Adventist: amalgamation in CERTAIN races of men.

[tall73]

Well that is not true at all. The reason is that the quotes makes sense as they are written when you add context and the definitions to race pre and post flood in. You do not seem to believe this though despite it already shown throughout this thread proving you wrong. You will not accept this though so this is why we agree to disagree.

You won't put your definitions in because you know they don't make sense.

 

[tall73]

Kind of find that one hard to believe. Why do you not seem to like discussing the scriptures with me especially if we talk about the law, sin and the Sabbath?

I discussed them for many posts and offered to go through every text. I already posted that quote here, so folks know the truth of it.

But now we are talking about Ellen White. She is your doctrine, though I don't doubt you want to avoid talking about her.

I never quote the SOP to you. The only thing you seem to want to talk about is SOP quotes and how wrong they are even when shown the contexts once provided do not agree with your interpretation of them. Anyhow each to their own.

I didn't interpret it at all. I just had you do it and it didn't make sense.

And this shows your usual method. You say someone is misinterpreting, and try to obfuscate. But I didn't interpret it at all. So that kind of shows the problem with your claim.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

And of course, I think the way Adventists relate to Ellen White will make non-Adventists recoil from SDA teaching. And of course I disagree with Ellen White. And judging by the responses of non-Adventists in the thread they have been repulsed by the way Adventists use Ellen White. But that is just a reaction to the notion of using Ellen White to interpret the Bible.

Arr so I was right in posting what i wrote? Thank you for being honest.

To you any discussion of Ellen White is misinformation. And in this case I posted her comments and the link to the context. You still said it is misinformation. But you won't fill in your definitions on the quote for fear people would see it made no sense.

Not really. Only those discussions where quotes are pulled from context to try and make them say things they were never saying once context is added back in.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Well that is not true at all. The reason is that the quotes makes sense as they are written when you add context and the definitions to race pre and post flood in. You do not seem to believe this though despite it already shown throughout this thread proving you wrong. You will not accept this though so this is why we agree to disagree.

Your response here...

You won't put your definitions in because you know they don't make sense.

What do you think what you are quoting from was saying? Seems we are going around in circles again. Which is reminding me as to why I was leaving again.

 

[tall73]

Arr so I was right in posting what i wrote? Thank you for being honest.

Not really. Only those discussions where quotes are pulled from context to try and make them say things they were never saying one context is added back in.

You can fill in your definitions anytime. But we both know you won't. Because then, even with the context you choose to provide, it won't make sense.

And we both know why Bob, who has already filled in his definitions, won't answer the question.

If you could only see amalgamation in CERTAIN races in Ellen White's time, then which races did not have intermarriage or unbelievers from the time of the flood to Ellen White's time?

Of course it cannot be answered, because there is no such race. And that is why the answer given doesn't make sense.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You won't put your definitions in because you know they don't make sense.

You do as you like. I have already proven how they make sense as they are (see post # 43; post # 46; post # 71; post # 83 and post # 167 linked).

 

[tall73]

Seems we are going around in circles again. Which is reminding me as to why I was leaving again.

You know why you are leaving. And you know why we are going in circles.

Because there is no race since the flood, that was around in Ellen White's time that didn't have unbelievers or intermarriage with unbelievers.

And so it couldn't just be "certain" races if we take your supplied definitions. And you won't even fill in the definitions because you know it would be obviously wrong.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord wrote: Kind of find that one hard to believe. Why do you not seem to like discussing the scriptures with me especially if we talk about the law, sin and the Sabbath? I never quote the SOP to you. The only thing you seem to want to talk about is SOP quotes and how wrong they are even when shown the contexts once provided do not agree with your interpretation of them. Anyhow each to their own.

Your response here...

I discussed them for many posts and offered to go through every text. I already posted that quote here, so folks know the truth of it.

Yet you were the one who left that thread and still have catching up to do there? I am still waiting for you.

 

[tall73]

You do as you like. I have already proven how they make sense as they are (see post # 43; post # 46; post # 71; post # 83 and post # 167 linked).

They don't, and you won't answer the question of which races after the flood did not have amalgamation in Ellen White's time. Because by your definition it is impossible.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You know why you are leaving. And you know why we are going in circles.

Because there is no race since the flood, that was around in Ellen White's time that didn't have unbelievers or intermarriage with unbelievers.

And so it couldn't just be "certain" races if we take your supplied definitions. And you won't even fill in the definitions because you know it would be obviously wrong.

No. The reason I am leaving here is that the thread and your OP has already died and you have nothing more to add to the discussion. Definitions of race from wiki have already been provided way back in post # 43 as was the quote contexts. You do not seem to believe them though.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

LoveGodsWord said: ↑ You do as you like. I have already proven how they make sense as they are (see post # 43; post # 46; post # 71; post # 83 and post # 167 linked).

Your response here...

They don't, and you won't answer the question of which races after the flood did not have amalgamation in Ellen White's time. Because by your definition it is impossible.

Sure those linked posts do indeed address the OP by providing the contexts you left out and the definitions of race as used by the author. You just did not like the answer I guess as it kind of ends your OP discussion..

 

[tall73]

Your response here...

Yet you were the one who left that thread and still have catching up to do there? I am still waiting for you.

Once you refused to go through all the texts, and just wanted to talk about your favorites, there was no point.

Of course, there was probably no point to start with, given you subscribe to this:

We are not to receive the words of those who come with a message that contradicts the special points of our faith. They gather together a mass of Scripture, and pile it as proof around their asserted theories. This has been done over and over again during the past fifty years. And while the Scriptures are God's word, and are to be respected, the application of them, if such application moves one pillar from the foundation that God has sustained these fifty years, is a great mistake. He who makes such an application knows not the wonderful demonstration of the Holy Spirit that gave power and force to the past messages that have come to the people of God. {1SM 161.2}

 

[tall73]

Your response here...

Sure those linked posts do indeed address the OP by providing the contexts you left out and the definitions of race as used by the author. You just did not like the answer I guess as it kind of ends your OP.

Then plug in your definitions. Every time I did you claimed they were wrong. If they are that hard to identify, and you won't fill them in yourself into the quote, then it is just because you don't want to make it clear.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Once you refused to go through all the texts, and just wanted to talk about your favorites, there was no point.

Not really. I just saw you were beating about the bush not wanting to address questions asked of you or respond to scriptures in other posts that disagreed with you. I am happy to go through every text you have. Your the one who left there not me. I think you still have catching up to do from what I can see. Our faith is based on the scriptures. I am still waiting to have a discussion of the scriptures with you but you seem to be unwilling.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Then plug in your definitions. Every time I did you claimed they were wrong. If they are that hard to identify, and you won't fill them in yourself into the quote, then it is just because you don't want to make it clear.

Why? The quotes make perfect sense exactly aas they are written when you add context and the definitions to race pre and post flood. This is shown already in some detail (see post # 43; post # 46; post # 71; post # 83 and post # 167 linked). If you have nothing more new to add then your discussion is finished really isn't it?

 

[tall73]

None of them had it starting with Noah - his religion was a pure one. God called him righteous. It's what happens over time from that point on that is "cause and effect" yielding "the result". .

Bob you have dodged this question many times throughout the thread.

If you could only see amalgamation in CERTAIN races in Ellen White's time, then which races did not have intermarriage or unbelievers from the time of the flood to Ellen White's time?

Your view does not match up to her statement.

And that is why there are four Adventist views on the subject. Because this one doesn't work.

 

[tall73]

Why? The quotes make perfect sense as they are written when you add context and the definitions to race pre and post flood. This is shown already in some detail (see post # 43; post # 46; post # 71; post # 83 and post # 167 linked). If you have nothing more new to add then your discussion is finished really isn't it?

You won't plug in your definitions, and you claim I didn't get the right ones when I tried.

So you don't want your view known. It is fine. I don't need you to. You already demonstrated the point in this thread.

And Bob was much more forthcoming than you.

 

[LoveGodsWord]

You won't plug in your definitions, and you claim I didn't get the right ones when I tried.

So you don't want your view known. It is fine. I don't need you to. You already demonstrated the point in this thread.

And Bob was much more forthcoming than you.

Why? There is no need as posted earlier the statements stand perfectly fine as they are once context is added back in the definitions of race are added in pre and post flood. Wait we have been here before haven't we? Lets summarize this post (see post 46 linked). Circles again.

 

[tall73]

POST FLOOD APPLICATION TO RACE; populations of people' communities; Ethnic groups; common languages and physical traits.

Is this the summary definition you have presented (I don't care who wrote it), as your definition of race post-flood or not?


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 populations of people' communities; Ethnic groups; common languages and physical traits of men. {3SG 75.2}

 

[LoveGodsWord]

Is this the summary definition you have presented (I don't care who wrote it), as your definition of race post-flood or not?


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 populations of people' communities; Ethnic groups; common languages and physical traits of men. {3SG 75.2}

No the whole post is one section of a summary (see post 46 linked). The quote from your OP is provided with contexts and word definitions to "race" pre and post-flood application as the quote is provided twice pre and post-flood right?