbelievers in Ellen White's day.

 

[BobRyan]

Seth and Cain were not separate races anyway but brothers.
.

As I have stated before - all races of mankind come from "just brothers".

 

[tall73]

As I have stated before - all races of mankind come from "just brothers".

Eventually yes. But I would say more nationality than race at least for some time.

Let's take Ammon and Moab. They eventually formed nations. It is not clear they are their own race.

Either way you have to demonstrate them in Genesis 6. Because it doesn't say anything about races there.

Note: I edited this one a few times, sorry, thinking while typing.

 

[BobRyan]

Eventually yes. But I would say more nationality than race at least for some time.

Let's take Ammon and Moab. They eventually formed nations. It is not clear they are their own race.
.

It is not at all clear that they were in some sort of exchange or clash 1400 years after they were at the "just brothers" state.

 

[tall73]

It is not at all clear that they were in some sort of exchange or clash 1400 years after they were at the "just brothers" state.

Many people clash that are not different races.

sons of God--by your logic believing men
daughters of men- by your logic unbelieving women

Nothing is said about race. And nothing is said that believers or unbelievers have to come from one line or the other.

 

[BobRyan]

Many people clash that are not different races.

sons of God--by your logic believing men
daughters of men- by your logic unbelieving women

Nothing is said about race. And nothing is said that believers or unbelievers have to come from one line or the other.

Actually I am arguing against "good men vs evil women" -- I am arguing for the nations of Seth vs the Nations of Cain, that developed over about 1400 or 1600 years.

 

[tall73]

It is not at all clear that they were in some sort of exchange or clash 1400 years after they were at the "just brothers" state.

Well, in the case of Jacob and Esau they still were:

Numbers 20:14 Now Moses sent messengers from Kadesh to the king of Edom. “Thus says your brother Israel: ‘You know all the hardship that has befallen us, 15 how our fathers went down to Egypt, and we dwelt in Egypt a long time, and the Egyptians afflicted us and our fathers.

Deuteronomy 23:7 “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother.

 

[tall73]

Actually I am arguing against "good men vs evil women" -- I am arguing for the nations of Seth vs the Nations of Cain, that developed over about 1400 or 1600 years.

But you have not shown that in the text at all.

And if it is just two groups marrying, but no implications for belief, then what is the problem?

Are you against intermarriage between any race?

 

[BobRyan]

Many people clash that are not different races.

sons of God--by your logic believing men
daughters of men- by your logic unbelieving women

Nothing is said about race. And nothing is said that believers or unbelievers have to come from one line or the other.

Actually I am arguing against "good men vs evil women" -- I am arguing for the nations of Seth vs the Nations of Cain, that developed over about 1400 or 1600 years.

But you have not shown that in the text at all.

John 1: 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (KJV)

Not at all "just men"

 

[tall73]

Actually I am arguing against "good men vs evil women" -- I am arguing for the nations of Seth vs the Nations of Cain, that developed over about 1400 or 1600 years.



John 1: 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: (KJV)

Not at all "just men"

Yes, so you are back to all who receive Him--believers.

So then you have believing men and unbelieving women. No races mentioned.

 

[BobRyan]

The term -- "Sons of God" are both men and women. John 1:12

1. So it is not "believing men" vs "unbelieving women"
2. The inter-marrying problem is well documented in Israel's apostasy and God's warnings to them not to do it -- and it was very much on the order of nations not merely a man from one street marrying a woman just down the street who was not fully converted.

 

[tall73]

That same problem occurred after the flood and some races of men were more marked by 1000's of years of separation from the knowledge of God - than others (as would have been apparent in the 1700's and 1800's and early 1900's).

You seem reluctant to name them, which I can understand as it may hurt feelings. So let's do the opposite.

Can you name any race after the flood where the majority of the people were faithful to God the majority of the time?

If not, then this seems pointless, because all races would show such defacing of the image of God.

 

[tall73]

The term -- "Sons of God" are both men and women. John 1:12

So let's plug it in:

Sons of God--believers
dauthers of men--unbelievers.

Still no race mentioned.

 

[tall73]

The inter-marrying problem is well documented in Israel's apostasy and God's warnings to them not to do it -- and it was very much on the order of nations not merely a man from one street marrying a woman just down the street who was not fully converted.

It is not about races because even in Israel's case a foreigner who worshiped the Lord could join the community.

And why wouldn't it also be about marrying someone down the street who is an unbeliever? Have you observed any races that don't have unbelievers?

 

[tall73]

and it was very much on the order of nations

Are you against all interracial marriage?

Do you see it as parallel to the amalgamation in animals?

 

[BobRyan]

Are you against all interracial marriage?

I am in an interracial marriage - it has nothing to do with the topic of people of faith marrying someone who is not a believer, which I keep saying repeatedly is the Gen 6:1-2 case.

 

[tall73]

I am in an interracial marriage - it has nothing to do with the topic of people of faith marrying someone who is not a believer, which I keep saying repeatedly is the Gen 6:1-2 case.

I don't see what race has to do with Genesis 6:1-2 in the first place. But I am trying to understand your position, so eliminating possibilities.

Yet, you didn't agree when I said that it was a person of faith marrying a non-believer.

By your latest definition:

sons of God-believer
daughters of men-unbeliever.

No race involved. It is describing a believer marrying a non-believer.

Now do you know of any race that has a majority of the people who are faithful to God a majority of the time?