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})

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.

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.

That does in no way change my question.
Can you mix different man with different man and different beast with different beast?



What does Ellen White say about the sons of God and the sons of Man?

Oh, how about:

So what are you saying then? That meets your definition of mixing or blending of different things doesn't it?

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.

Perhaps you are able to avail yourself of her statements on the matter. She says plenty.

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.

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?

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:


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.



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.

Huh? Were you talking to me or someone else?

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).


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.

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:



Just as I said: The term "race" has many meanings and is used in very differing ways.