Forums118
Topics9,199
Posts195,609
Members1,323
|
Most Online5,850 Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
Re: Question on creation of man
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#152383
05/07/13 04:09 PM
05/07/13 04:09 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2020
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
|
|
Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge, which meant disobedience to God. 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? From whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this." [Matthew 13:27, 28.] 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. {16MR 247.2} Is it not common to dismiss something when we do not understand it? "that's not important" ... I think EGW was ahead of her time, and perhaps many of this time. Amalgamation - mixing with mercury? Nah. Mixing with different things? Sure, and there is science to support this. Weeds come from grasses, "infection" of mobile genetic elements. Did God create these mobile genetic elements? No. Can you mix humans with non-human DNA? Yes. And it is not a shotgun technique anymore. The techniques being used today are quite sophisticated and very targeted. The parable of Jesus used by EGW in this quote should make us take note. Jesus used his observation of nature to draw illustrations of truth. (see {DA 70})
Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son! {ST, January 20, 1890}
|
|
|
Re: Question on creation of man
[Re: APL]
#152385
05/07/13 05:59 PM
05/07/13 05:59 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2024
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,425
Midland
|
|
kland - was this experiment you did in the last 6 months? Really? The gene gun technique was blind luck if it worked! Yes, there are accurate techniques now. Google also zinc fingers... No, I was saying something must have changed in the last six months. That meant it was prior and I had read something prior. I'll have to look up the stuff you gave, but I'd be impressed if it's as good as you suggest. Precision may it be, but is it accurate, that is, do the researchers know what the precision is they want? Do they know what "junk DNA" they want or don't want? I'll have to look up the transposons, but from what I understood them to be, I'll learn something new as to how they could be helpful for insertion and excision precision.
|
|
|
Re: Question on creation of man
[Re: APL]
#152386
05/07/13 06:05 PM
05/07/13 06:05 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2024
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,425
Midland
|
|
Christ never planted the seeds of death in the system. Satan planted these seeds when he tempted Adam to eat of the tree of knowledge, which meant disobedience to God. 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? From whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this." [Matthew 13:27, 28.] 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. {16MR 247.2} The parable of Jesus used by EGW in this quote should make us take note. Jesus used his observation of nature to draw illustrations of truth. (see {DA 70}) I once heard someone suggest that thorns, such as honey locust thorns were caused by something like bacteria. I tried searching for such on the internet and never came up with anything. I don't think the person really understood what was happening and I sure didn't understand what they were telling, but it made me think of something like a symbiotic relationship. When you look at the thorns, there are often times a swelling and clustering where the thorns come out and they seem to exit the bark differently than say a black locust thorn.
|
|
|
Re: Question on creation of man
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#152387
05/07/13 06:13 PM
05/07/13 06:13 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2024
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,425
Midland
|
|
You see, I radically differ from you on Mrs. White's intent. She says clearly "man and beast" in reference to "amalgamation." To me, she means just what she says.
What would she have meant if she had said, "man with beast"? How would she have said it if she had not meant man with beast but amalgamation of both man and beast? That's a good and reasonable question. I think there are certain limitations to how we can interpret her words, but a good start can be made by looking at the definition of "amalgamation" as used in her day. (It hasn't changed much, but it is quite simply stated in the 1828 dictionary as quoted below.) AMALGAMATION, n. 1. The act or operation of mixing mercury with another metal. 2. The mixing or blending of different things. That does in no way change my question. Can you mix different man with different man and different beast with different beast? Here is where interpretation must be used. A descendant of Cain was a "man" (in the sense of "human"). A descendant of Seth was also a "man" in this sense. Intermarriage of them does not mix "different things." It mixes like things. So this could not qualify under the term "amalgamation."
What does Ellen White say about the sons of God and the sons of Man? Oh, how about: How then would one cause such a thing to qualify? There is only one way-- to define the difference in terms of spirituality. This is just what the Bible does. "Sons of God" and "daughters of men" are said to intermarry. This spiritual difference between marriage partners was odious to God.
It's not so much a matter, then, of "race," but of spirituality.
So what are you saying then? That meets your definition of mixing or blending of different things doesn't it?
|
|
|
Re: Question on creation of man
[Re: kland]
#152391
05/08/13 01:56 AM
05/08/13 01:56 AM
|
SDA Active Member 2021
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
|
|
Can you mix different man with different man and different beast with different beast? Yes and no. This depends on your definitions. According to my understanding, where this breaks down is upon the definition of "different." I do not believe that one's DNA had anything to do with the "amalgamation" question if, and only if, one is dealing with human-human intra-species breeding. If we wish to apply "amalgamation" to this sort of purely human marriage, then I think we must look at the spiritual difference. In that case, I would accept the term "amalgamation" as applicable. What does Ellen White say about the sons of God and the sons of Man? Perhaps you are able to avail yourself of her statements on the matter. She says plenty. So what are you saying then? That meets your definition of mixing or blending of different things doesn't it? Yes. But it has absolutely nothing to do with DNA if one is dealing with intra-human breeding. If it did, the Bible would have to have provided us rules for not intermarrying with those of other races. I see no such thing. Jesus Himself was a descendant of Ruth, a Moabitess, of Rahab, a harlot and a Canaanite, and of GOD, who is not human. Was it an abomination for Him? The "abomination" was that of mixing the image of God with things, either spiritual or physical, that defaced that image. This is where the term "amalgamation" applies. Ruth and Rahab had both accepted God and worshiped Him. Therefore, "amalgamation" would not apply. Blessings, Green Cochoa.
We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
|
|
|
Re: Question on creation of man
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#152392
05/08/13 03:17 AM
05/08/13 03:17 AM
|
SDA Active Member 2020
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Feb 2011
Posts: 6,368
Western, USA
|
|
How does the "amalgamation" question work with the quote I listed speaking about tares? Does not the same apply to the question of amalgamations of man and beast?
Oh, that men might open their minds to know God as he is revealed in his Son! {ST, January 20, 1890}
|
|
|
Re: Question on creation of man
[Re: APL]
#152393
05/08/13 04:24 AM
05/08/13 04:24 AM
|
SDA Active Member 2021
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 7,003
The Orient
|
|
APL, I'm not sure what your question is. The words "amalgamation" and "amalgamated" speak of mixtures. Would you agree? If you have a mixture, is it necessary to have two separate kinds? For example, can I mix water with water? Would there be any sense in speaking of such a "mixture," assuming both ingredients were identical? If equal components, put together, equaled a "mixture," or, to use the more emphatic word "amalgamation," would not everything, however pure, become an abominable "amalgamation?" The most beautiful and preserved apple tree would be an "amalgamation," simply because its seed had resulted from mixing one apple tree's pollen with another apple tree's egg. This would then morph into a "mixture," or an "amalgamation," would it not? Mrs. White speaks of "amalgamations" of things other than genetics. Look at the following: Jesus also alluded to the faith of the Samaritans being amalgamated with the worship of graven images. Obviously, this "amalgamation" did not involve literal DNA. It was a spiritual amalgamation. This is precisely the sort of application I find more fitting in terms of the antediluvians' great sin. When one who is godly marries an ungodly worldling, it is abominable in God's sight. Look at how the statement reads if we insert the definition of amalgamation (mixing or blending) into it in place of the word itself. 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 mixing of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. Does that not appear clear? If I mix or blend "man and beast," and then find that I have defaced the image of God (man), does this not seem logical? If I mix the image of God with the image of God (man and man), how would that deface it? Your statement on tares has dual application. One is the literal weeds, the other is a spiritual application referring to the ungodly. I cannot reasonably mix the two applications to have some sort of "spiritual DNA" nor to have it speaking of churches with both blacks and whites in it, can I? That would not follow the context at all. We must understand spiritual things spiritually. In other words, it is NOT speaking of races of men intermarrying when it speaks of "amalgamation." I continue to maintain that those who would imply such are the more "racist" involved in this discussion. (Note that I do agree that races of men may have come out from genetic meddling, just that it was not by intra-human or inter-human (depending on your perspective) marrying.) We must be careful to interpret the words of God. God is no respecter of persons. One's color means little to God. One's heart means much. Blessings, Green Cochoa.
We can receive of heaven's light only as we are willing to be emptied of self. We can discern the character of God, and accept Christ by faith, only as we consent to the bringing into captivity of every thought to the obedience of Christ. And to all who do this, the Holy Spirit is given without measure. In Christ "dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in Him." [Colossians 2:9, 10.] {GW 57.1} -- Ellen White.
|
|
|
Re: Question on creation of man
[Re: Green Cochoa]
#152397
05/08/13 03:23 PM
05/08/13 03:23 PM
|
SDA Active Member 2024
5500+ Member
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 6,425
Midland
|
|
Yes. But it has absolutely nothing to do with DNA if one is dealing with intra-human breeding.
Huh? Were you talking to me or someone else? Does that not appear clear? If I mix or blend "man and beast," and then find that I have defaced the image of God (man), does this not seem logical? If I mix the image of God with the image of God (man and man), how would that deface it? Speaking of mixing things, were you talking to APL or me? You seem often to contradict yourself and refute your own statements. I thought you were talking about spiritual mixing of sons of God with sons of man? In this context, are the sons of man regarded as the image of God? Next breath you're talking science fiction (or modern science as the case may be). (Note that I do agree that races of men may have come out from genetic meddling, just that it was not by intra-human or inter-human (depending on your perspective) marrying.) Oops! You just kicked science out the door! First, the obvious, why do we have separate races if choice in marrying has nothing to do with it? Second, what happens when you have a population of semi-brown individuals and you cross them? Then you take the darker ones and cross them and the lighter ones you cross them. You keep on doing this through several generations (I'd guess about 8). Do you think there may possibly be some dramatic differences in color between the two sub-populations? Amalgamation and mixing applies here in regards to your statements from one to the next.
|
|
|
Re: Question on creation of man
[Re: kland]
#152775
06/01/13 11:12 PM
06/01/13 11:12 PM
|
SDA Chaplain Active Member 2022
Most Dedicated Member
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 2,364
USA
|
|
A general comment not specific to any one person: I see the term "race" is being used here. According to people who study populations, that word does not have a clear, specific meaning. IOW, the term "race" is not clearly defined. Here is what Wickipedia has to say as to its meaning: Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, or social affiliation. First used to denote national affiliations, the term began to be used to relate to physical traits in the 17th century and promoted a hierarchy favorable to white Anglo-Saxon Protestant men. In the early 20th century the term was often used, in a taxonomic sense, to denote genetically differentiated human populations defined by phenotype.[1][2][3]
While biologists sometimes use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race often is used[4] in a naive[5] or simplistic way, i.e. that among humans, race has no taxonomic significance: all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.[6][7]
Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies [8] that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[9] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits.[5][10][11][12][13]
Since the second half of the 20th century the associations of race with the ideologies and theories that grew out of the work of 19th-century anthropologists and physiologists has led to the use of the word race itself becoming problematic. Although still used in general contexts, it is now often replaced by other words which are less ambiguous and emotionally charged, such as populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities depending on context.[14][15] Just as I said: The term "race" has many meanings and is used in very differing ways.
Gregory May God's will be done.
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|