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.
Post-flood; application to race; populations of people' communities; Ethnic groups; common languages and physical traits - plural.
Now, if this is your post-flood definition of race all you have to do is say which of these
"Populations of people" are the "certain races" (plural) that show amalgamation.
And which are the "populations of peole" that are not of the certain races of men that show amalgamation.
Easy there were many and people and populations that fit the definitions of race already provided that Gods' people intermarried with resulting in idolatry
We are not making any progress but going around in circles again. The definitions of "races" that you refuse to accept of course has already been provided here and elsewhere. So to me this is just repetition with you trying to make the definition of "race" something it is not as the heart of the quote is unification (amalgamation) with believers and unbelievers through intermarriage leading into idolatry defacing the image of God. Anyhow thanks for the chat. I have other things to do now.Great. Now which of the races in Ellen White's day did not have this amalgamation? (See we are making progress).
We are not making any progress but going around in circles again.
The definitions of "races" that you refuse to accept of course has already been provided here and elsewhere. So to me this is just repetition with you trying to make the definition of "race" something it is not as the heart of the quote is unification (amalgamation) with believers and unbelievers through intermarriage leading into idolatry defacing the image of God.
Anyhow thanks for the chat.
Oh we are definitely making progress.
You already defined race post-flood: Populations of people
So we need to plug that in place of the word "race" in the post-flood quote.
And you defined amalgamation: unification with believers and unbelievers through intermarriage leading into idolatry
So we need to plug that in place of the word "amalgamation" in the post-flood quote.
--------------------------------------
Since the flood there has been unification with believers and unbelievers through intermarriage leading into idolatry of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain Populations of people of men.
-------------------------------------
So now all you have to do is identify the "certain populations of people" who have such unification.
AND
You have to identify those "populations of people" who are not those certain ones and who do not have such unification.
I tried to plug in your definitions. Here, you plug in your definitions the correct way then:
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.
Please plug in your definition of "amalgamation" and "races". Since you are the one doing it there should be no confusion.
The contexts have already been provided in my last post and elsewhere to you even providing the word meanings of both "unification", "amalgamation" and race." The quote says what it says in context to what was written before with an understanding of the word meaning to provide correct interpretation so we do not need to add to them. I believe where your misunderstanding is in neglecting the quote contexts and key word definitions as already shown in the linked posts to you earlier (see post # 43; post # 46; post # 71; post # 83). Anyhow this is all repetition. You are of course free to believe as you wish. Time to get off this merry go round. Lets talk more when you want to discuss the scriptures with me. Until then let's agree to disagree.
The irony is that Adventists are the "Ellen White all the time" group.
LGW said Paul wrote Hebrews. The Scriptures do not say that, but Ellen White does.
Matthew Henry on Hebrews 1
"Some have assigned it to Clemens of Rome; other to Luke; and many to Barnabas, thinking that the style and manner of expression is very agreeable to the zealous, authoritative, affectionate temper that Barnabas appears to be of, in the account we have of him in the acts of the Apostles; and one ancient father quotes an expression out of this epistle as the words of Barnabas. But it is generally assigned to the apostle Paul; and some later copies and translations have put Paul’s name in the title. In the primitive times it was generally ascribed to him, and the style and scope of it very well agree with his spirit, who was a person of a clear head and a warm heart, whose main end and endeavour it was to exalt Christ. Some think that the apostle Peter refers to this epistle, and proves Paul to be the penman of it, by telling the Hebrews, to whom he wrote, of Paul’s having written to them, 2 Pt. 3:15. We read of no other epistle that he ever wrote to them but this. And though it has been objected that, since Paul put his name to all his other epistles, he would not have omitted it here; yet others have well answered that he, being the apostle of the Gentiles, who were odious to the Jews, might think fit to conceal his name, lest their prejudices against him might hinder them from reading and weighing it as they ought to do. III.
Here you indicate Seth's line was not idolatrous but Cain's was until they intermarried. The Bible doesn't say that, but Ellen White does.
Matt Henry Commentary – Gen 6:1-2
Verses 1-2
"For the glory of God’s justice, and for warning to a wicked world, before the history of the ruin of the old world, we have a full account of its degeneracy, its apostasy from God and rebellion against him. The destroying of it was an act, not of an absolute sovereignty, but of necessary justice, for the maintaining of the honour of God’s government. Now here we have an account of two things which occasioned the wickedness of the old world:-1. The increase of mankind: Men began to multiply upon the face of the earth. This was the effect of the blessing (ch. 1:28), and yet man’s corruption so abused and perverted this blessing that it was turned into a curse. Thus sin takes occasion by the mercies of God to be the more exceedingly sinful. Prov. 29:16, When the wicked are multiplied, transgression increaseth. The more sinners the more sin; and the multitude of offenders emboldens men. Infectious diseases are most destructive in populous cities; and sin is a spreading leprosy. Thus in the New-Testament church, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring (Acts 6:1), and we read of a nation that was multiplied, not to the increase of their joy, Isa. 9:3. Numerous families need to be well-governed, lest they become wicked families. 2. Mixed marriages (v. 2): The sons of God (that is, the professors of religion, who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name), married the daughters of men, that is, those that were profane, and strangers to God and godliness. The posterity of Seth did not keep by themselves, as they ought to have done, both for the preservation of their own purity and in detestation of the apostasy. They intermingled themselves with the excommunicated race of Cain: They took them wives of all that they chose. But what was amiss in these marriages? (1.) They chose only by the eye: They saw that they were fair, which was all they looked at. (2.) They followed the choice which their own corrupt affections made: they took all that they chose, without advice and consideration. But, (3.) That which proved of such bad consequence to them was that they married strange wives, were unequally yoked with unbelievers, 2 Co. 6:14. This was forbidden to Israel, Deu. 7:3, 4. It was the unhappy occasion of Solomon’s apostasy (1 Ki. 11:1-4), and was of bad consequence to the Jews after their return out of Babylon, Ezra 9:1, 2. Note, Professors of religion, in marrying both themselves and their children, should make conscience of keeping within the bounds of profession. The bad will sooner debauch the good than the good reform the bad. Those that profess themselves the children of God must not marry without his consent, which they have not if they join in affinity with his enemies."
You believe Moses wrote Job. LGW didn't even know Adventists believe that, but when shown the Ellen White quote also seemed to then know that Adventists believe that. The Bible doesn't say it, but Ellen White does.
.
Not on this thread ....
Not on CF...
And so also does Matthew Henry notice that Paul is the author
You might consider a bit more objectivity in your all-Ellen-White-all-the-time objection theme. (Unless you want to argue the all who affirm Paul as the writer of Hebrews are followers of Ellen White)
Matthew Henry says that -- were you supposing that Matthew Henry was a follower of .... Ellen White?
I think you are losing your objectivity a bit here.
And of course as is "the pattern" so far - you seem to be blaming Ellen White for comments by non-SDA scholars -
==============================================
Author of JOB –
Matthew Henry – Job 1
Job 1 Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible
I. “We are sure that it is given by inspiration of God, though we are not certain who was the penman of it. The Jews, though no friends to Job, because he was a stranger to the commonwealth of Israel, yet, as faithful conservators of the oracles of God committed to them, always retained this book in their sacred canon. The history is referred to by one apostle (James 5:11) and one passage (ch. 5:13) is quoted by another apostle, with the usual form of quoting scripture, It is written, 1 Co. 3:19. It is the opinion of many of the ancients that this history was written by Moses himself in Midian, and delivered to his suffering brethren in Egypt, for their support and comfort under their burdens, and the encouragement of their hope that God would in due time deliver and enrich them, as he did this patient sufferer. Some conjecture that it was written originally in Arabic, and afterwards translated into Hebrew, for the use of the Jewish church, by Solomon (so Monsieur Jurieu) or some other inspired writer. It seems most probable to me that Elihu was the penman of it, at least of the discourses, because (ch. 32:15, 16) he mingles the words of a historian with those of a disputant: but Moses perhaps wrote the first two chapters and the last, to give light to the discourses; for in them God is frequently called Jehovah, but not once in all the discourses, except ch. 12:9. That name was but little known to the patriarchs before Moses, Ex. 6:3. If Job wrote it himself, some of the Jewish writers themselves own him a prophet among the Gentiles; if Elihu, we find he had a spirit of prophecy which filled him with matter and constrained him, ch. 32:18.
================
As already stated in my previous post - I think you are losing some objectivity on this thread.
The irony is that Adventists are the "Ellen White all the time" group. They just read her ideas into discussions of the Bible.
Not on this thread ....
Not on CF...
Prior to following this discussion I had had little exposure to her writings.Otherwise, this is just believing Ellen White, and not Scripture.
Prior to following this discussion I had had little exposure to her writings.
Yikes. Now that I've read some of them, not only is so much of what she said extra-Biblical, some of it is just plain wrong. I don't think she was ever a prophet. I don't doubt she was a sister, but when I read her writings I recall a phrase from Paul: "...going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind...".
Long ago I was once a member of a church led by a man considered so godly that his words were not to be questioned. It's taught me to such people's words to the test.
Prior to following this discussion I had had little exposure to her writings.
Yikes. Now that I've read some of them, not only is so much of what she said extra-Biblical, some of it is just plain wrong. I don't think she was ever a prophet. I don't doubt she was a sister, but when I read her writings I recall a phrase from Paul: "...going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind...".
Long ago I was once a member of a church led by a man considered so godly that his words were not to be questioned. It's taught me to such people's words to the test.
Of course you are.
You have not demonstrated races in Genesis 6.
You claim amalgamation is intermarriage between believers and unbelievers, leading to idolatry. .
Otherwise, this is just believing Ellen White, and not Scripture.
I did not claim no one else held the view. I claimed you cannot prove it from Scripture.
You believe Moses wrote Job. LGW didn't even know Adventists believe that, but when shown the Ellen White quote also seemed to then know that Adventists believe that. The Bible doesn't say it, but Ellen White does.
.
And of course as is "the pattern" so far - you seem to be blaming Ellen White for comments by non-SDA scholars -
==============================================
Author of JOB –
Matthew Henry – Job 1
Job 1 Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible
I. “We are sure that it is given by inspiration of God, though we are not certain who was the penman of it. The Jews, though no friends to Job, because he was a stranger to the commonwealth of Israel, yet, as faithful conservators of the oracles of God committed to them, always retained this book in their sacred canon. The history is referred to by one apostle (James 5:11) and one passage (ch. 5:13) is quoted by another apostle, with the usual form of quoting scripture, It is written, 1 Co. 3:19. It is the opinion of many of the ancients that this history was written by Moses himself in Midian, and delivered to his suffering brethren in Egypt, for their support and comfort under their burdens, and the encouragement of their hope that God would in due time deliver and enrich them, as he did this patient sufferer. Some conjecture that it was written originally in Arabic, and afterwards translated into Hebrew, for the use of the Jewish church, by Solomon (so Monsieur Jurieu) or some other inspired writer. It seems most probable to me that Elihu was the penman of it, at least of the discourses, because (ch. 32:15, 16) he mingles the words of a historian with those of a disputant: but Moses perhaps wrote the first two chapters and the last, to give light to the discourses; for in them God is frequently called Jehovah, but not once in all the discourses, except ch. 12:9. That name was but little known to the patriarchs before Moses, Ex. 6:3. If Job wrote it himself, some of the Jewish writers themselves own him a prophet among the Gentiles; if Elihu, we find he had a spirit of prophecy which filled him with matter and constrained him, ch. 32:18.
================
As already stated in my previous post - I think you are losing some objectivity on this thread.
I did not claim no one else held the view. I claimed you cannot prove it from Scripture.
And in the case of LGW he didn't even know Adventists did believe it. But when I posted Ellen White, now he knew why.
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?