Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast

Posted By: Daryl

Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/12/11 03:24 AM

A discussion we had after church today prompted me to create this thread about what Ellen White wrote about the amalgamation of man and beast, which I will share in my next post.
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/12/11 03:36 AM

Here is one relevant EGW quote:
Quote:
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 amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before him. He would not suffer them to live out the days of their natural life, which would be hundreds of years. It was only a few generations back when Adam had access to that tree which was to prolong life. After his disobedience he was not suffered to eat of the tree of life and perpetuate a life of sin. In order for man to possess an endless life he must continue to eat of the fruit of the tree of life. Deprived of that tree, his life would gradually wear out. {1SP 69.1}

More than one hundred years before the flood the Lord sent an angel to faithful Noah to make known to him that he would no longer have mercy upon the corrupt race. But he would not have them ignorant of his design. He would instruct Noah, and make him a faithful preacher to warn the world of its coming destruction, that the inhabitants of the earth might be left without excuse. Noah was to preach to the people, and also to prepare an ark as God should direct him for the saving of himself and family. He was not only to preach, but his example in building the ark was to convince all that he believed what he preached. {1SP 69.2}

As this took place before the flood and what was one of the main reasons for the flood, all but Noah and his family and selected animals were destroyed in that flood, therefore, the results of such an amalgamation of man and beast would also have been destroyed with it.
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/12/11 03:45 AM

Here is another relevant and more enlightening EGW quote:
Quote:
Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. 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. {1SP 78.2}

This obviously took place after the flood resulting in an almost endless species of animals and affecting certain races of men.

What this means is something I do not know yet.

Does anybody have any thoughts regarding this?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/13/11 08:58 AM

It's been a couple years since we had a discussion on this topic, but here is a link to the start of where we discussed these quotes earlier.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/13/11 02:33 PM

Thank you for the link to that other thread. thumbsup
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/13/11 04:58 PM

Yeah, some people misread her statements and conclude men and monkeys were amalgamated resulting in Negros. But obviously her statements mean animals were amalgamated with animals and humans were amalgamated with humans resulting in variations within genera and species.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/14/11 03:31 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Yeah, some people misread her statements and conclude men and monkeys were amalgamated resulting in Negros. But obviously her statements mean animals were amalgamated with animals and humans were amalgamated with humans resulting in variations within genera and species.


Mike,

Unfortunately, your assumptions about the "obvious" answer are not so obvious to me. First of all, if amalgamation is what produced the heretofore-unknown species and/or genera, then it follows that beforehand such species were unknown. That is a given. So, let's follow the full logic, now, as I see it.

Mike's Hypothesis:
Given: Mankind was originally composed of a single species.
Given: Amalgamation involves acts of breeding and/or marrying.
Given: Amalgamation caused the racial-speciation of mankind.
Given: The amalgamation of mankind did not involve animals.
Given: Amalgamation was a sin.

Therefore, it follows that it was a sin for mankind to marry/breed within his own species.

Conclusion: Mike's hypothesis fails on the Biblical point of "be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth"! wink

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/14/11 03:19 PM

Quote:
First of all, if amalgamation is what produced the heretofore-unknown species and/or genera, then it follows that beforehand such species were unknown.
True.
Species are being produced almost daily. Some by paper only, but there are changes being produced. Ask any scientist, whether creationist or evolutionist.

However, your assumption that amalgamation of man means species, is faulty on a number of reasons.
All man is one species.
All amalgamations does not mean speciation.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/20/11 06:55 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
Quote:
First of all, if amalgamation is what produced the heretofore-unknown species and/or genera, then it follows that beforehand such species were unknown.
True.
Species are being produced almost daily. Some by paper only, but there are changes being produced. Ask any scientist, whether creationist or evolutionist.

However, your assumption that amalgamation of man means species, is faulty on a number of reasons.
All man is one species.
All amalgamations does not mean speciation.


kland,

Interesting concept. Of course, I never tried to say that "man" comprised more than a single species. We agree on this point. But the "interesting" part, is that if single-species man + same-species man = amalgamation, then would it have been "amalgamation" to breed a lion with a lioness? a goat with a goat? a horse with a horse?

Why would that have been so great a sin?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/22/11 12:44 AM

I heard it said by some that this amalgamation resulted in the different races of men, as in different skin colours.

Any thoughts on this aspect of amalgamation?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/22/11 03:19 AM

I don't believe skin colors are what Mrs. White refers to per se. I think that is a side issue.

If Adam were white and Eve were black (or vice versa), then all skin colors would be represented in the original Creation. However, I do not believe that is the way the colors came about.

If both Adam and Eve were white, we'd have a hard time getting black out of the genetics. If they were both black, we'd have a hard time getting white. If they were both red, it would be hard to come out with either white or black...except through some form of mutation.

I believe the "mutation" was not a chance of evolution. It was a divine command. God put a mark on Cain. That "mark" was a visible one. We know that much. It was meant to cause anyone finding him to have reason for pause before thinking to exact vengeance upon him. If his color were entirely different from others, that would definitely have accomplished this.

I've been in villages where no foreigner had ever entered. The people stared. It is natural to stare when you see something very strange or different for the first time.

The "amalgamation" of which Mrs. White speaks seems to have had at least two aspects.

  1. Intermarriage of God's people with the worldlings, as is spoken of in Genesis 6
  2. Some form of bestiality which occurred after the flood


As many of the worldlings were of the "race of Cain," they would have resembled his appearance--whichever color that was. We seem to get a clue, though, following the Flood, when Noah curses Ham's son Cainan. "A servant of servants shall he be." He was to become the servant of both Japheth and Shem. The fact that his name is nearly the same as that of Cain implies a resemblance. Throughout history, the black people have suffered under the curse of slavery. It is a sad legacy. Biblical curses are nothing to scoff at! (Ask the Jews, who called a curse upon themselves at the crucifixion.)

Originally Posted By: Ellen White
Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. 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. {1SP 78.2}


The above statement speaks of "certain races of men." That logically excludes other, unspecified, races of men. This means that the effects of amalgamation are not universal among men.

Personally, I have long felt that she is not speaking about black people. She is speaking about "certain races," which may be a subset of either white or black peoples. The kind of folk that come to my mind as possibilities are more in line with, say, pygmies, dwarfs, druids, bush people, or any "race" of mankind where a greater deviation from the standard form might be seen.

And yes, we are all human. But everyone knows that not all humans are identical, and the word "race" is frequently used to help us identify the various ethnic groups among us. (Ellen White is not saying, nor am I, that any human group is not a part of the "human" species.)

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/22/11 05:39 PM

Quote:
If they were both black, we'd have a hard time getting white.
Error. Very easy. Disable the genes.

Green, do you know what "segregation" means regarding F2+ generations?

You don't get something from nothing (contrary to what evolutionists would tell you), but it's fairly easy to get nothing from something. Adam and Eve were everything and everything after them are a reduced subset.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/22/11 06:27 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
Quote:
If they were both black, we'd have a hard time getting white.
Error. Very easy. Disable the genes.

Green, do you know what "segregation" means regarding F2+ generations?

You don't get something from nothing (contrary to what evolutionists would tell you), but it's fairly easy to get nothing from something. Adam and Eve were everything and everything after them are a reduced subset.

Kland,

It appears that you are referring to albinism.

Two points:

1) Albinism is an individual fluke of gene expression. I do not believe that it has ever become a widespread phenomenon in a species in which over half of the population is similarly affected.
2) Albinism, the lack of color/pigment, tends to look much, much different than what we humans typically think of as "white." In fact, those of us who are "white" are not albinos (usually), but pigmented. That pigmentation does not come from a "lack" of color.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/24/11 08:39 PM

I believe albinism is more than just color genes.

I had in mind mechanisms such as in white flowers. I wouldn't call them albinos.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/26/11 01:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Yeah, some people misread her statements and conclude men and monkeys were amalgamated resulting in Negros. But obviously her statements mean animals were amalgamated with animals and humans were amalgamated with humans resulting in variations within genera and species.


Mike,

Unfortunately, your assumptions about the "obvious" answer are not so obvious to me. First of all, if amalgamation is what produced the heretofore-unknown species and/or genera, then it follows that beforehand such species were unknown. That is a given. So, let's follow the full logic, now, as I see it.

Mike's Hypothesis:
Given: Mankind was originally composed of a single species.
Given: Amalgamation involves acts of breeding and/or marrying.
Given: Amalgamation caused the racial-speciation of mankind.
Given: The amalgamation of mankind did not involve animals.
Given: Amalgamation was a sin.

Therefore, it follows that it was a sin for mankind to marry/breed within his own species.

Conclusion: Mike's hypothesis fails on the Biblical point of "be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth"! wink

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I like how you organized your points. Nicely done. However, as I'm sure you suspect, I do not believe the different races of mankind represent different species. Yellow, black, brown, red, and white it doesn't matter - we are all the same species. Color variations within the human species was, most likely, a genetic variant that existed from the beginning. That is, A&E were created that way with the ability to produce the subtle differences that exist today. The same thing, no doubt, is true of the subtle differences reflected within the same and different races. For example, the differences in eye shape and color, nose size and shapes, hair color and type, ear size and shapes, etc. All of these variations, differences existed within the DNA code of A&E and manifested themselves, perhaps randomly, as the human family grew. As such, they do not reflect sin or a curse. The pygmies you mentioned are probably the result of incest and/or interbreeding and not the result of scientists tampering with human and animal DNA.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/26/11 04:37 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
I believe albinism is more than just color genes.

I had in mind mechanisms such as in white flowers. I wouldn't call them albinos.

Plant genetics is quite different from human genetics. Things like trisomy-13 would not even be an issue in plants. You can double the chromosomes in a plant (e.g. by an improper meiosis of the gametes), with both sets of the chromosomes being exactly identical--only now, instead of having, say, 22 chromosomes, having 44--and now have a new plant species with its own set of characteristics and required living conditions, in spite of not having any new or different genes.

It is called polyploidy, and if it doesn't cause a miscarriage should it occur in a human (the most common outcome), the baby will live only a few days after birth. In plants, on the other hand, it leads to a new plant species.

Suffice it to say, plants and animals frequently cannot be directly compared in terms of genetics.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/26/11 04:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
I like how you organized your points. Nicely done. However, as I'm sure you suspect, I do not believe the different races of mankind represent different species. Yellow, black, brown, red, and white it doesn't matter - we are all the same species. Color variations within the human species was, most likely, a genetic variant that existed from the beginning. That is, A&E were created that way with the ability to produce the subtle differences that exist today. The same thing, no doubt, is true of the subtle differences reflected within the same and different races. For example, the differences in eye shape and color, nose size and shapes, hair color and type, ear size and shapes, etc. All of these variations, differences existed within the DNA code of A&E and manifested themselves, perhaps randomly, as the human family grew. As such, they do not reflect sin or a curse. The pygmies you mentioned are probably the result of incest and/or interbreeding and not the result of scientists tampering with human and animal DNA.

Mike,

I know you don't believe in multiple species of humans. I don't either. Nor did Mrs. White. But Mrs. White refers to "amalgamation" as having produced "confused species" in animals (which obviously cannot happen by intrabreeding within the same species, but would only have happened by interbreeding between different species), and she says "amalgamation" also resulted in different "races" of men.

What, then, was "amalgamation?"

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/27/11 05:29 PM

Obviously the amalgamation between races occurred naturally (as opposed to being forced to occur unnaturally in a lab).
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/27/11 07:02 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Obviously the amalgamation between races occurred naturally (as opposed to being forced to occur unnaturally in a lab).

And where did those races come from, in order to have "amalgamation" if the races themselves were the result of amalgamation?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/28/11 07:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: kland
I believe albinism is more than just color genes.

I had in mind mechanisms such as in white flowers. I wouldn't call them albinos.

Plant genetics is quite different from human genetics. Things like trisomy-13 would not even be an issue in plants. You can double the chromosomes in a plant (e.g. by an improper meiosis of the gametes), with both sets of the chromosomes being exactly identical--only now, instead of having, say, 22 chromosomes, having 44--and now have a new plant species with its own set of characteristics and required living conditions, in spite of not having any new or different genes.

It is called polyploidy, and if it doesn't cause a miscarriage should it occur in a human (the most common outcome), the baby will live only a few days after birth. In plants, on the other hand, it leads to a new plant species.

Suffice it to say, plants and animals frequently cannot be directly compared in terms of genetics.
Green, I wasn't talking of polyploidy nor species. I was talking of a simple and classic genetics.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/28/11 07:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
That is, A&E were created that way with the ability to produce the subtle differences that exist today. The same thing, no doubt, is true of the subtle differences reflected within the same and different races. For example, the differences in eye shape and color, nose size and shapes, hair color and type, ear size and shapes, etc. All of these variations, differences existed within the DNA code of A&E and manifested themselves, perhaps randomly, as the human family grew. As such, they do not reflect sin or a curse.

Well said, and I agree with this. However, many evolutionists would disagree. Even against evidence otherwise. I recall reading about aphids becoming resistant to a pesticide. They had some populations from before (elsewhere, preserved, whatever), and discovered the resistant gene was already present in those from years prior to the pesticide. This indicated they (the population) always had that gene and the pesticide merely selected against those who didn't have it.

However, sin and a curse can mess with the genes and that will be added to the genome.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/28/11 07:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
What, then, was "amalgamation?"
Could she be using a more general sense of the word and the specific details could be different for man than for beast?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 06/28/11 07:59 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
That is, A&E were created that way with the ability to produce the subtle differences that exist today. The same thing, no doubt, is true of the subtle differences reflected within the same and different races. For example, the differences in eye shape and color, nose size and shapes, hair color and type, ear size and shapes, etc. All of these variations, differences existed within the DNA code of A&E and manifested themselves, perhaps randomly, as the human family grew. As such, they do not reflect sin or a curse.

Well said, and I agree with this. However, many evolutionists would disagree. Even against evidence otherwise. I recall reading about aphids becoming resistant to a pesticide. They had some populations from before (elsewhere, preserved, whatever), and discovered the resistant gene was already present in those from years prior to the pesticide. This indicated they (the population) always had that gene and the pesticide merely selected against those who didn't have it.

However, sin and a curse can mess with the genes and that will be added to the genome.

I would agree with most of it. The part I would be uncomfortable with is specifically any part that did not involve God's original creation, e.g. amalgamation. I don't believe any portion of genetic variation which might have descended from God's original creation would have been "sin." "Amalgamation" clearly created races of men (in the mind of Ellen White) and was clearly "sinful." The obvious conclusion, then, is that there are aspects to our modern genetics which were not part of the original Creation, i.e. Adam and Eve.

When God put a mark upon Cain, we are not told what that mark was. We do know, however, that it was on account of his sin, murder, that he received it. And we know also that it changed his appearance. Significantly. God, doing things thoroughly as He usually does, would not have found it difficult nor unreasonable to have actually adjusted Cain's genes. This, too, would not have been a part of the original creation.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/01/11 01:47 AM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
"Amalgamation" clearly created races of men (in the mind of Ellen White) and was clearly "sinful."
Actually, the statement was, "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. {1SP 78.2} "

Again, could she be using a more general sense of the word and the specific details could be different for man than for beast?
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/02/11 10:16 PM

Did Noah and his boys or their wives carry the marked genes of Cain? Or, did the mark of Cain die with Cain? The post-Flood amalgamation that resulted in "certain races of men" is not the result of scientists uniting animal and human genes in a laboratory. Hopefully we can agree on this point. Therefore, we are left with two options (I'm sure somebody else can think of other options) - 1) "certain races of men" are a result of natural copulation, and 2) "certain races of men" are a result of genetic manipulation in laboratories.
Posted By: voktar

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/04/11 05:12 PM

The best answers to the amalgamation controversy that I know of can be found in the book, "Dinosaurs - An Adventist View" by David C. Read (most specifically the chapter entitled defending the amalgamation theory).
It seems evident that Ellen White used the word amalgamation in three different contexts:
1. What Satan did in creating noxious herbs and tares.
2. What the antedeluvians did, which constituted the 'one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood.'
3. What happened after the flood, without any mention of a specific Satanic or human agency involved.

Read proposes that the amalgamation which happened after the flood was due to 'horizontal genetic transfer' resulting to a large degree in the rapid speciation and diversification of animal and human life.

Read also proposes that the wicked antedeluvians did indeed possess genetic engineering capability resulting in the amalgamated creatures singled out to be destroyed in the flood. The great violent monster dinosaurs fell into this category. Many of them were genetic mixtures of created kinds. Most often mixtures of egg laying animals such that the engineering could take place outside of the body by tampering with the eggs. (ie. reptiles and birds etc) They were specifically bred for wicked purposes and threatened to over-run the created kinds making them extinct - hence God placed the created kinds on the ark to prevent their extinction.

Finally, there was nothing to prohibit the antedeluvians from tampering with human genetics in a similar way as well. In fact, given their completely superior knowledge, intellect, and longevity (as well as their advanced wickedness) - we would fully expect them to do this. This would have been the sin above all others that called for their destruction (not just intermarrying with unbelievers).


Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/04/11 05:31 PM

Originally Posted By: voktar
The best answers to the amalgamation controversy that I know of can be found in the book, "Dinosaurs - An Adventist View" by David C. Read (most specifically the chapter entitled defending the amalgamation theory).
It seems evident that Ellen White used the word amalgamation in three different contexts:
1. What Satan did in creating noxious herbs and tares.
2. What the antedeluvians did, which constituted the 'one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood.'
3. What happened after the flood, without any mention of a specific Satanic or human agency involved.

Read proposes that the amalgamation which happened after the flood was due to 'horizontal genetic transfer' resulting to a large degree in the rapid speciation and diversification of animal and human life.

Read also proposes that the wicked antedeluvians did indeed possess genetic engineering capability resulting in the amalgamated creatures singled out to be destroyed in the flood. The great violent monster dinosaurs fell into this category. Many of them were genetic mixtures of created kinds. Most often mixtures of egg laying animals such that the engineering could take place outside of the body by tampering with the eggs. (ie. reptiles and birds etc) They were specifically bred for wicked purposes and threatened to over-run the created kinds making them extinct - hence God placed the created kinds on the ark to prevent their extinction.

Finally, there was nothing to prohibit the antedeluvians from tampering with human genetics in a similar way as well. In fact, given their completely superior knowledge, intellect, and longevity (as well as their advanced wickedness) - we would fully expect them to do this. This would have been the sin above all others that called for their destruction (not just intermarrying with unbelievers).


Voktar,

You bring up some good points. And welcome to the forum!

I'm not exactly sure what the "horizontal genetic transfer" might refer to, or why it would have been a sin. There must always be a "transgression" of God's law to be called "sin." It is not my belief that it was a transgression to marry or to have children. Mrs. White even tells us this. It was not the mere fact of the "marriages" before the flood that made the antediluvians so sinful. Marriage is lawful.

So we have to find some other aspect that was unlawful. Furthermore, if God created all the genes in the gene pool, and then made marriage lawful, even commanding that mankind be "fruitful and multiply," it would be a rather unfair God which would then call it a sin when the genetics began to take on natural variations after some generations. Someone needs to help me see how it could be a sin for a human to marry a human who happened to have a different set of genes. In fact, if such actually were a sin, I think we should all be marrying our siblings and first-cousins, right? To marry outside of the family would be to encourage greater genetic diversity. If this sort of thing is "amalgamation," then it is sin.

Obviously, that cannot be the best conclusion here.

Regarding the antediluvians tampering with genetics, I believe you are on to something there. Certainly they were more brilliant and longer-lived than our modern scientists, and look what our scientists do today?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/04/11 05:34 PM

Great points on this issue, voktar. I don’t particularly understand the first proposal that well (perhaps you can elaborate/explain) but the last two make great sense to me. (Cf. here)

It further seems to me that EGW was only shown a final picture representation of this but was not given those underlying scientific facts as to how it was achieved. However, once again, science confirms the SOP view.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/04/11 05:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Did Noah and his boys or their wives carry the marked genes of Cain? Or, did the mark of Cain die with Cain? The post-Flood amalgamation that resulted in "certain races of men" is not the result of scientists uniting animal and human genes in a laboratory. Hopefully we can agree on this point. Therefore, we are left with two options (I'm sure somebody else can think of other options) - 1) "certain races of men" are a result of natural copulation, and 2) "certain races of men" are a result of genetic manipulation in laboratories.

It is my belief that Ham's wife was a descendant of Cain. Their son, perhaps having an appearance like Cain, was named "Cainan." He is the one whom Noah cursed with slavery and servanthood. It is readily apparent when looking at history how much this curse has indeed been fulfilled. Yes, there have been slaves of every race. But if you were to take a survey of which race, above all others, was thought to have been most subjected to slavery, I think blacks would be selected the majority of the time. This curse dates all the way back to Noah.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/04/11 05:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
But if you were to take a survey of which race, above all others, was thought to have been most subjected to slavery, I think blacks would be selected the majority of the time. This curse dates all the way back to Noah.


A sort of “self-fulfilling prophecy” as the enslavement of black people was largely due to this “Biblical” belief. Nonetheless, I do not necessarily see it as a “racial curse”, but a “descendants curse” and if most of Cainan’s descendants formed the black race, that is the pointed reason why it applied. And if God can actively/deliberately keep the descendant of Esau, to this day even, in a state of slow progress as a curse for Esau’s rejection/snubbing of the Israel blessing (Mal 1:2-5), then He can, and probably has, kept the, actually anterior to Esau, descendants of Cainan, (whoever the entirely are), in a state where other races would see them as prime candidates for enslavement. And black people, by being probably the most visible racial group of these descendants, probably have unfairly be imposed the entirety of this curse.

That, of course, does not mean that racial or “descendants” slavery should Biblically be reinstituted. I think by now any curse here has been fulfilled, and in some way, as with any pronouncement of God, just like the descendants of Esau served in time to keep in check, and help end, the medieval reign of Catholic Church, the enslavement of the (or at least some) of the descendant of Cainan probably had some GC positive contribution, which I have some idea what this could be.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/04/11 06:15 PM

As our topic here is "amalgamation," I would like to address the racial differences in terms of amalgamation. Mrs. White tells us that results of amalgamation can be seen in certain races of men. What does this mean? Would this mean that it constitutes the sin of "amalgamation" for blacks and whites to marry?

It is interesting that of all the races which Ellen White might have addressed, the only two which she says should not marry are blacks with whites.

Despite this, I'm still not convinced that the marriage of a white with a black would constitute "amalgamation." If it did, though, it would make sense why Mrs. White said the results could be seen in certain races of men. There are entire races on this planet today which were likely something of a mix between black and white. Black and white are about as opposite as can be found in human species. They differ far more than merely in their pigments. But would such a marriage really be "amalgamation?"

I wonder.

Personally, I've always thought that humans with apes, chimps, or gorillas had more to do with "amalgamation" than humans with humans.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: voktar

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/04/11 09:46 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Great points on this issue, voktar. I don’t particularly understand the first proposal that well (perhaps you can elaborate/explain) but the last two make great sense to me. (Cf. here)

It further seems to me that EGW was only shown a final picture representation of this but was not given those underlying scientific facts as to how it was achieved. However, once again, science confirms the SOP view.


NJK,
I'm assuming when you talk about the first proposal you are talking about the post-flood use of the term amalgamation. You are right, the pre-flood theory of amalgamation has a great deal of explanatory power. The post flood usage of the word has caused much controversy:

"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."

My understanding is that in this context the expression, 'certain races of men' does not refer to specific races of men whose genetic material is peculiarly amalgamated (or mingled with animal DNA as before the flood) - but to the diversification of humans, as well as that of animals. The production of this variety was partially a result of the mingling (or 'amalgamating') of genetic material, not through sexual reproduction (or genetic engineering by a conscious agent, as in the pre-flood case)- but through horizontal genetic transfer (a process just now coming to scientific light). This is a phenomenon that probably would not have happened in a pre-fall world. It is a consequence of sin, but not a peculiarly sinful thing in and of itself. Ellen White doesn't use the word sin in reference to this post-flood amalgamation, nor does she state that any conscious agent was responsible for it directly.

It has been proven that bacteria and other microbes can swap DNA. There is a very good probability that higher organisms have historically done likewise. Natural selection and genetic mutation are insufficient to explain the rapid post-flood diversification of species.

"Certainly there can be no little doubt that most, if not all, genomes include a number of foreign genes..."
Delwiche, Charles F. "Griffins and Chimeras: Evolution and Horizontal Gene Transfer," BioScience Jan. 2000

Scientists in the Human Genome project found 113 gene sequences that were identical to those found in bacteria. These appear to be the result of direct transfer from bacteria to humans.

"Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or new tissues... Rather the important transmitted variation that leads to evolutionary novelty
come from the acquisition of genomes."
Margulis, Lynn and Dorian Sagan. 'Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origin of Species' Basic Books 2002

Finally, you are right. Science is just now catching up to all of the implications found in Ellen Whites various uses of the expression 'amalgamation.' We still don't know fully how the antedeluvians could have achieved the level of genetic engineering they did. We still don't fully understand the process of genetic acquisition and transference within higher species. However, we now know that these are plausible scientific explanations for these hitherto unexplained issues.


Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/05/11 04:14 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
But if you were to take a survey of which race, above all others, was thought to have been most subjected to slavery, I think blacks would be selected the majority of the time. This curse dates all the way back to Noah.


A sort of “self-fulfilling prophecy” as the enslavement of black people was largely due to this “Biblical” belief. Nonetheless, I do not necessarily see it as a “racial curse”, but a “descendants curse” and if most of Cainan’s descendants formed the black race, that is the pointed reason why it applied. And if God can actively/deliberately keep the descendant of Esau, to this day even, in a state of slow progress as a curse for Esau’s rejection/snubbing of the Israel blessing (Mal 1:2-5), then He can, and probably has, kept the, actually anterior to Esau, descendants of Cainan, (whoever the entirely are), in a state where other races would see them as prime candidates for enslavement. And black people, by being probably the most visible racial group of these descendants, probably have unfairly be imposed the entirety of this curse.

That, of course, does not mean that racial or “descendants” slavery should Biblically be reinstituted. I think by now any curse here has been fulfilled, and in some way, as with any pronouncement of God, just like the descendants of Esau served in time to keep in check, and help end, the medieval reign of Catholic Church, the enslavement of the (or at least some) of the descendant of Cainan probably had some GC positive contribution, which I have some idea what this could be.

I don't know about it having been a "self-fulfilling" prophecy. Was it a "self-fulfilling" prophecy that the Jews pronounced upon themselves at Christ's death? How well did, say, Hitler know about that "prophecy?" I think most people who have taken human beings and forced them into slavery are more ignorant of the Bible than anything else.

Not every curse is a "self-fulfilling" one. When God cursed the ground for man's sake, it was an actual curse. When God put a mark on Cain, it was an actual mark. Cain did not go out and mark himself because God had suggested the idea!

It is interesting to note that marking people is God's domain, and not ours. He marked Cain, but He also instructed us not to mark ourselves. Tattoos, for example, are against God's law.

Likewise, God created many different kinds of animals. But it was not for us to do. We are supposed to help maintain the various kinds as God made them, as opposed to crossbreeding at will to get new species.

This is the crux of the matter with amalgamation. People were taking upon themselves to do that which God alone had authority to do. (Of course, people would be far less capable than God anyhow, and our meddling only would tend to corrupt and pervert that which God had designed and made.)

Regarding the large animals before the flood, if I read Mrs. White correctly, some animals which God had made He chose not to preserve through the flood. This was because the animals were so large that they would be unmanageable by mankind, as men were weakening greatly following the flood. Certainly, the amalgamated animals were destroyed as well. But it appears that after the flood, men figured out how to meddle with them again.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/05/11 04:44 AM

Of course, Green Cochoa, I did not say, nor imply, that every Bible/Biblical curse is a self-fulfilling prophecy, just, in subjective part, this one. Indeed pointedly in the subjective belief that it was a racial, vs. descendants, curse, and that it applied to solely upon black people. My anthropology knowledge is quasi-non-existent, however I presume that much more than just racially “Black” people are Cainan’s descendants, especially by the time of the 1600's+ when this curse was said to be applicable (for, of course the free labor that it provided to profit seeking (Protestant) Capitalists, thus why, e.g., the French and Americans plunged head long into this practice). In a similar way, that is the same “moronic” and prejudicial “racial” rationale that is used against Muslims in general, which however is pointedly directed as Arab Muslims who actually only represent ca. 25% of all of the world’s Muslims.

Your cited SOP reason for the leaving behind of large animals indeed makes perfect Biblical sense. (However it all relatedly leads to the often skirted/avoided Classical Foreknowledge Theological question/issue, as discussed here and ff of: didn’t God see this coming?? If so then why did He created them in the first place. There is no freewill issue involved pointedly with these animals as they were forcefully made to suffer for Mans’ fall (Rom 8:19-21). No need to answer this, at least here, just something to relatedly keep in mind here.)
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/05/11 04:45 AM

Originally Posted By: voktar
NJK,
I'm assuming when you talk about the first proposal you are talking about the post-flood use of the term amalgamation. You are right, the pre-flood theory of amalgamation has a great deal of explanatory power. The post flood usage of the word has caused much controversy:

"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."

My understanding is that in this context the expression, 'certain races of men' does not refer to specific races of men whose genetic material is peculiarly amalgamated (or mingled with animal DNA as before the flood) - but to the diversification of humans, as well as that of animals. The production of this variety was partially a result of the mingling (or 'amalgamating') of genetic material, not through sexual reproduction (or genetic engineering by a conscious agent, as in the pre-flood case)- but through horizontal genetic transfer (a process just now coming to scientific light). This is a phenomenon that probably would not have happened in a pre-fall world. It is a consequence of sin, but not a peculiarly sinful thing in and of itself. Ellen White doesn't use the word sin in reference to this post-flood amalgamation, nor does she state that any conscious agent was responsible for it directly.

It has been proven that bacteria and other microbes can swap DNA. There is a very good probability that higher organisms have historically done likewise. Natural selection and genetic mutation are insufficient to explain the rapid post-flood diversification of species.

"Certainly there can be no little doubt that most, if not all, genomes include a number of foreign genes..."
Delwiche, Charles F. "Griffins and Chimeras: Evolution and Horizontal Gene Transfer," BioScience Jan. 2000

Scientists in the Human Genome project found 113 gene sequences that were identical to those found in bacteria. These appear to be the result of direct transfer from bacteria to humans.

"Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or new tissues... Rather the important transmitted variation that leads to evolutionary novelty
come from the acquisition of genomes."
Margulis, Lynn and Dorian Sagan. 'Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origin of Species' Basic Books 2002

Indeed voktar, that is the proposal that I didn’t understand. Thanks for the quasi-layman explanation. I am however surprised that it is so highly involved, as even seen in/despite those explanation.

In regards to the “sin” issue here, perhaps it is in the result of the image of God (Gen 1:26a, 27) being physically altered and perverted in Man. Also the granted “rule” of man over animals (Gen 1:26b) was thus also being perverted. As this is went categorically against God’s Will and thus His (Natural) Law (cf. Matt 7:21, 23), He had to act to end it and prevent these grossly altered forms from “filling up” the earth. (Gen 1:28). So all of this may contribute to the Spiritual/Religious sin understanding here. And God is always primarily concerned with guiding His professed people to, in faith, see the religious sinful aspect of something, even long before they latter come to scientifically see and understand the Natural Law violation involved. (E.g, Healthful Living). [I see Green Cochoa (Post #134981) makes a similar point on this issue.]

Originally Posted By: voktar
Finally, you are right. Science is just now catching up to all of the implications found in Ellen Whites various uses of the expression 'amalgamation.' We still don't know fully how the antedeluvians could have achieved the level of genetic engineering they did. We still don't fully understand the process of genetic acquisition and transference within higher species. However, we now know that these are plausible scientific explanations for these hitherto unexplained issues.


It is indeed consistent of God not to give the details of things that humans can do/find out for themselves. Imagine the opportunity for evil that this would fairly, correspondingly, open up to Satan if God did this. And so EGW was merely shown that this occurred and the Spiritual/GC implications, but not given the ‘scientific formula’ so to speak.*

Also in regards to this light given to EGW, my foundational theological tenet is that ‘God does not do anything without a positive reason’ and so I see here that there is a key GC reason why God gave this pointed revelation to EGW and that may be to speak to our similar, genetic-manipulation capable (e.g, cloning) world. SDA Scientist should double up on understand the scientific nefariousness of this amalgamation issue before it is “too late”, as, e.g., with the AIDS outbreak and crisis. Indeed God saw that this amalgamation practised deserved/necessitated total eradication.

*(I, as related in this post (Search for Patent), have also experienced the same dilemma, as God has repeatedly shown me that a now patented, quite intricate, but quite potent Physics/Engineering Concept/Invention will work, but has not given me the specific details. Indeed I have now run it by several professional engineers and none of them have been able to refute that it will not work as presented on paper and basic Physics/Engineering Science. A couple from an aircraft engine powerplant manufacturer who admitted it should work have refused to help me for the “moronic” reasons that the related technology needed to make the concept work were too far advanced -(‘beyond their technological horizon’). As this is factually not true, as all of those supporting concepts are already discovered and in use, this is just more ‘Capitalistic shortsightedness’ when you indeed carefully analyse it.) An SDA engineer spuriously objected by saying that ‘it would materially break down to much, as if optimal and properly reinforced materials could not be used. And the list of spurious excuses goes on. Similarly, I always found it odd that God did not tell Noah how to build the Ark (e.g., to ‘construct it like the hull of a ship, that it might float upon the water’ PP 92.3) He just told him to build a boat and gave him the dimensions, general layout and material to use (Gen 6:13-16). Noah was apparently left to use his knowledge and skills to, in enjoining faith, concretely rightly put all of this together and ‘make this work’. The novice “naval engineers and architects” of his day must have had a field day trying to find reasons why it would not work. (The Building of the Sanctuary and its furniture/articles is another example of this Divine modus operandi. All this to, as I see it, tangibly corroborate that God does give such summary/conclusory light, especially when it comes to temporal matters, but not the working details.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/07/11 04:11 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
And if God can actively/deliberately keep the descendant of Esau, to this day even, in a state of slow progress as a curse for Esau’s rejection/snubbing of the Israel blessing (Mal 1:2-5),... just like the descendants of Esau served in time to keep in check, and help end, the medieval reign of Catholic Church,...


Just a factual accuracy correction for that statement: It is actually the descendants of Ishmael who later became the Muslim people that I pointedly had in mind as this indirectly “reserved” people through a descendants curse, however as Esau married a daughter of his uncle Ishmael (Gen 36:3) and so probably contributed greatly to the Arab people who would later come under the Religious Muslim banner.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/08/11 01:38 AM

Originally Posted By: voktar
This is a phenomenon that probably would not have happened in a pre-fall world. It is a consequence of sin, but not a peculiarly sinful thing in and of itself. Ellen White doesn't use the word sin in reference to this post-flood amalgamation, nor does she state that any conscious agent was responsible for it directly.
Assuming this is true, isn't it interesting that pre-flood, closer to more perfect genetics, horizontal genetic transfer happened more easily (one assumes) than post-flood with less perfect genetics? Scientists today struggle to get transfer of information between genus let alone at higher levels. There seems to be lots of genetic mechanisms which prohibit such a transfer. However, pre-flood, it could be done with the assumption the genetic mechanisms were even more fully in place?

By the way, why do you think dinosaurs were "bad" and there were none after the flood? I don't think they nor any others were singled out to be destroyed in the flood as all land animals were destroyed in the flood. What is a "dinosaur" anyway? I've seen many evil looking creatures which I would not want to meet in a dark alley, nor in the open. I've read reptiles never stop growing, so is an alligator a dinosaur?
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/08/11 02:00 AM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Did Noah and his boys or their wives carry the marked genes of Cain? Or, did the mark of Cain die with Cain? The post-Flood amalgamation that resulted in "certain races of men" is not the result of scientists uniting animal and human genes in a laboratory. Hopefully we can agree on this point. Therefore, we are left with two options (I'm sure somebody else can think of other options) - 1) "certain races of men" are a result of natural copulation, and 2) "certain races of men" are a result of genetic manipulation in laboratories.

It is my belief that Ham's wife was a descendant of Cain. Their son, perhaps having an appearance like Cain, was named "Cainan." He is the one whom Noah cursed with slavery and servanthood. It is readily apparent when looking at history how much this curse has indeed been fulfilled. Yes, there have been slaves of every race. But if you were to take a survey of which race, above all others, was thought to have been most subjected to slavery, I think blacks would be selected the majority of the time. This curse dates all the way back to Noah.
I'm confused where you thought Cain or Cainan was black.

And are you saying Cainan resembled Cain because their English names look similar and their Hebrew names have some of the same letters though different meanings?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/08/11 11:20 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Did Noah and his boys or their wives carry the marked genes of Cain? Or, did the mark of Cain die with Cain? The post-Flood amalgamation that resulted in "certain races of men" is not the result of scientists uniting animal and human genes in a laboratory. Hopefully we can agree on this point. Therefore, we are left with two options (I'm sure somebody else can think of other options) - 1) "certain races of men" are a result of natural copulation, and 2) "certain races of men" are a result of genetic manipulation in laboratories.

It is my belief that Ham's wife was a descendant of Cain. Their son, perhaps having an appearance like Cain, was named "Cainan." He is the one whom Noah cursed with slavery and servanthood. It is readily apparent when looking at history how much this curse has indeed been fulfilled. Yes, there have been slaves of every race. But if you were to take a survey of which race, above all others, was thought to have been most subjected to slavery, I think blacks would be selected the majority of the time. This curse dates all the way back to Noah.
I'm confused where you thought Cain or Cainan was black.

And are you saying Cainan resembled Cain because their English names look similar and their Hebrew names have some of the same letters though different meanings?

There is nothing in the Bible to indicate the colors. I'm drawing some logical conclusions to deduce what is not explicitly mentioned. (And I misspelled Canaan as Cainan, sorry.)

Key points in that deduction process are the following (in reverse chronological order):

1) The "race" of mankind arguably most subjected to slavery throughout all time is the blacks. (Ask most any "African American" their opinion on this and I'm sure they would agree.)

2) Canaan and his descendents were cursed by Noah with servanthood, though he was innocent of his father's crime.

3) Canaan may have been so named on account of his appearing much like Cain. (It is likely that being obscure Hebrew words, modern scholars have no idea of the exact meanings of these names.)

4) Unless both blacks and whites were somehow represented in the ark, there has been an amazing divergence in the biology of mankind in a few short millennia. Where else can we source both?

5) God marked Cain. Mrs. White speaks of the "race of Cain." Clearly, the descendents of Cain differed from those of Seth, not only in spiritual things, but also in appearance. The Bible speaks of the "sons of God" (Seth's lineage) looking upon the "daughters of men" (Cain's race) and seeing that they were "fair."

6) It would be just like God to symbolize the sin of Cain with an appropriate color. Sin is dark.

I just looked up the meaning of Canaan. BlueLetterBible has the following definition for the root/origin of the word.
Quote:
  1. to be humble, be humbled, be subdued, be brought down, be low, be under, be brought into subjection
    1. (Niphal)
      1. to humble oneself
      2. to be humbled, be subdued
    2. (Hiphil)
      1. to humble
      2. to subdue



Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/08/11 09:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa

1) The "race" of mankind arguably most subjected to slavery throughout all time is the blacks. (Ask most any "African American" their opinion on this and I'm sure they would agree.)

Seems subjective and biased to me. Ask any American Indian if they've been taken advantage of and I'm sure they would agree.
Ask any American Indian if they've been taken advantage of and I'm sure they would agree.
Ask any Mexican if they've been taken advantage of and I'm sure they would agree.
Ask any woman if they've been taken advantage of and I'm sure they would agree.
Ask any white male if they've been taken advantage of and I'm sure they would agree.

I don't think asking a group is a way to determine if they are "arguably most subjected to slavery throughout all time."
Quote:

2) Canaan and his descendents were cursed by Noah with servanthood, though he was innocent of his father's crime.
Says nothing about being black nor resembling cain. And are you saying he cursed Canaan because he was black?! What about looking at the spirit of Ham and seeing how it had been trained in his son and prophesying what would happen?
Quote:

3) Canaan may have been so named on account of his appearing much like Cain. (It is likely that being obscure Hebrew words, modern scholars have no idea of the exact meanings of these names.)
That is what I'm calling into question. Repeating it doesn't support it.
Quote:

4) Unless both blacks and whites were somehow represented in the ark, there has been an amazing divergence in the biology of mankind in a few short millennia. Where else can we source both?
What about orientals, mexicans, indians, etc., etc.? What makes you think Noah and family were only one or the other? What makes you think there isn't a wide divergence in the genome since the ark of man and beast? What do you think of the idea that scientists traced all mankind to seven (or a few) Eves?
Quote:

5) God marked Cain. Mrs. White speaks of the "race of Cain." Clearly, the descendents of Cain differed from those of Seth, not only in spiritual things, but also in appearance. The Bible speaks of the "sons of God" (Seth's lineage) looking upon the "daughters of men" (Cain's race) and seeing that they were "fair."
She also speaks of the race before the flood regarding all man, a race of sinners, a race of rebels, a race of humanity, a race of beings, not a race of righteous men (Lot), a race of slaves (Israelites), race of Adam, race of Jews. None of that means "clearly" they differed in appearance. It only speaks of Cain having a mark. She compares daughters of men to this day and says
Quote:
"The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." {ST, November 27, 1884 par. 12}
A similar state of things exists now in relation to marriage. Marriages are formed between the godly and the ungodly because inclination governs in the selection of husband or wife. The parties do not ask counsel of God, nor have his glory in view. Christianity ought to have a controlling, sanctifying influence upon the marriage relation; but husband and wife are not united by Christian principle; uncontrolled passion lies at the foundation of many of the marriages that are contracted at the present time. {ST, November 27, 1884 par. 13}
Think the ungodly of today look better?
Quote:

6) It would be just like God to symbolize the sin of Cain with an appropriate color. Sin is dark.
Are you saying Black people represent sin and are somehow looked down upon by God? And this because of choices of his father and mother. Are you saying God made him black at that time or just because he was, he picked on him?[/quote]
Quote:

I just looked up the meaning of Canaan. BlueLetterBible has the following definition for the root/origin of the word.
[quote]
  1. to be humble, be humbled, be subdued, be brought down, be low, be under, be brought into subjection
    1. (Niphal)
      1. to humble oneself
      2. to be humbled, be subdued
    2. (Hiphil)
      1. to humble
      2. to subdue

Yep, he was humbled by Noah. Or the result of his father or lack of proper training.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/08/11 10:39 PM

I think kland’s points/questions have well debunked the ‘skin color and slavery’ assumption being made here. How about being factual/scientific here!! Like I said before, this may just have been a self-fulfilling prophecy, indeed based upon such shallow/“knee-jerk” rationalization and assumption for “darker skinned” people.

In regards to skin color, I have a working/hypothetical theory: It is known that too much exposure to the sun can modify one’s cells to cause skin cancer. Perhaps one’s genes can be in a similar way affected, but not detrimentally, by such constant exposure. And so, those who from Noah’s descendants, after the flood, (when the earth’s climate really became unbalanced and uneven due to the shifting of the earth’s axis by the flood,) went to reside in Africa, gradually became more and more dark skinned, to the point where it became coded in their genes/DNA and was thus passed on.

The science of Skin Color seems to make this theory possible. E.g.,

Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
According to scientific studies, natural human skin color diversity is highest in Sub-Saharan African populations


and

Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
Excessive solar radiation causes direct and indirect DNA damage to the skin and the body naturally combats and seeks to repair the damage and protect the skin by creating and releasing further melanin into the skin's cells. With the production of the melanin, the skin color darkens, but can also cause sunburn.


among others,

So Noah and his family may have all been the exact same color before and immediately following the flood, however, over time, the location where some lived came to cause a genetic mutation affecting their skin color. My view is that originally they were all “tanned” and those who live in the now arid and sunny areas became darker and those who lived in colder and more temperate areas became paler.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/08/11 11:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
I just looked up the meaning of Canaan. BlueLetterBible has the following definition for the root/origin of the word.
[quote]
  1. to be humble, be humbled, be subdued, be brought down, be low, be under, be brought into subjection
    1. (Niphal)
      1. to humble oneself
      2. to be humbled, be subdued
    2. (Hiphil)
      1. to humble
      2. to subdue




Succinctly said/summarized, From what I have read in the SDA Bible Dictionary on “Canaan” and “Shem” in relation to the curse in Gen 9:25-27):

-Canaan was actually the father of those who lived in the, so named, “land of Canaan” and Shem was the father of the Semitic Race (Hebrews, Babylonians, Assyrians, Arameans, Arabs) and so this curse may and been fulfilled when God dispossessed those who lived in the land of Canaan to give it to the Hebrews. This curse would have probably been fulfilled to a greater degree had Israel been more faithful to God.

So the assumption that the descendants of Canaan are “black” people is further shown to be non-factual and mere conjecture.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/09/11 01:33 AM

The contributors to this webpage (Creation Ministries International - Christian Answers) have a biological and then “natural selection” theory for the differences in skin color as well as the regional grouping. I still think that my theory can be scientifically substantiated, however I find their view acceptable (for now). They also address other issues in this thread (See at the bottom of the webpage).
Posted By: APL

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/09/11 08:43 AM

voktar said:
Quote:
This is a phenomenon that probably would not have happened in a pre-fall world. It is a consequence of sin, but not a peculiarly sinful thing in and of itself. Ellen White doesn't use the word sin in reference to this post-flood amalgamation, nor does she state that any conscious agent was responsible for it directly.

Horizontal gene transfer is huge. In bacteria, plasmids carry genes that can be transferred horizontally between individual bacteria and indeed different species. In humans, transposons, mobile genetic material can move between individuals and species. A virus is an example of horizontal gene transfer. Viruses inject their DNA/RNA into an individual, the viral genome gets transcribed in the nucleus, and new viral particles made. Viral DNA can be incorporated into the host's DNA. Retroviruses such as HIV, contain RNA, which is reverse transcribed to DNA which can be incorporated into the host's genome. There are many retroviruses, 25000+ in the human genome. There are other classes of transposons also.

Classes of transposons, Class 1 are the retrotransposons spoken about above. Class 2 are DNA transposons. These guys can things like copy and paste DNA around the genome, or cut and paste, destroying genes. There are "LINES" and "SINES". ALUs are a type of SINE and are paracytic with L1s, which are LINES. Lots of jargon, but the point I'm trying to make is that trasposons are every where all over the genome, and these guys are bad actors, period. Gene "copy number variation", CNV, is transposon mediated. CNV is associated with the most common type of muscular dystrophy, and a common feature in Autism.

If one wanted to make it look like evolution was true, then just look at Australia, where there a lot of different types of marsupials. The interesting thing is that the genes that code for proteins in marsupials, are the same as genes that code for proteins in placentals. What is the difference then? Transposable elements, transposons. Transposons can bring it alternate gene promoters, which highjack gene functions altering gene expression. Marsupials are like placentals, except for the transposable elements.

Transposable elements, TEs, when they just around the genome are not random. Transposons can target very specific locations in the genome. Today, genetic engineering uses transposon concepts to target locations with a few base pairs out of billions.

I've made this suggestion before and have been shot down, but transposons may represent the physical aspects of sin. The wages of sin is death. Transposons alter telemeres in the genome, which is responsible for aging and death. One might say, if transposons are "sin", then just take them out. No can do. Transposons alter the genone. Cut and paste, or just cut, and you now have missing DNA. How do you replace that? You can't. You can't, but God can.

EGW talks a lot about sin being heredity and cultivated. The latter is easy to understand, but heredity? Is sin just a thought problem, or is it a real physical problem.

Note, transposons greatly affect the CNS. Many (all?) psychiatric diseases is TE caused. All cancers that have been investigated have been shown to be TE mediated. Not all cancers have yet been investigated in this way.

EGW talks about the tares being by Satan's methods of amalgamation. This is clearly (to me) genetic engineering, "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} "

{RH, April 16, 1901 par. 7} talks about Satan causing alcohol to form. And indeed we find that the yeasts commonly used to make alcohol have been genetically changed, via transpsons, to not be able to use aerobic metabolism, thus producing alcohol at great energy expense to themselves. This is genetic engineering!

Yes, I could go on and on. Random mutation and natural select as a theory just does not work. It can't. But transposons, can change everything, and they have.

To me, transposons represent a physical aspect of sin. Not the result of sin, but sin itself... The grand hypothesis, not yet proven of course, but there is a huge amount of data, is that all diseases are caused by transposons. Most might laugh, but I have many papers pointing that direction.

Note - there is also the field of study in genetics call epigenetics. Epigenetics also alters gene expression. That is a different topic, but also fascinating. Epigenetics can shut down or turn on genes. What we do, think, eat, etc., affects our epigenome. The Adventist health message is not a nice addition, but a necessary component of salvation. Or so it seems to me...
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/09/11 10:37 AM

Interesting scientific post APL. I thought you could indeed chime in on this aspect. Would you say, from your perspective, that my hypothetical ‘sun exposure-skin color genes/DNA mutation’ all related to how the body intrinsically reacts to sunlight exposure, is plausible, even possible, i.e., under e.g., that mentioned ‘externally affected “epigenetics” category’?

Originally Posted By: APL
I've made this suggestion before and have been shot down, but transposons may represent the physical aspects of sin. The wages of sin is death. Transposons alter telemeres in the genome, which is responsible for aging and death. One might say, if transposons are "sin", then just take them out. No can do. Transposons alter the genone. Cut and paste, or just cut, and you now have missing DNA. How do you replace that? You can't. You can't, but God can.


I am one, perhaps the only “vocal” one, who disagreed with the claimed reaches of your hypothesis here, seeing instead that the absence of the Fruit of Life and its “supernatural element” would have resulted in the human body going inceptively haywire (I.e., genetic coding mis-writing), however how does your ‘sin and aging’ hypothesis stand in the light of the recent discovery of a drug that may prevent the aging process, at least, from ever beginning (see here).


Originally Posted By: APL
To me, transposons represent a physical aspect of sin. Not the result of sin, but sin itself... The grand hypothesis, not yet proven of course, but there is a huge amount of data, is that all diseases are caused by transposons. Most might laugh, but I have many papers pointing that direction.


I myself am not, “laughing”, per se, at your view here, but simply do not find it to be Theologically/Spiritually cogent. Indeed from these aspects, if the physical effects of sin came from something tangible concocted by Satan, then that would imply, with him surely not being deliberately suicidal, that he and other fallen angels cannot age or eventually naturally physically die, eventhough they have also/similarly “sinned.” Indeed they never physically ate of a ‘Fruit of Knowledge of God and Evil’! How do you explain this situation?

As I see it, once they were cast out of Heaven, they could no longer have access to the ‘aromatic Fruit of Life’ (sort of like an “inhaled breathing treatment” e.g., Vicks dispensing), he, as would Adam and Eve, began on this aging and gradual death process. My understanding is that this would take for them, given their “higher” angelic physical make-up, ca. 10,000 years (vs. man’s (initial) manifest ca. 1000 years).

Also, if “sin and aging” tangibly came through the Fruit of KG&E, then what need was there to have a Tree of Life. God simply would have told Adam and Eve to not ever eat of that forbidden tree. Clearly the Tree of Life was already working against something that was itself tangibly present, or to be present, if the eating of it ceased. And that is also why, as Gen 3:22-24 says, continuing to eat of the Tree of Life after sin would have physically fixed any dying/aging and death issue, and the “sin” issue would still have been present.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/09/11 01:46 PM

A further point in regards to the “supernatural (as corroborated by Biblical indications) Fruit of Life”:

I indeed see that it is utterly futile to try to find a “natural/scientific” answer for what is said to be “supernatural” (i.e., not “magical” but higher than any human capability and/or science). Indeed just as, e.g., it is futile to try to give a “natural/scientific” for Peter walking upon water, and that by simply having faith in Jesus doing the same, as a human, before him. Here the ‘beyond human capability/science’, behind the scenes action may have been angels providing some for of hard planks with each step of Jesus and Peter. And when Peter lost faith, these were removed and he sank. So since the Fruit of Life had a “supernatural ingredient” that prevent sickness, aging and thus death, I don’t see that the pointed physically corrupting cause for these will ever be found/figured out according to, or through, natural science and human understandings.
Posted By: APL

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/10/11 05:49 AM

NKJ - I "think" I know all EGW quotes on both fruits. Yes, the TOL was an antidote for death. But what kind of life would that be with sin? And yes, the reason there is not immortal sinner is because they were banned from the TOL. (see Genesis 3:22)

Quote:
The fruit of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden possessed supernatural virtue. To eat of it was to live forever. Its fruit was the antidote of death. Its leaves were for the sustaining of life and immortality. But through man's disobedience death entered the world. Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the fruit of which he had been forbidden to touch. This was his test. He failed, and his transgression opened the floodgates of woe upon our world. {MM 233.5}
Now, eating the fruit opened the floodgates. Question, was it the eating of the fruit, or being banned from the TOL?

Other places she, to me, clearly speaks of genetic engineering. Example:
Quote:
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}
So, when did Satan plant the "seeds" into the system? When he tempted Adam to eat of the TOKGE.

All death can be blamed on God because He is the one that banned A&E from the TOL. But if genetic engineering was part of the sin problem, then the question that would be unknown is what would have happened if Satan's experiment was allowed to go on to completion? EGW tells us that Satan's appearance has changed. We are not clearly told how sin was spread to other angels in heaven. We do know from EGW that Satan wanted to "amend the law of God", he wanted to supply an amendment. How do you do that? What do you change? We know that in God, we are free. Also that Satan abused his freedom. An alcoholic is free to abuse his body, but the end results are not pretty. We can even sustain an alcoholic's life. Liver transplants for cirrhosis, etc. The TOL could perpetuate life, but what kind of life?

Yes, the TOL was required eating. Without it, life would become extinct. But this could have represented a compound that simply altered cell division. Lack of access to the TOL does not explain thorns and weeds. Transposon do.

Yes, this is a multifunctional problem.

I don't see Satan as being deliberately suicidal. I think he was trying to be like God. If there was something in the fruit, it was not meant to kill A&E. It was meant to take them captive, alter that CNS to be receptive to him. And then have them eat from the TOL and live forever, being on Satan's side of the controversy.

Under this paradigm, Christ would have had a full complement of transposons, being born of a women. EGW says, "By taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. {16MR 116.3}" Christ was made to be sin. How? This is one possible explanation. Hebrews 1:3 AKJV "... when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:" Are our sins purged? Or did he resolve the sin problem in His own body, worked out the details. The enmity put in place in the Garden, was removed at the cross demonstrating clearly the effects of sin, and it killed him (See Genesis 3:15)

This is a hypothesis to be sure. But there is a lot of discussion of genetics in the Bible and in EGW. It also explains how sin "accumulates" from generation to generation. "Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. {RH, July 28, 1874}. Sins as they existed - interesting terminology. No?

As for skin color - I do think this has to do with gene expression, and this can be epigenetic or TE mediated, or other. Is it "lamarckian"? I don't think so. By that I mean, get sun exposure and you get darker, then you pass this on to your offspring. But other thing influence color. Google, "Russian tame foxes". This is an interesting experiment which led to the production of foxes which were tame like Dogs, in just 10 generation. They were foxes, but tame. But other interesting things happened also, making them useless for the Russian fur industry. These tame foxes looked like dogs. They coats changed. They go white splotches, they tails curved, or changed length. There are interesting videos and pictures on the Internet of these tame foxes. But they were still foxes! What changes was their temperament. And this may have changed the amount of adrenal hormones which affects everything else including other morphology such as coat colors and tails. Genetically, they did not change, but gene expression changed. Darwin finches are another example of epigenetic change. This is NOT evolution. Transposons are a complete different animal all together. However, epigenetics can play a roll in keeping them in check. The health laws are not arbitrary.

Note, I'm just scratching the surface of the whole genetic issue.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/10/11 12:58 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
I "think" I know all EGW quotes on both fruits. Yes, the TOL was an antidote for death. But what kind of life would that be with sin?


I see that question as being besides the point. The fact is they could live forever, and you cannot do this with a physically decrepit body. Sure the world would be filled with sin, just as it can be seen in the life of living hell-bent sinners today, however the difference is that they would never (naturally) get sick, age or die. At the very least, the “healthy/health conscious” sinner would live forever. And much of the self-inflicted diseases today are done by people who have a “live it up” attitude because they know that one day or the other, they will surely die, no matter what they try to do to prevent/prolong this. So this may have been different with people who know as a fact that avoiding certain things will surely result in them continuing to live eternally.

Quote:
SOP: The fruit of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden possessed supernatural virtue. To eat of it was to live forever. Its fruit was the antidote of death. Its leaves were for the sustaining of life and immortality. But through man's disobedience death entered the world. Adam ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, the fruit of which he had been forbidden to touch. This was his test. He failed, and his transgression opened the floodgates of woe upon our world. {MM 233.5}

APL: Now, eating the fruit opened the floodgates. Question, was it the eating of the fruit, or being banned from the TOL?


Strictly speaking, I rather see neither, but merely the spiritually issue of “transgression” which gave Satan full access to this “world”. However in terms of their own physical issues, this to me clearly came from being banned access to the TOL.

Quote:
APL: Other places she, to me, clearly speaks of genetic engineering. Example:

SOP: 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}

APL: So, when did Satan plant the "seeds" into the system? When he tempted Adam to eat of the TOKGE.


I think you are literalising the figurative aspects of this quote. Perhaps the entire passage was meant figuratively. I.e., in regards to Adam and Eve, this ‘seed planting’ to me is merely in terms of what was mentally suggested to them, which indeed resulted in the intangible act of “disobedience to God”. In regards to the planetary system, sure Satan would have tangibly worked to effectuate many other adverse effects. Still it seems to me that a figurative/spiritual “seeds” link is being made to the disobedience of Adam and Eve resulting in the damage to nature.

Originally Posted By: APL
All death can be blamed on God because He is the one that banned A&E from the TOL. But if genetic engineering was part of the sin problem, then the question that would be unknown is what would have happened if Satan's experiment was allowed to go on to completion?


If the consequences of sin could “genetically mapped” then I think that God would have produced that result a long time ago and avert the GC all together. There were clear mental/spiritual intangibles involved and genetical deficiency would not have been part of this equation had access to the TOL been maintained. Surely the Heavenly beings would understand genetic degradation (e.g., through a scientifically factual and true modelling) and also “death” itself without this to have to be demonstrated over 6000 years. To me it clearly is the intangible free choice of men over this time that is the main controversy at hand.

Originally Posted By: APL
EGW tells us that Satan's appearance has changed. We are not clearly told how sin was spread to other angels in heaven.


If, according to you, “genetic manipulation” was quasi-explicitly spoken of by EGW in regards to humans, than why not also for what would have similarly been done in Heaven. Some sort of “fruit” would have been mentioned.

Originally Posted By: APL
We do know from EGW that Satan wanted to "amend the law of God", he wanted to supply an amendment. How do you do that? What do you change? We know that in God, we are free. Also that Satan abused his freedom. An alcoholic is free to abuse his body, but the end results are not pretty. We can even sustain an alcoholic's life. Liver transplants for cirrhosis, etc. The TOL could perpetuate life, but what kind of life?


In EGW’s writings, I only see that the “Law” discussed here is the Ten Commandment Law, so exegetically speaking, according to her understanding, I would say that she meant the 10C.

Quote:
Yes, the TOL was required eating. Without it, life would become extinct. But this could have represented a compound that simply altered cell division. Lack of access to the TOL does not explain thorns and weeds. Transposon do.


In regards to thorns and weeds, which do have to be originally/distinctly planted, i.e., to my knowledge, cannot derive from good seed, this is where I would see a literal application of the ‘Satan’s noxious herb planting’ statement.

Originally Posted By: APL
If there was something in the fruit, it was not meant to kill A&E. It was meant to take them captive, alter that CNS to be receptive to him. And then have them eat from the TOL and live forever, being on Satan's side of the controversy.


Of course, that’s the big “IF” here... I rather the effect of eating that banned fruit as only being Spiritual. If a sinner becomes “chemically dependent” then sin is no longer a free choice. Like a drug addict, they virtually have no choice but to get another hit, no matter how much they would not want to.

Originally Posted By: APL
Under this paradigm, Christ would have had a full complement of transposons, being born of a women. EGW says, "By taking upon Himself man's nature in its fallen condition, Christ did not in the least participate in its sin. {16MR 116.3}" Christ was made to be sin. How? This is one possible explanation. Hebrews 1:3 AKJV "... when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:" Are our sins purged? Or did he resolve the sin problem in His own body, worked out the details. The enmity put in place in the Garden, was removed at the cross demonstrating clearly the effects of sin, and it killed him (See Genesis 3:15)


Just looking at this from the Theological paradigm that a sinless God was born as a man to a mother who was living 4000 years after sin is, to me, enough to explain how Jesus ‘took upon Himself the fallen nature of man’. I.e., He did not exist on earth in only a Divine Nature.

Originally Posted By: APL
This is a hypothesis to be sure. But there is a lot of discussion of genetics in the Bible and in EGW. It also explains how sin "accumulates" from generation to generation. "Christ bore the sins and infirmities of the race as they existed when He came to the earth to help man. {RH, July 28, 1874}. Sins as they existed - interesting terminology. No?


Again here, I do not see that such statements need to go to your genetical extreme. Sin hereditary human nature would have sufficed.

I also don’t see, at least here, a support for your “accumulation” view.

Originally Posted By: APL
As for skin color - I do think this has to do with gene expression, and this can be epigenetic or TE mediated, or other. Is it "lamarckian"? I don't think so. By that I mean, get sun exposure and you get darker, then you pass this on to your offspring.


I think/see that the effect of the sun on the body is more deeply rooted, and since it can affect the cellular, even genetic structure in e.g, skin cancer development, that change can also be hereditary passed on.

Perhaps God designed the skin cells to be so adaptive (cf. Acts 17:26, even if the word “blood” has been supplied (KJV)). E.g., in the case that (sinless) man should migrate and live on another planet in this galaxy, so that they can still get the sufficient amount of sunlight given the possible exposure.

Originally Posted By: APL
But other thing influence color. Google, "Russian tame foxes". This is an interesting experiment which led to the production of foxes which were tame like Dogs, in just 10 generation. They were foxes, but tame. But other interesting things happened also, making them useless for the Russian fur industry. These tame foxes looked like dogs. They coats changed. They go white splotches, they tails curved, or changed length. There are interesting videos and pictures on the Internet of these tame foxes. But they were still foxes! What changes was their temperament. And this may have changed the amount of adrenal hormones which affects everything else including other morphology such as coat colors and tails. Genetically, they did not change, but gene expression changed. Darwin finches are another example of epigenetic change. This is NOT evolution. Transposons are a complete different animal all together. However, epigenetics can play a roll in keeping them in check. The health laws are not arbitrary.


Seems to me here, the reason why their genes where not changed was because the change was merely temperamental, even quasi-psychosomatic, and not as physical as the sun’s effect on the body. Manifestly Jacob also knew of such tricks (Gen 30:32-43).
Posted By: APL

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/11/11 12:59 AM

Quote:
I see that question as being besides the point. The fact is they could live forever, and you cannot do this with a physically decrepit body.
This is your assumption. Perhaps the point is that as sin "accumulates", an individual does become more decrepit. It may be torture to maintain an individual in this state.

In our discussions before, you attribute all death and deformity in nature due to the absents of the TOL. I do not see this fitting the SOP, just as shown in the thorns quote.
Quote:
Strictly speaking, I rather see neither, but merely the spiritually issue of “transgression” which gave Satan full access to this “world”. However in terms of their own physical issues, this to me clearly came from being banned access to the TOL.
And here we disagree.
Quote:
I think you are literalising the figurative aspects of this quote.
OK - were the 6 days of creation literal? is the TOL literal? Is the TOKOGE literal? Are all these things just metaphors, or spiritual? Where to you make the break from literal? I'm surprised you did not analyze the verse (Gen 3:15). The word translated "seed" is "zera": seed, offspring, descendants, semen. Is this just "spiritual" and "intangible"? Genetics can fit.
Quote:
If the consequences of sin could “genetically mapped” then I think that God would have produced that result a long time ago and avert the GC all together. There were clear mental/spiritual intangibles involved and genetical deficiency would not have been part of this equation had access to the TOL been maintained.
This is your interpretation. The GC is about a number of things, but freedom is one of them. Do we have freedom? Not everything we are free to do is good to do. Here is a hypothesis - and it is just that: Satan, a very intelligent being, with untold time of existence. He was second only to Christ. Satan discovered how his own make up works. He thought he could "improve" is make up. "Is God's law imperfect, in need of amendment or abrogation, or is it immutable? Is God's government in need of change, or is it stable?" {ST, August 27, 1902 par. 3} "Satan sought to correct the law of God in heaven, and to supply an amendment of his own. {ST, November 19, 1894 par. 2}". Satan started on himself. Read {GC 495.3}. Satan lied about God. Accusing God of being arbitrary, or blocking freedom. God let Satan and sin play out, thus demonstrating the truth and justice of His Law. The wages of sin is death (Rom 6:23), not an arbitrarily imposed penalty. If God had let Satan die from the effects of sin, then the universe, not having seen death, would have then served God out of fear. Only at the cross was the penalty of sin clearly demonstated. And how was God involved? Did God execute his Son? No. The wages of sin is death. Death not just from being barred from the TOL.
Quote:

If, according to you, “genetic manipulation” was quasi-explicitly spoken of by EGW in regards to humans, than why not also for what would have similarly been done in Heaven. Some sort of “fruit” would have been mentioned.
Adam and Eve were tricked, deceived into sin, or which the fruit was the medium. The heavenly angels were not necessarily tricked into the experiment. EGW talks of sin as an experiment. PP42, GC499 and others. The experiment will protect the universe for ever. Why? How? Will not new beings be created? Will they have questions about God? Yes. And this experiment will show that God is true and right. You can't mess with what God has made, it will destroy you. Again, it is more that an intangible, it is physical.
Quote:
In EGW’s writings, I only see that the “Law” discussed here is the Ten Commandment Law, so exegetically speaking, according to her understanding, I would say that she meant the 10C.
OK, then try this quote. Is it just the 10C?
Quote:
EGW:"A continual transgression of nature’s laws is a continual transgression of the law of God.{4T 30.2}" "Obedience to natural laws is obedience to divine laws." {3BC 1144.1} "Then the psalmist connects the law of God in the natural world with the laws given to His created intelligences. " {3BC 1144.2}. "The law of God is as sacred as God Himself. It is a revelation of His will, a transcript of His character, the expression of divine love and wisdom. The harmony of creation depends upon the perfect conformity of all beings, of everything, animate and inanimate, to the law of the Creator. God has ordained laws for the government, not only of living beings, but of all the operations of nature. Everything is under fixed laws, which cannot be disregarded." {PP 52.3}
Natures laws are part of God's law.
Quote:
In regards to thorns and weeds, which do have to be originally/distinctly planted, i.e., to my knowledge, cannot derive from good seed, this is where I would see a literal application of the ‘Satan’s noxious herb planting’ statement.
yes, and he planted them when he tempted Adam to eat, per EGW.
Quote:
Of course, that’s the big “IF” here... I rather the effect of eating that banned fruit as only being Spiritual. If a sinner becomes “chemically dependent” then sin is no longer a free choice. Like a drug addict, they virtually have no choice but to get another hit, no matter how much they would not want to.
THAT is the point! All have sin. Romans 5:12, death passed to all men because of Adam's sin. You say this is only because they no longer have access to the TOL. IF that is true, and I do not think so, then Romans 5:18 does not fit. Christ did not need to die to restore life, just put the tree back.

But sin does take us captive. It destroys free will. Only because of the enmity that God supernaturally placed has man had free will to resist sin. Consider this quote:
Quote:
By nature we are alienated from God. The Holy Spirit describes our condition in such words as these: "Dead in trespasses and sins;" "the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint;" "no soundness in it." We are held fast in the snare of Satan, "taken captive by him at his will." Ephesians 2:1; Isaiah 1:5, 6; 2 Timothy 2:26. God desires to heal us, to set us free. But since this requires an entire transformation, a renewing of our whole nature, we must yield ourselves wholly to Him. {SC 43.2}
See? Held fast in the snare, taken captive. To set us free, Christ must change the WHOLE NATURE. Not just a thought pattern, but the hardware on which thought runs needs transformation. That is the point I'm making!
Quote:
Just looking at this from the Theological paradigm that a sinless God was born as a man to a mother who was living 4000 years after sin is, to me, enough to explain how Jesus ‘took upon Himself the fallen nature of man’. I.e., He did not exist on earth in only a Divine Nature.
He was sinless, but "He took upon His sinless nature our sinful nature, that He might know how to succor those that are tempted. {MM 181.3}". 2 Corinthians 5:21 AKJV For he has made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. How was he made to be sin? He never had doubts about His Father, never believed the lies. He took or sinful nature upon Himself. It is in the genes...
Quote:
Again here, I do not see that such statements need to go to your genetical extreme. Sin hereditary human nature would have sufficed.

I also don’t see, at least here, a support for your “accumulation” view.
It is not my view. It is EGW's view. TE accumulate over time, they don't go away. It fits.
Quote:
I think/see that the effect of the sun on the body is more deeply rooted, and since it can affect the cellular, even genetic structure in e.g, skin cancer development, that change can also be hereditary passed on.
Well, you will have to provide a mechanism for this. The only way to pass on genetics to our offspring is via the gametes. When you get a sunburn, it burns the skin, affecting the cells of the skin. Sunburn does not give you heartburn. I see no science for this view.
Quote:
Seems to me here, the reason why their genes where not changed was because the change was merely temperamental, even quasi-psychosomatic, and not as physical as the sun’s effect on the body. Manifestly Jacob also knew of such tricks (Gen 30:32-43).
I don't think you understand epigenetics. Google this: NOVA epigenetics "tale of two mice". Perhaps that will help.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/11/11 06:18 AM

Summarily said APL, as stated before, as this Genetic/TOKGE topic is not one that is of primary importance to me, especially as it is merely a hypothesis on your part, I don’t see a need to try to discuss it further. Still I see that your are making way too much of what I see has merely Spiritual implications, all revolving around one’s free choices. Through your ‘genetic hypothesis view’ you obviously see and read different meanings in all “related” Bible and SOP passage. I just don’t see the Theological validity of this, as also previously discussed and answered. The sin trickery, sin chemical dependence, etc., premises, are just not Biblical to me. When I have my needed resources, I will likely engage/address your view in more detail. (By the way, it is God who said that a sinner can live forever. You are the one who effectively thinks that He made a mistake here.)

In regards to the amalgation subject at hand: My, albeit, hypothesis, is that God could have expressedly wired man to be able to recode the skin cells in order to deal with various sunlight exposure, depending on where exactly one lives, including elsewhere in this universe. So the body having to constantly deal with extreme sunlight exposure, resulting in it darkening the skin color, could then be encode for that color in the genes and indeed genetically passed on through the gamete, as any other gene information. And that would occur at the sub-epigenetic level.
Posted By: APL

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/11/11 06:04 PM

Quote:
Still I see that your are making way too much of what I see has merely Spiritual implications, all revolving around one’s free choices
As I quoted above, Ephesians 2:1; Isaiah 1:5, 6; 2 Timothy 2:26, the human race has been taken captive. The only free choice I see is the ability to choose or reject God. A new born baby needs a savior. As it is written, John 8:34 GNB Jesus said to them, "I am telling you the truth: everyone who sins is a slave of sin. And ALL have sinned. And read earlier in chapter: Romans 8:1-3 GNB There is no condemnation now for those who live in union with Christ Jesus. (v2) For the law of the Spirit, which brings us life in union with Christ Jesus, has set me free from the law of sin and death. (v3) What the Law could not do, because human nature was weak, God did. He condemned sin in human nature by sending his own Son, who came with a nature like our sinful nature, to do away with sin.

Human NATURE is weak. Christ took our sinful nature to do away with sin. I do see that you can separate our physical nature from our "spiritual". There is an integral connection.

Skin - if your hypothesis is correct, then someone moving from an equatorial climate to a Northern climate would experience a change. Do we see that?

With Darwin's finches, they experienced a change in beak size do to the stress of drought. This was not a genetic change but an epigenetic change. Epigenetic switches can be passed on to the offspring, in the next generation. So you do not have to have a change in genetics (DNA) to pass on changes to your offspring. Darwin's finches in no way prove "evolution". Evolution is a change in DNA, not a change in epigenetics, and the finches were an example of the latter. A number of Bible references and EGW come to mind. The 10 commandments for example, the iniquity of the father to the children to the 3rd and 4th generation... And EGW talks about the experiences of the mother during pregnancy affecting the character of the offspring. This sure sounds like epigenetic changes to me.

Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/11/11 10:22 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
As I quoted above, Ephesians 2:1; Isaiah 1:5, 6; 2 Timothy 2:26, the human race has been taken captive. The only free choice I see is the ability to choose or reject God. A new born baby needs a savior. As it is written, John 8:34 GNB Jesus said to them, "I am telling you the truth: everyone who sins is a slave of sin. And ALL have sinned. And read earlier in chapter: Romans 8:1-3 GNB There is no condemnation now for those who live in union with Christ Jesus. (v2) For the law of the Spirit, which brings us life in union with Christ Jesus, has set me free from the law of sin and death. (v3) What the Law could not do, because human nature was weak, God did. He condemned sin in human nature by sending his own Son, who came with a nature like our sinful nature, to do away with sin.

Human NATURE is weak. Christ took our sinful nature to do away with sin. I do see that you can separate our physical nature from our "spiritual". There is an integral connection.


Again, with all of those texts cited, including Rom 8:1-3, I exegetically see that you are eisegetically reading a ‘genetics law” into it, where the issue is purely a Spiritual and Free Choice one. Case I point, Rom 8:1-3, if a ‘born from above’ person was ‘“set free from the “genetic” law of sin and death” as provided by Christ,’ then how come they still suffer the effects of sin by, e.g., getting old and die in this life, let alone sin (cf. Rom 7). To me, it is all and has always been, from the start of this GC a purely volitional matter, which, when the wrong choice was made, resulted in physical detriment by the removal of the “Tree of Life” provision in its various dispensing forms.

Originally Posted By: APL
Skin - if your hypothesis is correct, then someone moving from an equatorial climate to a Northern climate would experience a change. Do we see that?


Perhaps, either way, if they lived as long, and as unexposed/exposed to the sun, as those who live right after the flood, in a now damaged world. As some degree of exposure to the Sun is constant for most going from a darker skin “composition” to a lighter one may be much more slow/complicated than the other way around, as seen in how relatively fast someone can get a “surface” dark tan, indeed comparatively vs. how long it takes for them to lose it.

The fact that people in Africa, as well as other southern climates have a history of predominantly living out in the open/nature, versus others who had to build climate shelters and thus naturally lived in them year round, among other factors, led to this skin adapting change over time, with not much reasons for a reversal either way after that in succeeding, much shorter, sheltered and comfortably living generations.

Originally Posted By: APL
With Darwin's finches, they experienced a change in beak size do to the stress of drought. This was not a genetic change but an epigenetic change. Epigenetic switches can be passed on to the offspring, in the next generation. So you do not have to have a change in genetics (DNA) to pass on changes to your offspring. Darwin's finches in no way prove "evolution". Evolution is a change in DNA, not a change in epigenetics, and the finches were an example of the latter. A number of Bible references and EGW come to mind. The 10 commandments for example, the iniquity of the father to the children to the 3rd and 4th generation... And EGW talks about the experiences of the mother during pregnancy affecting the character of the offspring. This sure sounds like epigenetic changes to me.


I have not studied this topic in detail so I cannot make certain statements on this, however my view/working hypothesis is/would-be that both Character and Skin “sun-shading” are two aspects of the human body/person that God has permitted to be externally “malleable”. In terms of Character, this would justify generational curses for certain (influential) sins of Fathers in order to assure it “hereditary/cultivated” eradication.
Posted By: APL

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/12/11 09:05 AM

Quote:
Again, with all of those texts cited, including Rom 8:1-3, I exegetically see that you are eisegetically reading a ‘genetics law” into it, where the issue is purely a Spiritual and Free Choice one. Case I point, Rom 8:1-3, if a ‘born from above’ person was ‘“set free from the “genetic” law of sin and death” as provided by Christ,’ then how come they still suffer the effects of sin by, e.g., getting old and die in this life, let alone sin (cf. Rom 7). To me, it is all and has always been, from the start of this GC a purely volitional matter, which, when the wrong choice was made, resulted in physical detriment by the removal of the “Tree of Life” provision in its various dispensing forms.
So the tree of Knowledge is just a what, a symbol?

EGW talks about the physical side of things, I'm sure you will say that is ONLY do to the absents of the TOL...
Quote:
     The teaching given in regard to what is termed "holy flesh" is an error. All may now obtain holy hearts, but it is not correct to claim in this life to have holy flesh. The apostle Paul declares, "I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing" (Romans 7:18). To those who have tried so hard to obtain by faith so-called holy flesh, I would say, You cannot obtain it. Not a soul of you has holy flesh now. No human being on the earth has holy flesh. It is an impossibility.  {2SM 32.1} 
     If those who speak so freely of perfection in the flesh, could see things in the true light, they would recoil with horror from their presumptuous ideas. In showing the fallacy of their assumptions in regard to holy flesh, the Lord is seeking to prevent men and women from putting on His words a construction which leads to pollution of body, soul, and spirit. Let this phase of doctrine be carried a little further, and it will lead to the claim that its advocates cannot sin; that since they have holy flesh, their actions are all holy. What a door of temptation would thus be opened!  {2SM 32.2} 
     The Scriptures teach us to seek for the sanctification to God of body, soul, and spirit. In this work we are to be laborers together with God. Much may be done to restore the moral image of God in man, to improve the physical, mental, and moral capabilities. Great changes can be made in the physical system by obeying the laws of God and bringing into the body nothing that defiles. And while we cannot claim perfection of the flesh, we may have Christian perfection of the soul.
...
When human beings receive holy flesh, they will not remain on the earth, but will be taken to heaven. While sin is forgiven in this life, its results are not now wholly removed. It is at His coming that Christ is to "change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Philippians 3:21). . . .  {2SM 33.3} 
So, which is it - is the vile body caused by a lack of access to the TOL or is it caused by sin? You are saying, the only reason the body degenerates and has disease is do to the lack of access to the TOL. This statement is saying, that the vileness of the body is caused by sin, a primary cause.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/12/11 10:13 AM

-The TOK itself was not the issue. The tangible act of taking of its fruit and eating of it was what concretized Adam and Eve willingness to disobey God and thus open the door fully to Satan’s unrestricted access to them. The whole thing was just a tangible “object-lesson” type of test.

(I don’t see how the claims of “holy flesh” have to do with what I had said.) (1) EGW is here speaking of the benefits that healthy living can have on those who observe God’s health laws, as indeed clearly proven. (2) Those EGW statements are made in a post-TOL removal context. Without that removal, the life perpetuating supernatural elements in that Fruit would have continued to do its work on maintaining the original optimal health. (Not only that, but nature also would have remained perfect, as the Garden of Eden did, still, aromatically, having access to the TOL.) And barring a radical death blow, I don’t see anything that this supernatural fruit could not have remedied. In fact my view is that Satan vindictively acted to bring noxious elements in the world because God had removed this opportunity for sinful man to live eternally. He thus wanted to turn man against God for so, literally/directly causing their death, and sought to accelerate this desired objective with those means.
Posted By: APL

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/12/11 05:59 PM

Quote:
-The TOK itself was not the issue. The tangible act of taking of its fruit and eating of it was what concretized Adam and Eve willingness to disobey God and thus open the door fully to Satan’s unrestricted access to them. The whole thing was just a tangible “object-lesson” type of test.
That is the point I've observed - most people discount the fruit entirely. I think that is stepping too far. I see the fruit as integral. I've given you quotes on a different thread and will not repeat them here.

"holy flesh" - here is the point, there are things that damage us physiologically. Not only that, a lot of the physiology can be healed by adherence to the laws of health, and there is not TOL causing the healing.
Quote:
If those who speak so freely of perfection in the flesh, could see things in the true light, they would recoil with horror from their presumptuous ideas.
OK - why would they recoil in horror? What is the problem with the "flesh". Sure fits the genetic hypothesis.
Quote:
And barring a radical death blow, I don’t see anything that this supernatural fruit could not have remedied.
So Christ' mission did what? Was it necessary, particularly if the TOL could heal anything? The word "salvation" is healing. I think you see the sin problem as totally a psychiatric disease. Would the be a fair assessment?
Posted By: APL

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/12/11 06:24 PM

Quote:
Jesus Christ "counted it not a thing to be grasped to be equal with God." Because divinity alone could be efficacious in the restoration of man from the poisonous bruise of the serpent, God himself, in his only begotten Son, assumed human nature, and in the weakness of human nature sustained the character of God, vindicated his holy law in every particular, and accepted the sentence of wrath and death for the sons of men.
The poisonous bruise is what? Psychiatric disease? Lack of access to the Tree of Life? What? And what did Christ do to remedy the situation, for only He could have done it...
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/13/11 08:56 AM

Originally Posted By: APL
That is the point I've observed - most people discount the fruit entirely. I think that is stepping too far. I see the fruit as integral.


I merely see it as a tangible act confirming this decision to disobey God. Just like two people could just declare themselves to be “married” by just living together, but instead, to “make it official” either get married in a Civil ceremony and/or also Religiously in Church. Adam and Eve, being somewhat tempted, could have pondered disobeying God for decades, and still really not sin, but until they made the action, by taking and eating the banned fruit, that showed that this was indeed what they wanted to, they had indeed not yet sinned against God, with that actually being the most prominent way that they could sin.

Originally Posted By: APL
I've given you quotes on a different thread and will not repeat them here.


I don’t pointedly recall your arguments on this, so perhaps you can provide the Post #/link where you had expressed, or begun to express these arguments.

Originally Posted By: APL
"holy flesh" - here is the point, there are things that damage us physiologically. Not only that, a lot of the physiology can be healed by adherence to the laws of health, and there is not TOL causing the healing.


I see now. However I stil find that God’s statement in Gen 3:22-24, as explicitly corroborated in the SOP that ‘a sinful man could live eternally’ overrides this view. Sure the psyche (aka. soul) would be sinful, but God said that this would not affect that person being physically able, with the supernatural remedies in the Fruit of Life to perpetually live eternally.

Furthermore, I don’t see that genetics and the psyche/psychology necessarily mix. In other words, I see that when God will give the redeemed a brand new body, it will contain a perfect “set” of genes automatically free from any traces of sin. On the other hand, the psyche, from which character is derived, like software for a computer, will be what we have “inscribed” in it by e.g., our thoughts, actions and decision, although I Biblically understand that God will first excise all and any traces of sinful elements from it first where those former adverse things will not ‘come to mind’. Still we will then have to on our own grow our characters to what they should be/should have been, starting with the good things that we already have and which were “carried over” into Heaven.

So I don’t see this psyche/psychological/soul “healing” as being something substantive per se, though the thoughts involved here do have a, probably not yet understood, tangible form. Our “character” is left up to us to form and not dependent/subject to on any form of external healing agent for it to be improved. Indeed it cannot even be “restored” as it is whatever one has built it up to be. God did not give Adam and Eve a “perfect character” as with their perfect bodies. They merely had a quasi-blank one that was free of both sin and also what good they were supposed to do. They were really fundamentally supposed to form it out of the basic principle of Loving God and Love their Fellow Humans.

Quote:
Originally Posted By: SOP (2SM 32.2)
If those who speak so freely of perfection in the flesh, could see things in the true light, they would recoil with horror from their presumptuous ideas.


APL: OK - why would they recoil in horror? What is the problem with the "flesh". Sure fits the genetic hypothesis.


I have not done an indepth study of this “holy flesh” issue, but it seems to me that it is Spiritually speaking of the ‘habitual desire and tendency to sin in various ways’. Thus the flesh is set against the “spirit”. (e.g, Matt 26:41; John 3:6). As I understand it, those who were claiming holy flesh were saying that they were free from such carnal (= habitual) tendencies to sin. As the greater context of that quote (Post #135094) specifies, those people had a belief that, since they had Holy Flesh, they could not do anything wrong, whatever they actually did, which apparently led them into a life of licentiousness. So EGW was exposing the horror of that misconception.

And even if the processes of the mind can and do affect the “composition/behavior” of the body/flesh, creating a craving, the notion that this was done by Satan in the TOKGE fruit is still not, especially Theologically valid to me. The “sin” that man gave in to only needed to be at the same level as the one that Satan himself had fallen.

Indeed the processes involved in Man’s fall and fallen men since could simply be that the body comes to craves the various secreted “substances” when something is ingested or that is produced when a sinful action is done. In particularly internally produces secretions, I don’t see that this is necessarily hereditary, however with some external substances, such as alcohol, it can come to re/mis-code applicable genes and be indeed passed on.

Good emotions do produces feeling that the body can crave and similarly sinful actions can do the same for particularly those who want it (i.e., it is ultimately still a mental psyche/mental decision, particularly giving in to it.). That is why I see a teaching that claims that Satan was allowed to make people sin addicts as not Biblical, given the abundant teachings in the Bible on the free and evitable choice involved in sinning vs. doing good.

Quote:
NJK: And barring a radical death blow, I don’t see anything that this supernatural fruit could not have remedied.

APL: So Christ' mission did what? Was it necessary, particularly if the TOL could heal anything?


Jesus’s successful mission made it possible that (1) Sinful man can be forgiven; (2) our psyche can be expunged from sin and also the wrath punishment that God naturally would pour out on it; and (3) by now being those character wise pure people, we can be trusted to live eternally, starting with a entirely brand new physical body to “house” that pure psyche, though I still see this in Heaven as conditional upon continued obedience.

Originally Posted By: APL
The word "salvation" is healing. I think you see the sin problem as totally a psychiatric disease. Would the be a fair assessment?


True, for the salvation point, however I don’t see sin as a “disease” per se, but a condition, because one always has the choice whether to sin or not and thus contribute to that condition, which however, as with many conversion stories, it can be radically abandoned, (i.e., compared to what it was before). A “diseases” to me seems like something that one cannot actually overcome. Though it is common for man to sin, I see that God expected man to live without sinning and will also be momentarily looking for this in the final generation to be translated without seeing death.

So the notion of “healing” in salvation to me is purely a spiritual one. A person can control his/her choice to sin.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/13/11 08:58 AM

Originally Posted By: APL
Quote:
Jesus Christ "counted it not a thing to be grasped to be equal with God." Because divinity alone could be efficacious in the restoration of man from the poisonous bruise of the serpent, God himself, in his only begotten Son, assumed human nature, and in the weakness of human nature sustained the character of God, vindicated his holy law in every particular, and accepted the sentence of wrath and death for the sons of men.
The poisonous bruise is what? Psychiatric disease? Lack of access to the Tree of Life? What?


I personally see that you are here also making literal what I Theologically see/understand to be figurative expressions. Indeed that language is referring to the figurative statement in Gen 3:15b and so if you want to be literal here, you have to be also claiming that the Serpent actually “bruised/crushed” the head on man and not ‘poisoned them through the banned fruit’. On purely this figurative/spiritual notion, this “head bruising” to me is symbolic of the Serpent, through his success in making Man sin, coming to affect the psyche of Man where they would now prefer to choose sin, and the heel bruising, which caused someone to no longer be mobile, could be symbolic of how God, through a finally triumphant plan of Redemption, including the work of the redeem would come to literally bring down Satan by first pinning him down to this planet for 1000 years. (I believe that Satan and his evil angel will be then physically restricted to this temporarily abandoned planet until his final judgement and no longer allowed to freely roam the universe. And the “immobolizing” tangibly, typologically, object-lesson, started with the serpent creature no longer being able to flying as before. It very well may be that the creature serpent, who I believe like all animals also have a tangible psyche, actually allowed itself to become puffed up and was the only animal that accepted Satan to enter into it in order to tempt Adam and Eve and so God fittingly punished it for this free choice.

Originally Posted By: APL
And what did Christ do to remedy the situation, for only He could have done it...


I believe I have answered this issue with its, to me, lone Spiritual implications in regards to sin, in the post above (#135103).
Posted By: Elle

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/13/11 02:33 PM

I haven't read all this discussion yet, just your first post here. This is quite interesting information you are bringing. I'm kind out of touch with the latest in cellular biology and just read a little about transposons when I read that these are the "junk DNAs" that I was familiar with.
Originally Posted By: APL
In humans, transposons, mobile genetic material can move between individuals and species.

From what I'm reading and understanding, transposon activities is restricted within the host and the genetic material do not travel outside into another host. Could you confirm or clarify?
Posted By: APL

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/13/11 08:19 PM

Originally Posted By: Elle
I haven't read all this discussion yet, just your first post here. This is quite interesting information you are bringing. I'm kind out of touch with the latest in cellular biology and just read a little about transposons when I read that these are the "junk DNAs" that I was familiar with.
Originally Posted By: APL
In humans, transposons, mobile genetic material can move between individuals and species.

From what I'm reading and understanding, transposon activities is restricted within the host and the genetic material do not travel outside into another host. Could you confirm or clarify?
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is shared laterally, among bacteria of the same species and different species. This is done via plasmids and transposons.

I've read a study looking at rabbit endogenous retroviruses, RERV. The consentration of the RERV was measured in the meat of the rabbit, and the meat was eaten by the researches. The RERV what then measures in their blood. This is a potential mechanism for lateral transfer. The human genome has over 25,000 endogenous retroviruses. HIV is a retrovirus. The virus is taken up, DNA made from RNA, and the DNA is expressed. This is lateral transfer. There are many studies looking at the lateral transfer of transposable genetic elements.

Genetic engineering these days take advantage of the transposable elements. TEs can be designed to "attack" very specific locations within the DNA with incredible precision.

Many things in our physiology that we take for granted, may indeed to due to alterations by transposable elements. There is a virus, Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV), which can cause pneumonia and "syncytiums". Syncytiums is a single cell with multiple nuclei. Skeletal muscle is an example of "normal" body tissue that forms syncytiums. Another site the forms syncytiums is the outer later of a growning fetus called the syncytial trophoblasts. This tissue sheds transposable elements ensuring that any fetus born, will be "infected" by transposable elements. Genesis 3:16 AKJV To the woman he said, I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;... Is there a connection?
Posted By: APL

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/13/11 08:41 PM

NJK said:
Quote:
Furthermore, I don’t see that genetics and the psyche/psychology necessarily mix.


Then all I can say is that you do not understand the connection between physiology, brain function, and psyche.

Many experiments have been done looking at combinations of genetic variations, specifically looking at single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP). Studies done in Israel looking a combinations of SNPs, researchers were able to predict with something like 75-80% how an individual would response to certain psychological experiments. Not 100%! And that is important, for freewill can override genetics. A lecture I heard gives another example of how genetics affects behavior is seen in a family in Europe, the Balkan countries, where they looked at 250 males of an extended family. 80% of the males were in prison for murder. These males have a genetic defect that affects I believe it was the amigdala. When they got into confrontational situations, the normal biochemical mechanisms that quiet anger are not there, and their anger escalates, to the point of murder. But again, not every single male with this defect is a murderer. The point is, there is a connection between the physiology and the psyche. Habits and behaviors we choose to indulge in, can affect the underlying physiology and thus ultimately our characters, in both inherited and cultivated ways. EGW says this about physiology and mind: "There is an intimate relation between the mind and the body; they react upon each other." {RH, February 11, 1902 par. 5} The body is first laid down by genetics. To divorce the two is impossible.

And this EGW quote is clear to me: "Christ has given us no assurance that to attain perfection of character is an easy matter. A noble, all-around character is not inherited. It does not come to us by accident. A noble character is earned by individual effort through the merits and grace of Christ. God gives the talents, the powers of the mind; we form the character. It is formed by hard, stern battles with self. Conflict after conflict must be waged against hereditary tendencies. We shall have to criticize ourselves closely and allow not one unfavorable trait to remain uncorrected." --COL 331 (1900). {2MCP 546.1}

So - where did these inherited tendencies come from in the first place? How are they generated? How are they expressed? How are they transferred? To me the answer is sin, but then how does sin cause these effects. It is not due to the lack of access to the TOL.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/13/11 10:27 PM

Originally Posted By: APL
Then all I can say is that you do not understand the connection between physiology, brain function, and psyche.


That’s likely... as I have not done much study in this science.

Originally Posted By: APL
Many experiments have been done looking at combinations of genetic variations, specifically looking at single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP). Studies done in Israel looking a combinations of SNPs, researchers were able to predict with something like 75-80% how an individual would response to certain psychological experiments. Not 100%! And that is important, for freewill can override genetics. A lecture I heard gives another example of how genetics affects behavior is seen in a family in Europe, the Balkan countries, where they looked at 250 males of an extended family. 80% of the males were in prison for murder. These males have a genetic defect that affects I believe it was the amigdala. When they got into confrontational situations, the normal biochemical mechanisms that quiet anger are not there, and their anger escalates, to the point of murder. But again, not every single male with this defect is a murderer. The point is, there is a connection between the physiology and the psyche. Habits and behaviors we choose to indulge in, can affect the underlying physiology and thus ultimately our characters, in both inherited and cultivated ways. EGW says this about physiology and mind: "There is an intimate relation between the mind and the body; they react upon each other." {RH, February 11, 1902 par. 5} The body is first laid down by genetics. To divorce the two is impossible.


Interesting example and SOP quote however my question, if that example is to be applicable to what EGW said: is the Amygdala the psyche itself or is it just one of the mechanism that the psyche using in actualizing itself. As an example, from what I just skimly read on the Amygdala, I see it as being the brake cable in a bicycle brake assembly and the psyche actually not even being the brake handle, but somewhat as intangible, yet still present as the rider’s hand. I.e., those people in that experiment, if not psychotic, probably wanted to stop this anger escalation but just couldn’t no matter how hard they tried, as it would be seen/heard in their probable expressed regret after. So if the brake cable is not there, no matter how much the rider presses the brake handle, there will be no breaking action. (The Amygdala can even be compared to the brake handle itself with the brake cable being the nervous system that transfers its “braking” action to the rest of the body, still it is the action of the variously distinct human hand that triggers it.)

A good sermon I heard on the concept of the mind (=psyche aka. Soul) is by david Asscherick entitled “The Idol Brain”

Originally Posted By: APL
And this EGW quote is clear to me: "Christ has given us no assurance that to attain perfection of character is an easy matter. A noble, all-around character is not inherited. It does not come to us by accident. A noble character is earned by individual effort through the merits and grace of Christ. God gives the talents, the powers of the mind; we form the character. It is formed by hard, stern battles with self. Conflict after conflict must be waged against hereditary tendencies. We shall have to criticize ourselves closely and allow not one unfavorable trait to remain uncorrected." --COL 331 (1900). {2MCP 546.1}

So - where did these inherited tendencies come from in the first place? How are they generated? How are they expressed? How are they transferred? To me the answer is sin, but then how does sin cause these effects.


Perhaps then, the indulgence into sin by an parent ancestor resulting in the body variously responding to that constant behavior in various physiological affectations comes to inscribe itself in one’s genes, as apparently does alcoholism. If ‘one can be what they externally intake as food’, then perhaps the internal bodily reactions to sin can indeed be transferred. Whereas, as EGW’s statement says, good character apparently keeps the body neutral (i.e., as it should be) and so there really is nothing extra to hereditarily transfer from one’s good character. However the influence of another person’s good character can lead to an emulation which comes to write/inscribe itself on the observing person’s “blank”/neutral psyche slate.

Originally Posted By: APL
It is not due to the lack of access to the TOL.


As I just said above, perhaps indeed to psyche induced, physiologically produced, gene altering processes. However I do not see that this has to go back to an original TOKGE fruit poisoning. Bodily “addictive sinning” (sex addict) which may be a different thing from more “cerebral sinning” (lying to get out of a jam) may have only begun to be instilled some time after Adam and Eve, when others then born began to engage in such “addictive practices”. I do not see a “genetic” nor Theological need for Adam and Eve to have gotten a supposed all-inclusive sin shot through the banned fruit, nor even in their initial act of sinning. Other acts of sins contributed to this possible recoded and passed on “sinful” genes/traits, and that would be why, by Christ’s time, there had come to be a great accumulation over those 4000 years of such “sinful traces” in one’s inherited genetic makeup.

So your genetic view may be valid except for the supposed “all inclusive sin junk shot” in the banned fruit. And if I misunderstood you and you do not believe in an ““all inclusive sin junk shot” in the banned fruit” but rather just a shot of a single sin, which would then meant that the other inherited sinful tendencies, which are indeed different, would have to have been formed after, and even entirely outside of Adam and Eve. That in itself, I see would make your banned fruit poison view moot as it would be stating that such “genetic” traits could have formed independent of the eating of the fruit and whatever single sin poison’ would have been included in there. Unless of course you believe that initial “sin poison” could mutate.

My view is that sin can have physiological affectations from merely thoughts, and the real issue with the Tree of Life and Sinner was merely keeping them healthy, and not making them spiritually sinless and pure. In regards to the redeemed, I see that the wholesale change of a brand new body will take care of any of these inherited sinful tendencies at any level where they may be tangibly present. And, as already stated, for the more/quasi intangible mind/psyche God will be doing a thorough sin excising process to purify it.
Posted By: APL

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/14/11 01:46 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK
is the Amygdala the psyche itself or is it just one of the mechanism that the psyche using in actualizing itself.
Part - all parts make the whole. You can not separate out any part of the nervous system and say, ah, here is the psyche.
Originally Posted By: NJK
Perhaps then, the indulgence into sin by an parent ancestor resulting in the body variously responding to that constant behavior in various physiological affectations comes to inscribe itself in one’s genes, as apparently does alcoholism.
I mentioned epigenetics above. Google this: epigenetics, NOVA, "tale of two mice". This is a good example of epigenetics, and how epigenetic changes can be passed on to the next generation. This example takes 2 identical twin sister mice, and tweak the diet, with BPA. One remains normal with brown fur, the other becomes morbidly obese with golden fur. Go back to a normal diet for both, but the children of the obese mouse are obese. And this persists for - you guessed it - the 3rd or 4th generation.
Originally Posted By: NJK
I do not see a “genetic” nor Theological need for Adam and Eve to have gotten a supposed all-inclusive sin shot through the banned fruit, nor even in their initial act of sinning.
Not all "sin" was experienced in the garden. EGW makes a fascinating statement, that there has not been just one fall, but a sequence of fall, each worse that the prior. Here are two:
Originally Posted By: EGW
Would that man had stopped falling with Adam. But there has been a succession of falls. Men will not take warning from Adam's experience. They will indulge appetite and passion in direct violation of the law of God, and at the same time continue to mourn Adam's transgression, which brought sin into the world. {RH, March 4, 1875 par. 8}

From Adam's day to ours there has been a succession of falls, each greater than the last, in every species of crime. God did not create a race of beings so devoid of health, beauty, and moral power as now exists in the world. Disease of every kind has been fearfully increasing upon the race. This has not been by God's especial providence, but directly contrary to His will. It has come by man's disregard of the very means which God has ordained to shield him from the terrible evils existing. Obedience to God's law in every respect would save men from intemperance, licentiousness, and disease of every type. No one can violate natural law without suffering the penalty. {RH, March 4, 1875 par. 9}
This tells me that sin is the cause of disease and death, not just a lack of access to the TOL. Yes, the TOL was necessary, but you make the jump to say that the TOL would maintain perfect health. Again EGW
Originally Posted By: EGW
The fruit of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden possessed supernatural virtue. To eat of it was to live forever. Its fruit was the antidote of death. {MM 233.5}

For earth's sin and misery the gospel is the only antidote. {MH 141.2}
So yes, the TOL could maintain life, but it would be a sinner's life and it would be misery. To say that everything in the body would function perfectly seems to me a jump too far. In medicine, we often can keep people alive for long periods of time. But often that life is a miserable experience. Removing the TOL was probably a blessing...
Originally Posted By: NJK
So your genetic view may be valid except for the supposed “all inclusive sin junk shot” in the banned fruit.
I don't know what was in the fruit. I don't think is was nothing. I think the fruit was integral to the sin issue, taking scripture and EGW together. Example from Early Writings, speaking about worlds other than earth:
Originally Posted By: EGW
"None in this place have tasted of the forbidden tree; but if they should eat, they would fall." {EW 39.3}
And scripture, Hebrews 1:3, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 5:12, Hebrews 2:17, and many more. And what happened in the tree was only the start. As I showed, EGW talks about a succession of falls. If sin were just the believing the lie about God, then is the succession just believing more lies? If the genetic hypothesis is true, what we see is multiple "infestations" of genetic transposable elements. And the "attacks" are not over! New TEs are being discovered. The "war" is still on. So again, I don't know what was in the fruit. God and Satan may have had a deal where if Adam ate the fruit, then Satan would have free reign. EGW does talk about the "seeds" that cause death and tares by "amalgamation", her words, when Adam at the fruit.
Originally Posted By: EGW
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}
And this one, again, taking the definition of "seed" in Genesis 3:15 to mean, genetics, which I think I've shown is a possible definition, EGW says this:
Originally Posted By: EGW
Man is God's property, and the ruin that has been made of the living habitation, the suffering caused by the seeds of death sown in the human system, are an offense to God.--Medical Ministry, page 229. {Te 87.5}
There is nothing good that I know of with the genetic transposable elements, TEs. There are many scientific papers that point to them causing disease, that some have hypothesized that ALL disease is caused by TEs. In fact there is a strong correlation with some TE and psychiatric diseases.

But we must not make any final judgment about people. Jesus healed the demoniac. Did Jesus heal the demoniac against his will? No. But the demoniac was so taken over, that he could only utter the words of Satan. We know that there are many addictive substances, and these substances cause genetic switches to be thrown that make it very difficult to quit. This is called chemical "dependency". This is a real physical need that is acquired. Some drug addictions such as barbiturates, can cause death with sudden withdrawal. EGW said this about the demoniac:
Originally Posted By: EGW
Deliverance for Those in Need Today.--There are multitudes today as truly under the power of evil spirits as was the demoniac of Capernaum. All who willfully depart from God's commandments are placing themselves under the control of Satan. Many a man tampers with evil, thinking that he can break away at pleasure; but he is lured on and on, until he finds himself controlled by a will stronger than his own. He cannot escape its mysterious power. Secret sin or master passion may hold him a captive as helpless as was the demoniac at Capernaum. {Te 123.2}

Yet his condition is not hopeless. God does not control our minds without our consent; but every man is free to choose what power he will have to rule over him. None have fallen so low, none are so vile, but they may find deliverance in Christ. The demoniac, in place of prayer, could utter only the words of Satan; yet the heart's unspoken appeal was heard. No cry from a soul in need, though it fail of utterance in words, will be unheeded. Those who consent to enter into covenant with God are not left to the power of Satan or to the infirmity of their own nature. {Te 123.3}

"Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, or the lawful captive delivered? . . . Thus saith the Lord, Even the captives of the mighty shall be taken away, and the prey of the terrible shall be delivered: for I will contend with him that contendeth with thee, and I will save thy children." Isaiah 49:24, 25. {Te 123.4}
One last point, all this discussion is speaking about a post fall brain. And I'm going to inject my engineering background here and think about the pre-fall brain, and this is oppinion, I could be wrong. I do not think that God created junk. I do not think God created being that can self-destruct by just thinking wrong. I think the system has been altered. Satan planted the seeds into the system. Now it is vulnerable. Pre-fall, it was not. Sin is messing with the way God designed the system to run. God's work is perfect, His "law", perfect. Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalms 19:7. Nahum 1:9 tells us affliction will not rise a second time. Why? Will there ever be a time again when people will question God? What about new creatures which are created after the sin problem of now is resolved? I think that sin will not rise again because it will have been shown and well documented that God can be trusted, that His work is perfect, and if you mess with the way His creatures are to operate, it will destroy them. The documentation of this experiment of sin will be there for all in the future to see and review. That's my opinion...
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/14/11 04:02 AM

Quote:
NJK: is the Amygdala the psyche itself or is it just one of the mechanism that the psyche using in actualizing itself.

APL=Part - all parts make the whole. You can not separate out any part of the nervous system and say, ah, here is the psyche.


I still have the question is the mind/psyche the nervous system itself. As far as I understand, the nervous system is merely a body-wide signals transmitter via neurons. I.e., the bodies electrical distribution network. However is it the generator that produce the electrical signals that flow through the system. Seems to me that there is a distinct entity (i.e, the mind/psyche) that, through thought produce a signal that is then transmitted through those electrical impulses.

---

I’ll indeed concede that some things can be genetically passed on.

Originally Posted By: APL
Not all "sin" was experienced in the garden. EGW makes a fascinating statement, that there has not been just one fall, but a sequence of fall, each worse that the prior. Here are two:


Note the reasons why, and actualizations of, these further “falls” from EGW statements

Originally Posted By: SOP RH, March 4, 1875 par. 8&9
Would that man had stopped falling with Adam. But there has been a succession of falls. Men will not take warning from Adam's experience. They will indulge appetite and passion in direct violation of the law of God, and at the same time continue to mourn Adam's transgression, which brought sin into the world. {RH, March 4, 1875 par. 8}

From Adam's day to ours there has been a succession of falls, each greater than the last, in every species of crime. God did not create a race of beings so devoid of health, beauty, and moral power as now exists in the world. Disease of every kind has been fearfully increasing upon the race. This has not been by God's especial providence, but directly contrary to His will. It has come by man's disregard of the very means which God has ordained to shield him from the terrible evils existing. Obedience to God's law in every respect would save men from intemperance, licentiousness, and disease of every type. No one can violate natural law without suffering the penalty. {RH, March 4, 1875 par. 9}


It seems clear to me that the reasons for these further falls is the increased violation of God’s health and moral laws. I think further falls have been seen since the days of EGW with e.g, sedentary lifestyles producing obesity related diseases, something not seen in her days. Cancer, Aids, STD’s are all further “falls” in my view and not because of something concocted by Satan himself and injected into man, but simply by the disobedience/violation of God’s moral and natural laws through bolder and more careless behavior.

Originally Posted By: APL
This tells me that sin is the cause of disease and death, not just a lack of access to the TOL. Yes, the TOL was necessary, but you make the jump to say that the TOL would maintain perfect health. Again EGW

Originally Posted By: EGW
The fruit of the tree of life in the Garden of Eden possessed supernatural virtue. To eat of it was to live forever. Its fruit was the antidote of death. {MM 233.5}

For earth's sin and misery the gospel is the only antidote. {MH 141.2}


So yes, the TOL could maintain life, but it would be a sinner's life and it would be misery. To say that everything in the body would function perfectly seems to me a jump too far. In medicine, we often can keep people alive for long periods of time. But often that life is a miserable experience. Removing the TOL was probably a blessing...


Perhaps if man, though occasionally sinning, did not engage in acts that violate God’s moral or natural laws, as seen in the way many heathen live today e.g., practising “safe, but promiscuous, sexual relation” all the while being exercising vegans, then they could indeed live that life eternally with the Fruit of Life and free from diseases that is generated by “careless” and unhealthful living. That was perhaps the crux of Satan’s argument. Man did not have to obey all God laws, per se, but merely, if they so wanted to, live “carefully” and healthily, but this still being a sinful law. Even a life that only violates the first 3.5 commandments, as they would be having a day of total rest/relaxation per week, just not either on Saturday or to the glory of God. So I still see the GC issue to be: “why did God make it that someone who did not obey all of His laws as He wanted it to be done, die.”

So under this (relatively) good, fit/healthy, careful, albeit God despising sinner, I see that the TOL would have maintain perfect health, even if only dealing with the somewhat intangible adverse effects produced by violating the first 3.5 commandment, if there actually are any. It could very well be that the only advantage in those commandments is, life the fifth, the quite helpful guidance and protection that God, our parent could provide to those who actually love him. As seen in the health message, SDA’s were the first to benefit from it, and the world had to struggle on its own, mainly through pain and pleasure and trial and error, (as indeed seen in the continuing conflicting studies on the supposed benefits of alcohol), before they saw that it was beneficial. Meanwhile SDA’s who followed this message have been living more optimal lives.

Also keep in mind, as it is quite significant that with the TOL still present, the Earth would be in a perfect state and thus be most conducive to optimal life and health.

Quote:
NJK: So your genetic view may be valid except for the supposed “all inclusive sin junk shot” in the banned fruit.

APL: I don't know what was in the fruit. I don't think is was nothing. I think the fruit was integral to the sin issue, taking scripture and EGW together. Example from Early Writings, speaking about worlds other than earth:

Originally Posted By: EGW
"None in this place have tasted of the forbidden tree; but if they should eat, they would fall." {EW 39.3}
And scripture, Hebrews 1:3, 2 Corinthians 5:21, Romans 5:12, Hebrews 2:17, and many more.


I tried, but do not Theologically/exegetically see your “genetics view”, at least entirely, in those passages. To me, having read all of your arguments, they could still be only involving a spiritual aspect of sin. While “hereditary sinful tendencies” may be also involved, to me it is not ‘tangible sin in its entirety’ as you seem to believe.

Originally Posted By: APL
And what happened in the tree was only the start. As I showed, EGW talks about a succession of falls. If sin were just the believing the lie about God, then is the succession just believing more lies? If the genetic hypothesis is true, what we see is multiple "infestations" of genetic transposable elements. And the "attacks" are not over! New TEs are being discovered. The "war" is still on. So again, I don't know what was in the fruit. God and Satan may have had a deal where if Adam ate the fruit, then Satan would have free reign. EGW does talk about the "seeds" that cause death and tares by "amalgamation", her words, when Adam at the fruit.


I think you can agree that Adam and Eve did not become vile sinners the instant they ate of the Fruit, perhaps, not even for the rest of their lives, actually becoming the fathers of the relatively faithful lineage of the “Sons of God”. Indeed Eve did not even lose her robe of light when she ate of the Fruit. So their Fall, which when compared with their previous sinlessness, would have been a drastic fall in itself. Indeed just like falling/committing a sin for the very first time. There similarly can be quite distinct successive falls from that initial fall, even with the same sin. So I still see that Adam and Eve fall was merely on the Spiritual level. Then as their descendants continued to commit greater sins, indeed with Cain giving in to jealousy and anger killing Abel, successive ‘falls” came as new “sin frontiers” were pursued and boundaries extended by the antediluvians and successive generation. Again from EGW day to our day, even from within my own lifetime, I can say I have seen a further fall of man into sin.

Originally Posted By: APL
Originally Posted By: EGW
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}


And this one, again, taking the definition of "seed" in Genesis 3:15 to mean, genetics, which I think I've shown is a possible definition, EGW says this:

Originally Posted By: EGW
Man is God's property, and the ruin that has been made of the living habitation, the suffering caused by the seeds of death sown in the human system, are an offense to God.--Medical Ministry, page 229. {Te 87.5}


There is nothing good that I know of with the genetic transposable elements, TEs. There are many scientific papers that point to them causing disease, that some have hypothesized that ALL disease is caused by TEs. In fact there is a strong correlation with some TE and psychiatric diseases.


I rather/still see that Adam and Eve fall, like lucifers, who is intelligent enough to know not to live recklessly, only needed to be Spiritual, yet still be a steep Fall. Then loss of optimal health, even if not (yet) “disease”, even if for them merely aging, came to them, and gradually developed when the TOL was removed. And in successive generations, indeed also through the noxious elements that Satan injected into nature, other types/levels of diseases came to be factored in this “Fall” equation.

But we must not make any final judgment about people. Jesus healed the demoniac. Did Jesus heal the demoniac against his will? No. But the demoniac was so taken over, that he could only utter the words of Satan. We know that there are many addictive substances, and these substances cause genetic switches to be thrown that make it very difficult to quit. This is called chemical "dependency". This is a real physical need that is acquired. Some drug addictions such as barbiturates, can cause death with sudden withdrawal. EGW said this about the demoniac:

---

Particularly with mental diseases, God can indeed be the only source of true/full healing vs. bandage chemical balancing/coping.


Originally Posted By: APL
One last point, all this discussion is speaking about a post fall brain. And I'm going to inject my engineering background here and think about the pre-fall brain, and this is oppinion, I could be wrong. I do not think that God created junk. I do not think God created being that can self-destruct by just thinking wrong. I think the system has been altered. Satan planted the seeds into the system. Now it is vulnerable. Pre-fall, it was not. Sin is messing with the way God designed the system to run. God's work is perfect, His "law", perfect. Deuteronomy 32:4; Psalms 19:7. Nahum 1:9 tells us affliction will not rise a second time. Why? Will there ever be a time again when people will question God? What about new creatures which are created after the sin problem of now is resolved? I think that sin will not rise again because it will have been shown and well documented that God can be trusted, that His work is perfect, and if you mess with the way His creatures are to operate, it will destroy them. The documentation of this experiment of sin will be there for all in the future to see and review. That's my opinion...


Couple of points here in regards to this opinion. First of all I do not think that man self-destructs merely by thinking wrong. That is why I believe, as Gen 3:22-24 says, that a ‘sinful(-minded) person’ can live eternally. The destruction occurs when those sinful thoughts are acted upon. So e.g., a sinner may just chose to lust after someone else in his mind but never act upon it. Thus they would prevent the risks of diseases that come when lust is physically acted upon.

I have expressed my exegetical view on Nahum 1:9 in this Post #131487 and responding ones: #131492; #131531; #131548; #131576; #131592; #131623; #131659; #131670; #131690; #131708; #131738; #131748; #131785. On top of the pre-emptive reason you have stated, I think, given the freedom we will still have, sin will not allowed to be concretized, even if merely mentally, because any sin/sinner manifestation will be summarily judged and eradicated, to the approval of all others.

I also have another view, based on EGW’s “Golden Card” revelation, that, at least beings who have never sinned have a total thought “privacy”, meaning that God does not, though capable to, read their thoughts. See here. Perhaps redeemed man will also have this trusting privilege. However sinful thoughts can and would be seen upon merely one’s particular facial “countenance.”
Posted By: APL

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/14/11 05:58 AM

A couple more thoughts. HIV - this is a viral infection, a retrovirus. It is a type of transposable genetic element. Does it cause immediate death? No. But untreated, the sufferer will die. This death is caused by a choice. But only when the choice is fully acted upon. This is an imperfect example, but one none the less.

Jesus said, Luke 5:23 AKJV "Whether is easier, to say, Your sins be forgiven you; or to say, Rise up and walk?" Forgiveness of sins in this case was the same a physical healing. They were the same.

Jesus - was he affected by sin? Yes he was. How? It was in His heredity, because he never "participated" in the sinful (full of sin) human nature.
Originally Posted By: EGW
He took the nature of man, with all its possibilities. We have nothing to endure that He has not endured. . . . Adam had the advantage over Christ, in that when he was assailed by the tempter, none of the effects of sin were upon him. He stood in the strength of perfect manhood, possessing the full vigor of mind and body. He was surrounded with the glories of Eden, and was in daily communion with heavenly beings. It was not thus with Jesus when He entered the wilderness to cope with Satan. For four thousand years the race had been decreasing in physical strength, in mental power, in moral worth; and Christ took upon Him the infirmities of degenerate humanity. Only thus could He rescue man from the lowest depths of degradation.--Ms. 113, 1902, pp. 1, 2 (See DA 117).
If this was only due to the loss of the TOL, then God is to blame for this condition. God is NOT to blame. The human race was degenerating, in BOTH physical and mental/spiritual power. The only way I know that this is passed one to the next generation is genetic with Jesus.
Originally Posted By: EGW
It would have been an almost infinite humiliation for the Son of God to take man's nature, even when Adam stood in his innocence in Eden. But Jesus accepted humanity when the race had been weakened by four thousand years of sin. Like every child of Adam He accepted the results of the working of the great law of heredity. What these results were is shown in the history of His earthly ancestors. He came with such a heredity to share our sorrows and temptations, and to give us the example of a sinless life. {DA 48.5}
The only way the Christ could be MADE SIN, is to take on the same heredity. He never participated in sin. But as Isaiah 53 says, He took or infirmities and carried our sorrows. And as EGW said, accepted the "great law of heredity".
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/14/11 10:49 AM

A couple of response points to your post:

Originally Posted By: APL
A couple more thoughts. HIV - this is a viral infection, a retrovirus. It is a type of transposable genetic element. Does it cause immediate death? No. But untreated, the sufferer will die. This death is caused by a choice. But only when the choice is fully acted upon. This is an imperfect example, but one none the less.


How is the contracting of HIV a (personal) choice when it is contracted through a hospital error during a blood transfusion or an accidental infection? And how is the death aspect of it a choice, as you posit, does someone with HIV have the opposing choice not to die from this virus, especially when they contracted by no unhealthful/immoral living of their own?

Originally Posted By: APL
Jesus said, Luke 5:23 AKJV "Whether is easier, to say, Your sins be forgiven you; or to say, Rise up and walk?" Forgiveness of sins in this case was the same a physical healing. They were the same.


Jesus understood that full restoration, especially from a life that has been affected both spiritually and physically by (4000 years of) sin, involves both the forgiveness of sin as well as, even after, physical healing. As His answer stated He wanted to show and emphasize that the Son of Man has the authority to forgive sins (Luke 5:24). To me the (monthly) TOL fruit could and may have prevented most, if not all of such physical degradation in Man, to the point were the adverse effects of even a unhealthy lifestyle may not have been allowed to take root. The Fruits supernatural element may also have contained a sort of spontaneous formation of a healing element to meet new bodily/health problems.

Originally Posted By: APL
If this was only due to the loss of the TOL, then God is to blame for this condition. God is NOT to blame. The human race was degenerating, in BOTH physical and mental/spiritual power. The only way I know that this is passed one to the next generation is genetic with Jesus.


I think you are mixing your contexts here by making a post-TOL removal context argument for a no-TOL removal one. My Theological/GC position from what I have gathered in the Bible and SOP is that, since sinful man could have lived eternally, then God is indeed to “blame” for this outcome death for all and any person who does not live according to all of His laws. As I said before, especially the first 3.5. Indeed I see that Satan blames God for this seemingly arbitrary choice and this ongoing GC is to show why this had to be so as all of these commandments are being played out in man to see if they are not arbitrary. The last one to be vindicated/validated is the fourth, the Sabbath. The first 3 are demonstrated by the fact that God does not have to sponsor the life of someone who neither recognizes, loves, respects, nor wants to honor God superiority in terms of power, knowledge and intelligence.

--

In a post TOL removal context, Jesus can indeed be affected both physically and hereditarily by unfettered and unchecked degradation from sinful living.

I guess where we only differ on this issue is on the points of sinful man being capable of living eternally with the TOL and that a “tangibly contaminating junk shot” was present in the banned fruit. To me the first contradicts the Bible and SOP and the Second takes sin away from its root/foundational (free) choice aspect and actually rather excusingly claims, like a crack baby (who actually can be cured by, especially when older, will power): “I was made this sinful way”. Indeed that would mean that Adam and Eve were forcefully “injected” with some forms of sin that they did not even want to commit. The key “choice” element for each and every type of sin is removed by this Biblical hypothesis. To me, even today, 6000 years after many falls, man still has the choice as to which sins they will be “captured” by. Indeed just as it was with Jesus. He made have had “sinful flesh,” however He, by constant good choices, was never taken captive by this degraded “flesh” even though it inherently made Him ‘susceptible (i.e., able/capable) to sin.’
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/15/11 02:00 AM

Quote:
The fact that people in Africa, as well as other southern climates have a history of predominantly living out in the open/nature, versus others who had to build climate shelters and thus naturally lived in them year round, among other factors, led to this skin adapting change over time, with not much reasons for a reversal either way after that in succeeding, much shorter, sheltered and comfortably living generations.

This viewpoint is more reasonable, in my opinion:

Quote:
When we look around us today and see all of the different physical characteristics in people and relate this to Adam, who was the first man, we can see that in Adam the potential combination of genes was enormous. ...

Considering this fact, it is easier to understand how Adam produced all the different varieties we see in people today. Also very important is the evidence that after a number of generations, there appears to be strong evidence that certain genes become dominant and the variability of characteristics is limited.22 This does not mean that other genes are not present. However it does mean some genes, once they reach a point, become dominant and continue to be dominant in future generations. This only occurs with in breeding or selective breeding.

An example was my FDS (Field Dog Stud Book) registered Irish Setter "Bryan's Red Sun" (we just called him "Sam"). He was the product of selected breeding over many generations. As a dog breeder, one basic rule I quickly learned was that to produce an Irish Setter, I had to breed a male and female Irish Setter. This is where the term "pure breed" comes from. In other words, in Sam's historical blood line for several hundred years only dogs of the same family were bred together. No other breed of dog was allowed to "cross breed" into his blood line. The key to producing a particular breed is in isolation from other breeds. The genes which produced the red-colored hair and general physical appearance of the Irish Setter have become dominate by selective breeding, and consistently produce the same characteristics over and over again in every generation.

Through the example of Sam, we see that isolation of a group of dogs from other groups of dogs produces what could be called "race." Note, however, that even within the "race" or "breed" called Irish Setter there is still much potential for variation.

... In this paper we have seen that the decedents of Noah's three sons were generally dispersed over all the earth. Also, the physical characteristics of any of his sons were not exclusive to his progeny. Each could and did produce different colored offspring.

The most important factor in reaching an explanation for the origin of race is the understanding that as the migration from the Middle East proceeded, contact with other groups became less frequent, and finally each group became isolated from all others, and the groups became smaller. Because of this isolation men and women married within their own group. Thus in breeding took place within an isolated group and between kin.

An example of how isolation caused particular characteristics in a group of people would be the American Indian. The American Indian originated from oriental peoples who came across the Bering Strait which connected eastern Asia and Alaska. As they migrated south and east, they became isolated from the peoples of Asia. American Indians are considered to be Mongoloid people, but differ from Asian Mongoloids of China and Japan. One must assume that genetics caused the American Indian to be somewhat different from other Mongoloids of Asia. By moving into North America they became isolated from other Asian peoples. Their group was at first small and they married among their kin from within his group. The dominant genes of the group surfaced within a few generations and began to produce the general characteristics which are common to the American Indian today.

Some groups moved further south into Mexico and South America, and they, too, became isolated. This isolation caused somewhat differing physical appearances in each group. Thor Heyerdahl, the anthropologist, studied the people of North America and the Pacific islands for years. He has shown that the Polynesian people came from North America and migrated (in boats) to the Pacific Islands. The isolation of these people produced the Polynesian peoples.

Without isolation it is unlikely that "race" would have ever occurred. It is a vital part of understanding how genetics caused the different physical characteristics of isolated groups of people which we call races.

http://www.bible-truth.org/race.htm
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/15/11 10:48 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa

1) The "race" of mankind arguably most subjected to slavery throughout all time is the blacks. (Ask most any "African American" their opinion on this and I'm sure they would agree.)

Seems subjective and biased to me. Ask any American Indian if they've been taken advantage of and I'm sure they would agree.
Ask any American Indian if they've been taken advantage of and I'm sure they would agree.
Ask any Mexican if they've been taken advantage of and I'm sure they would agree.
Ask any woman if they've been taken advantage of and I'm sure they would agree.
Ask any white male if they've been taken advantage of and I'm sure they would agree.

I don't think asking a group is a way to determine if they are "arguably most subjected to slavery throughout all time."
Quote:

2) Canaan and his descendents were cursed by Noah with servanthood, though he was innocent of his father's crime.
Says nothing about being black nor resembling cain. And are you saying he cursed Canaan because he was black?! What about looking at the spirit of Ham and seeing how it had been trained in his son and prophesying what would happen?
Quote:

3) Canaan may have been so named on account of his appearing much like Cain. (It is likely that being obscure Hebrew words, modern scholars have no idea of the exact meanings of these names.)
That is what I'm calling into question. Repeating it doesn't support it.
Quote:

4) Unless both blacks and whites were somehow represented in the ark, there has been an amazing divergence in the biology of mankind in a few short millennia. Where else can we source both?
What about orientals, mexicans, indians, etc., etc.? What makes you think Noah and family were only one or the other? What makes you think there isn't a wide divergence in the genome since the ark of man and beast? What do you think of the idea that scientists traced all mankind to seven (or a few) Eves?
Quote:

5) God marked Cain. Mrs. White speaks of the "race of Cain." Clearly, the descendents of Cain differed from those of Seth, not only in spiritual things, but also in appearance. The Bible speaks of the "sons of God" (Seth's lineage) looking upon the "daughters of men" (Cain's race) and seeing that they were "fair."
She also speaks of the race before the flood regarding all man, a race of sinners, a race of rebels, a race of humanity, a race of beings, not a race of righteous men (Lot), a race of slaves (Israelites), race of Adam, race of Jews. None of that means "clearly" they differed in appearance. It only speaks of Cain having a mark. She compares daughters of men to this day and says
Quote:
"The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose." {ST, November 27, 1884 par. 12}
A similar state of things exists now in relation to marriage. Marriages are formed between the godly and the ungodly because inclination governs in the selection of husband or wife. The parties do not ask counsel of God, nor have his glory in view. Christianity ought to have a controlling, sanctifying influence upon the marriage relation; but husband and wife are not united by Christian principle; uncontrolled passion lies at the foundation of many of the marriages that are contracted at the present time. {ST, November 27, 1884 par. 13}
Think the ungodly of today look better?
Quote:

6) It would be just like God to symbolize the sin of Cain with an appropriate color. Sin is dark.
Are you saying Black people represent sin and are somehow looked down upon by God? And this because of choices of his father and mother. Are you saying God made him black at that time or just because he was, he picked on him?

Quote:

I just looked up the meaning of Canaan. BlueLetterBible has the following definition for the root/origin of the word.
Quote:
  1. to be humble, be humbled, be subdued, be brought down, be low, be under, be brought into subjection
    1. (Niphal)
      1. to humble oneself
      2. to be humbled, be subdued
    2. (Hiphil)
      1. to humble
      2. to subdue

Yep, he was humbled by Noah. Or the result of his father or lack of proper training.

kland,

Re: #1
There is more significance to the slavery issue than merely having been treated unfairly. If you were to pass out a survey to a broad variety of people, of multiple ethnicities, chances are that the race most associated with slavery would be the blacks. When have you ever, for example, heard of American Indians, of any tribe: Hopi, Choctaw, Iroquois, Mohawk, Cherokee, Sioux, Apache, Chippewa, Algonquin, Navajo, Arapaho, Shawnee, Pueblo, etc. being subjected to slavery? Conquered, yes. Forced to occupy small reservations, yes. Enslaved? If one counts slavery to alcohol, or "fire water," perhaps. But actual forced slavery? Uncommon. It did happen. But it as it happens, the Indians were actually slaveholders, just like the whites.

Originally Posted By: Wikipedia
Benjamin Hawkins was the federal agent assigned to the southeastern tribes in the in the 1790s and advised the tribes to take up slaveholding. The five civilized tribes tried to gain power by owning slaves, as they assimilated some other European-American ways. Among the slave-owning families of the Cherokee, 78% claimed some white ancestry. The nature of the interactions among the peoples depended upon the historical character of the Native American groups, the enslaved people, and the European slaveholders. Native Americans often assisted runaway slaves. They also sold Africans to whites, trading them like so many blankets or horses.


This is the general trend of things. Given a choice between white or black, Asian or black, Indian or black, or any race against black--I can predict which one would be considered most likely to have slaves in their ancestral lineage--and the answer is always the same. And I believe any honest survey would find that to be the public perception.

Re: #2
Why would Noah curse Ham's son instead of cursing Ham himself? What about the business of children not being punished for the sins of their fathers and vice versa?

I believe that the Holy Spirit spoke through Noah in a sort of "birthright cursing" in this case. God knew the future, and preserved Noah's words to our generation to help us see the accuracy of His foreknowledge.

Re: #4
I don't believe that all of our current races were borne on the ark. In that sense, you and I agree. However, I do believe that there was sufficient variety represented on the ark to pass on the diversity which we now have.

If you look at at people who live for generations in the hot sun, you will not see that their color changes because of it. At least, I have not seen that. Look at the Middle East, for example. How many of the so-called "Arabs" are black? Do they not live in some of the hotter and more desert-covered terrains on the planet? Why should they not be much nearer to ebony in their appearance? Genetics are not quickly changed by a little sunshine. Wrinkles may come. Dark tans may come. But permanently black or wrinkled skin in one's progeny does not come.

So, I would return the question to you--where do you think the black color would have "evolved?"

Re: #5
Yes. The word "race" has multiple senses, and Mrs. White used it in more than one of them. So we agree on this. But it is important to note that any/every time the word "race" is used, it indicates some distinction between people groups. That distinction may vary from simple matters of pigmentation to more complex and/or abstract matters of spirituality or condition.

Re: #6
In a sense, yes. I'm not saying black people themselves represent sin. I do not believe this at all. Nor would it be quite fair to think of them as representing "sinners" when that encompasses every human who ever lived here except for Christ Himself. We are all blackened by sin. But the color black--I do believe it is a fitting symbol of sin, of ignorance, of error, and of slavery and bondage. And it almost seems just like God to provide us tangible object lessons through such simple matters as that of color.

Here are a few of Mrs. White's thoughts relative to the "color" of sin.
Originally Posted By: Ellen White
Thus the words of Christ are verified: "If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!" Matthew 6:23. For a time, persons who have committed this sin may appear to be children of God; but when circumstances arise to develop character and show what manner of spirit they are of, it will be found that they are on the enemy's ground, standing under his black banner. {CCh 81.1}

He went a little distance from them--not so far but that they could both see and hear Him--and fell prostrate upon the ground. He felt that by sin He was being separated from His Father. The gulf was so broad, so black, so deep, that His spirit shuddered before it. This agony He must not exert His divine power to escape. As man He must suffer the consequences of man's sin. As man He must endure the wrath of God against transgression. {DA 686.3}

here will be some that will take their position forever under the black banner of the powers of darkness; there are some that will take their position under the blood-stained banner of Prince Immanuel. Our words, our deportment, how we present the truth, may balance minds for or against the truth; and we want in every discourse, whether it is doctrinal or not, we want that Jesus Christ should be presented distinctly, as John declared, "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world." {Ev 299.3}

He is separated from God by a gulf of sin that is broad and black and deep, and he mourns in brokenness of heart. Such mourning "shall be comforted." God reveals to us our guilt that we may flee to Christ, and through Him be set free from the bondage of sin, and rejoice in the liberty of the sons of God. In true contrition we may come to the foot of the cross, and there leave our burdens. . . . {SD 302.2}

You cannot consent to profess the truth and not live it; you have ever admired a life consistent with profession. I was shown a book in which was written your name with many others. Against your name was a black blot. You were looking upon this and saying: "It can never be effaced." Jesus held His wounded hand above it and said: "My blood alone can efface it. If thou wilt from henceforth choose the path of humble obedience, and rely solely upon the merits of My blood to cover thy past transgressions, I will blot out thy transgressions, and cover thy sins. But if you choose the path of transgressors you must reap the transgressor's reward. The wages of sin is death." {1T 543.2}

Sin is black. Pardon that is offered for sin is red or crimson (blood). Purity and righteousness are white. These are the major colors, spiritually speaking. One's skin color is not a proper indicator of one's spiritual color. Hopefully that is clear.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: APL

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/15/11 04:31 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK
How is the contracting of HIV a (personal) choice when it is contracted through a hospital error during a blood transfusion or an accidental infection?
Does a baby that contracts HIV in utero have a personal choice? They are born with it.
Posted By: APL

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/15/11 04:44 PM

In follow up to Cochoa on slavery - it can be argued that there are most slaves today than at any time in history. And these from all colors and races. Human trafficking is big business.

In follow up on skin color - some assumes that the darker skin "evolved". But it is probable that the lighter colors "devolved". And looking genetically, most humans have the same genes. The only difference is the amount of expression of those genes.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/15/11 06:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
Did Noah and his boys or their wives carry the marked genes of Cain? Or, did the mark of Cain die with Cain? The post-Flood amalgamation that resulted in "certain races of men" is not the result of scientists uniting animal and human genes in a laboratory. Hopefully we can agree on this point. Therefore, we are left with two options (I'm sure somebody else can think of other options) - 1) "certain races of men" are a result of natural copulation, and 2) "certain races of men" are a result of genetic manipulation in laboratories.

It is my belief that Ham's wife was a descendant of Cain. Their son, perhaps having an appearance like Cain, was named "Cainan." He is the one whom Noah cursed with slavery and servanthood. It is readily apparent when looking at history how much this curse has indeed been fulfilled. Yes, there have been slaves of every race. But if you were to take a survey of which race, above all others, was thought to have been most subjected to slavery, I think blacks would be selected the majority of the time. This curse dates all the way back to Noah.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

What is the name of Ham's wife?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/15/11 07:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
What is the name of Ham's wife?

I would be interested in knowing this too, if you happen to know. However, I do not believe it is essential, nor that it would necessarily be enlightening.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/16/11 05:17 AM

The idea that Canaan was named after his mother's ancestor, Cain, and, therefore, most probably shares his black skin color, seems too far fetched to consider seriously, wouldn't you say?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/16/11 07:41 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
The idea that Canaan was named after his mother's ancestor, Cain, and, therefore, most probably shares his black skin color, seems too far fetched to consider seriously, wouldn't you say?

Time will tell. We'll know soon enough.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/16/11 04:44 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
The fact that people in Africa, as well as other southern climates have a history of predominantly living out in the open/nature, versus others who had to build climate shelters and thus naturally lived in them year round, among other factors, led to this skin adapting change over time, with not much reasons for a reversal either way after that in succeeding, much shorter, sheltered and comfortably living generations.

This viewpoint is more reasonable, in my opinion:

Quote:
When we look around us today and see all of the different physical characteristics in people and relate this to Adam, who was the first man, we can see that in Adam the potential combination of genes was enormous. ...

Considering this fact, it is easier to understand how Adam produced all the different varieties we see in people today. Also very important is the evidence that after a number of generations, there appears to be strong evidence that certain genes become dominant and the variability of characteristics is limited.22 This does not mean that other genes are not present. However it does mean some genes, once they reach a point, become dominant and continue to be dominant in future generations. This only occurs with in breeding or selective breeding.

An example was my FDS (Field Dog Stud Book) registered Irish Setter "Bryan's Red Sun" (we just called him "Sam"). He was the product of selected breeding over many generations. As a dog breeder, one basic rule I quickly learned was that to produce an Irish Setter, I had to breed a male and female Irish Setter. This is where the term "pure breed" comes from. In other words, in Sam's historical blood line for several hundred years only dogs of the same family were bred together. No other breed of dog was allowed to "cross breed" into his blood line. The key to producing a particular breed is in isolation from other breeds. The genes which produced the red-colored hair and general physical appearance of the Irish Setter have become dominate by selective breeding, and consistently produce the same characteristics over and over again in every generation.

Through the example of Sam, we see that isolation of a group of dogs from other groups of dogs produces what could be called "race." Note, however, that even within the "race" or "breed" called Irish Setter there is still much potential for variation.

... In this paper we have seen that the decedents of Noah's three sons were generally dispersed over all the earth. Also, the physical characteristics of any of his sons were not exclusive to his progeny. Each could and did produce different colored offspring.

The most important factor in reaching an explanation for the origin of race is the understanding that as the migration from the Middle East proceeded, contact with other groups became less frequent, and finally each group became isolated from all others, and the groups became smaller. Because of this isolation men and women married within their own group. Thus in breeding took place within an isolated group and between kin.

An example of how isolation caused particular characteristics in a group of people would be the American Indian. The American Indian originated from oriental peoples who came across the Bering Strait which connected eastern Asia and Alaska. As they migrated south and east, they became isolated from the peoples of Asia. American Indians are considered to be Mongoloid people, but differ from Asian Mongoloids of China and Japan. One must assume that genetics caused the American Indian to be somewhat different from other Mongoloids of Asia. By moving into North America they became isolated from other Asian peoples. Their group was at first small and they married among their kin from within his group. The dominant genes of the group surfaced within a few generations and began to produce the general characteristics which are common to the American Indian today.

Some groups moved further south into Mexico and South America, and they, too, became isolated. This isolation caused somewhat differing physical appearances in each group. Thor Heyerdahl, the anthropologist, studied the people of North America and the Pacific islands for years. He has shown that the Polynesian people came from North America and migrated (in boats) to the Pacific Islands. The isolation of these people produced the Polynesian peoples.

Without isolation it is unlikely that "race" would have ever occurred. It is a vital part of understanding how genetics caused the different physical characteristics of isolated groups of people which we call races.

http://www.bible-truth.org/race.htm


That is an interesting view brought out in that website, however, I think that it actually comes to validate my different view on this. First of all, it does not explain the clear climate and skin color correlation. I.e, hotter climates = darker skin | colder climates = lighter skin, and then there are the in between color of the Middle East peoples. (I’ll address this later in a pointed point Green Cochoa made on this.) Clearly people of the same skin color did not choose to all live in the same area, as indigenously (versus migratorily), predominantly seen. E.g., lighter skin color people chose to god live in cold climates and darker skinned people did not chose to live in hot and sunny climates.

So this is where I see that the website dovetails with my view as it would in one part lead to such majority same color presence in one area because the sun can and does affect “generic expression”, as I believe, as God had designed it to do, if not, injunctively, at the gene level, after the flood, (probably starting with the first generation born from the Ark’s 8 (??)) given the way the earth’s climate had been so thrown out of natural order. So peoples who went to a certain area over their ca. 438 years for that first generation (cf. Gen 11:12), were not only affected by the constant lopsided climate, but were now, if this was not always possible, genetically susceptible to be, as a protective measure, affected by this exposure to the sun.

In terms of the race issue, it is true that groups of people who marrying within each other will produce a distinct race. That is easily seen with the sons of Shem (Gen 11) who went on to form the Semites. With that people group (or even race) (I believe all three of Noah’s sons were physically alike in terms of particularly skin color), distinct sub-groups/races came to be developed such as, as listed before, the Hebrews, Babylonians, Assyrians, Arameans, Arabs, etc.

So skin color itself and race to me are actually two distinct though often conflated things. Indeed within the black “race”, there are quite distinct subraces as seen in Africa itself and also groups of African who came to isolatively live in other parts of the world and intermarry specifically amongst themselves (e.g., Jamaicans, Haitians, Trinidadians, etc.,). I personally can easily featurely tell such subgroups apart, even without any cultural associating elements (e.g, dress, accent, language.)

So to me, first can the sun’s affectation and then came, pointedly subraces. It is also significant that there are only three main major races in the world, in terms of skin color: dark, tanned and lighter. Apparently some have used this fact to make the association to Noah’s 3 sons and then in turn, circularly, in my view, to one race (i.e, dark/black) one being “surely” the cursed race, when, as I pointed out before, that cursed seems to have been fulfilled in the Hebrew people ruling over the inhabitant of Canaan. In fact, it is significant to me that one cannot today show that they are of Canaanite origin (descendants of Canaan - Gen 10:15-19) while multitudes of others can easily show that they of Semitic origin (Shem’s descendants) So the curse has apparently been fully fulfilled in those Semitic groups, beyond the Hebrews practically effacing the distinctive Canaanite people. Indeed that may have been God’s intention all along in cursing Canaan’s descendants for this sin: I.e., your descendants will eventually lose their distinctness/independence. As a ‘servant of servant brothers’ (Gen 9:25), it seems to me that all of Ham’s sons (cf. Gen 10:6ff) were similarly cursed, and Canaan was pointedly more curse to eventually effectuate this total dispossession punishment.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/16/11 04:45 PM

Responses to Green Cochoa’s points:

Re:1

From what I have seen about the History of Slavery, slavery has existed with every culture. To me it seems somewhat “moronically” comical that it is apparently that believe that blacks were cursed by God in that Gen 10 curse that self-fulfilled this result that blacks were to be slaves. It also “helped” that blacks were probably feasibly the easiest to mass subdue and enslave given how they were carefreely living. So I don’t see this argument as valid since it manifestly was due to a false assumptions by variously more advanced people groups. So it clearly does not circularly result in a proof. As with many things, false belief tend to be quite popular.

Re:2

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Why would Noah curse Ham's son instead of cursing Ham himself?


It seems clear to me, as stated in my above post, that in Gen 9:25, all 4 of Ham’s sons (Gen 10:6) were cursed. And Canaan was further cursed to result in a due, tangible Ham punishing territorial/people disinheritance.

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
What about the business of children not being punished for the sins of their fathers and vice versa?


E.g., Exod 20:5/Deu 5:9; Exod 34:7; Num 14:18; 1 Kgs 21:29 say the contrary. I think that since God does bless descendants for the faithfulness of their fathers, then He has the right to equally apply a curse unto future generations for the wickedness of a father. In my view God has full discretionary authority to decide when this applies, and manifestly Ham’s sin was deserving of that, especially as his sin, if left unpunished, could have opened a floodgate, so early after the flood, of such sexually deviant practices, leading to even acted upon incestual/homosexual action (probably something the antediluvians practised, which would explain why God judgement on this was immediate, strict and far, future reaching).

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
I believe that the Holy Spirit spoke through Noah in a sort of "birthright cursing" in this case. God knew the future, and preserved Noah's words to our generation to help us see the accuracy of His foreknowledge.


The issue of God knowing the future is a distinct topic, however from my perspective, where I do not Biblically see that the future can exist, and thus is not “available” to be known (but is only planned = Isa 46:9-11), this is where I personally see another fatalistic fallacy of the Classical foreknowledge view. I.e., ‘since black people have been the one who have been most enslaved (on as it can actually be ascertained from recent observation) then they must have been the ones cursed in Gen 9:25. First of all Biblical exegesis says otherwise and, like I said, that historical development was a self-fulfilling false understanding.

Re:4

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
If you look at at people who live for generations in the hot sun, you will not see that their color changes because of it. At least, I have not seen that. Look at the Middle East, for example. How many of the so-called "Arabs" are black? Do they not live in some of the hotter and more desert-covered terrains on the planet? Why should they not be much nearer to ebony in their appearance? Genetics are not quickly changed by a little sunshine. Wrinkles may come. Dark tans may come. But permanently black or wrinkled skin in one's progeny does not come.


This is where my point on “shelter” fits in. People in Africa, even to this day in may places, have literally lived out in the open and until recent times, with very little clothing, if any, that is quite a unique “culture” throughout the world, except for, not coincidentally at all, in the hot jungle regions of South America. So just like a person who were clothes outdoors/at the beach on a bright sunny will be quite drastically partially tanned, a person living 24-7 in the open and under burning sunlight will be much more affected than someone “culturally” wearing a robe from head to feet all day and living under tents as the people in the Middle East consistently did. So, as I see it, they remained in their original tanned skin color and did not become darker.

Also e.g, 438 years of, effectively an unobstructed sun tan will so affect one’s body that the genetic response to protectively cope with this is to constantly produce the bodily response that will result in the skin becoming darker and over such time, this change will apparently be registered by the body as needing to be permanent and thus one’s genes are changed. Over time, period/partial “tans” from more advanced descendants now living sun-sheltered lives, will not be enough to reverse that deeply entrenched change.

---

Re:5 & 6

If we really want to be literal/technical, as your, effectively, ‘sin is related to black skin color, view necessitates, then people who are called “black” are actually brown. Just. e.g,. look at the are of a “black” wearing an actually black, short-sleeve shirt. This whole relating of skin color to sin in any form, and particularly to black people, is just a culturally entrenched spurious assumption/“legend” and, frankly, quite a gross mal-association.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/16/11 04:45 PM

Quote:
NJK: How is the contracting of HIV a (personal) choice when it is contracted through a hospital error during a blood transfusion or an accidental infection?

APL: Does a baby that contracts HIV in utero have a personal choice? They are born with it.


That seems to further my point: Choice is not necessarily an issue in viral contraction! In fact the parents of this baby (I assume that his is the only way that HIV can be contracted “in utero”) may not have contracted their infection by any (lifestyle) choice of their own. Just some ulterior accident/error.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/16/11 04:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
What is the name of Ham's wife?


I don’t think the Bible reveals this...
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/16/11 04:47 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
The idea that Canaan was named after his mother's ancestor, Cain, and, therefore, most probably shares his black skin color, seems too far fetched to consider seriously, wouldn't you say?

Time will tell. We'll know soon enough.


I think, as with most of these “time will tell” expressions, we better seek to get our facts, science and exegesis straight as soon as possible. In this case, I think it would have entirely prevented that whole Western Black Enslavement Era, which I see only had a recent occurrence, indeed evidently based upon the false/circular/self-retroactive belief that it was black people who were cursed in Gen 9:25. I think God will tell a lot of e.g, American slave owners, especially those who were pushed along by their local preachers, that they should have better studied their Bible, especially if they noticed the factual error of their but chose to maintain it, especially so as to not suffer economic loss by freeing their slaves. Seems to me, and perhaps historical/sermonic research will tangibly bear this out, that Northerners in America came to see this error and acted righteously in accordance to this manifest “Biblical doubt” by abstain from the enslaving of Africans.

When it comes to things that can be Biblically ascertained, a “wait and see” attitude, is never the best option... in any issue. In fact it is such a pervasive “procrastinative” stance that is postponing the consummation of this “time”!!
Posted By: Mountain Man

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/16/11 07:22 PM

While I disagree with GC, I do not, however, believe the curse of Cain or Canaan justifies slavery. There is absolutely no indication in the Bible black skin color is the result of curses. To imply otherwise is groundless and absurd.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/16/11 08:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
While I disagree with GC, I do not, however, believe the curse of Cain or Canaan justifies slavery. There is absolutely no indication in the Bible black skin color is the result of curses. To imply otherwise is groundless and absurd.


Agreed!!
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/17/11 07:06 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Responses to Green Cochoa’s points:

Re:1

From what I have seen about the History of Slavery, slavery has existed with every culture. To me it seems somewhat “moronically” comical that it is apparently that believe that blacks were cursed by God in that Gen 10 curse that self-fulfilled this result that blacks were to be slaves. It also “helped” that blacks were probably feasibly the easiest to mass subdue and enslave given how they were carefreely living. So I don’t see this argument as valid since it manifestly was due to a false assumptions by variously more advanced people groups. So it clearly does not circularly result in a proof. As with many things, false belief tend to be quite popular.


Originally Posted By: NJK Project

Re:2

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Why would Noah curse Ham's son instead of cursing Ham himself?


It seems clear to me, as stated in my above post, that in Gen 9:25, all 4 of Ham’s sons (Gen 10:6) were cursed. And Canaan was further cursed to result in a due, tangible Ham punishing territorial/people disinheritance.

Originally Posted By: The Bible
And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. Gen. 9:25, KJV
And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan. Gen. 10:6, KJV

I would like to know what version of the Bible you might be reading. In my understanding of this text, the "brethren" spoken of are not necessarily his immediate brothers, but the lines of Japheth and Shem. In any case, Canaan only was cursed, if one is to follow that text.

Well, that addresses a couple of those points anyhow....

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/17/11 07:11 AM

Originally Posted By: Mountain Man
While I disagree with GC, I do not, however, believe the curse of Cain or Canaan justifies slavery. There is absolutely no indication in the Bible black skin color is the result of curses. To imply otherwise is groundless and absurd.

Thank you, Mike, for bringing that up. I agree with you that there is no justification for mistreatment of other fellow human beings on the basis of a curse. Curse or no curse, Christians have a duty to treat people as befits ambassadors of Christ on behalf of "the least of these." It is only the heathen who fulfill such curses as these, without any need of help on the part of Christians. Christians should do all in their power to correct such injustices--and I think, for the most part, Christians are doing just that. May God bless those who do, in fulfillment of Jesus' promise "blessed are the peacemakers."

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/17/11 11:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: Bible
And he said, Cursed [be] Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. Gen. 9:25, KJV
And the sons of Ham; Cush, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan. Gen. 10:6, KJV


I would like to know what version of the Bible you might be reading. In my understanding of this text, the "brethren" spoken of are not necessarily his immediate brothers, but the lines of Japheth and Shem. In any case, Canaan only was cursed, if one is to follow that text.


I am basically using the NASB (1995).

Originally Posted By: NASB Gen 10:6
The sons of Ham were* Cush and Mizraim and Put and Canaan *(in italics in NASB = not in original text)


Gen 9:25 basically reads the same in both version, however I see that the “servant of servants” statement implies that the other 3 brothers were also to be servants; but the descendants of Canaan were to be the ‘servant of these other servants.’ From what I understand in EGW’s statement in PP 117.1, Canaan shared in the manifested post-flood character/moral degeneracy that was already in his father Ham and led him to react in this vile way to the Noah sin. Here are her full comments on this. Several other points I made in my prior post had been made there:

Originally Posted By: SOP PP 117.1-118.2
To repeople the desolate earth, which the Flood had so lately swept from its moral corruption, God had preserved but one family, the household of Noah, to whom He had declared, "Thee have I seen righteous before Me in this generation." Genesis 7:1. Yet in the three sons of Noah was speedily developed the same great distinction seen in the world before the Flood. In Shem, Ham, and Japheth, who were to be the founders of the human race, was foreshadowed the character of their posterity. {PP 117.1}
Noah, speaking by divine inspiration, foretold the history of the three great races to spring from these fathers of mankind. Tracing the descendants of Ham, through the son rather than the father, he declared, "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." The unnatural crime of Ham declared that filial reverence had long before been cast from his soul, and it revealed the impiety and vileness of his character. These evil characteristics were perpetuated in Canaan and his posterity, whose continued guilt called upon them the judgments of God. {PP 117.2}

On the other hand, the reverence manifested by Shem and Japheth for their father, and thus for the divine statutes, promised a brighter future for their descendants. Concerning these sons it was declared: "Blessed be Jehovah, God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant." The line of Shem was to be that of the chosen people, of God's covenant, of the promised Redeemer. Jehovah was the God of Shem. From him would descend Abraham, and the people of Israel, through whom Christ was to come. "Happy is that people, whose God is the Lord." Psalm 144:15. And Japheth "shall dwell in the tents of Shem." In the blessings of the gospel the descendants of Japheth were especially to share. {PP 117.3}

The posterity of Canaan descended to the most degrading forms of heathenism. Though the prophetic curse had doomed them to slavery, the doom was withheld for centuries. God bore with their impiety and corruption until they passed the limits of divine forbearance. Then they were dispossessed, and became bondmen to the descendants of Shem and Japheth. {PP 118.1}

The prophecy of Noah was no arbitrary denunciation of wrath or declaration of favor. It did not fix the character and destiny of his sons. But it showed what would be the result of the course of life they had severally chosen and the character they had developed. It was an expression of God's purpose toward them and their posterity in view of their own character and conduct. As a rule, children inherit the dispositions and tendencies of their parents, and imitate their example; so that the sins of the parents are practiced by the children from generation to generation. Thus the vileness and irreverence of Ham were reproduced in his posterity, bringing a curse upon them for many generations. "One sinner destroyeth much good." Ecclesiastes 9:18. {PP 118.2}


Notice in PP 118.1 that God intended to “dispossess” Canaan. To me EGW clearly understood that this slavery and “dispossession” curse applied to the inhabitants of Canaan (the infamous “-ites” vs. Israel) and not to black people/African and people much later (i.e., 2nd half of Christian Era), particularly later on when a “Biblical justification” was sought as it was being challenged by other Christians, assumed and believed leading to the mass and systematic enslavement of Black people. Indeed EGW sees this curse as having transpired long before that time. Again, no association at all by her to e.g., American Slavery.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/17/11 11:50 AM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
I agree with you that there is no justification for mistreatment of other fellow human beings on the basis of a curse. Curse or no curse, Christians have a duty to treat people as befits ambassadors of Christ on behalf of "the least of these." It is only the heathen who fulfill such curses as these, without any need of help on the part of Christians.


I think that, factually speaking, you are now glibly going to the other extreme. If God curse another people, or worse, orders, as with Israel conquering those same “Canaanite” peoples, that some be entirely disseminated then, the “Christian” (i.e., God’s People) has the duty to faithfully execute the will of God here, indeed as with Samuel vs. Saul & Agag, at the peril of their own standing before God (1 Sam 15:22-35). Indeed had Shem and Japheth descendants not done their part (e.g, with Israel engaging in their conquering and disseminating expeditions), the Canaan curse would not have been fulfilled.

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Christians should do all in their power to correct such injustices--and I think, for the most part, Christians are doing just that.


That factually is an easily disproven claim, (i.e., the “most” part). Just take a close look at the socio-economic injustices in our world today. There are enough resources, knowledge and manpower to resolve all of them and prevent senseless death and suffering, including the 65,000,000 annual abortions, but because, mainly Western Countries want to make more than enough and not, even equalizingly, share as instructed in the Gospel (e.g., Luke 3:11; 2 Cor 8:7-15), this suffering goes on and get worse. Surely it is not the ca. 15% of non-Christians, in America who are having 1.7 million abortions each year. The “most part” are, at least nomimal, Christians and denominations such as the SDA Church and its Hospital helps facilitate both this butchery and also senseless deaths (i.e., they have ca. 9 million outpatient visits in the U.S. per year, but do not help the ca. 40,000 people who die in the U.S. each year because they cannot afford medical services, let alone the many others who suffer for the same reason.) And just look in American at who is vehemently opposed to social justice, people who claim to be “born from above” Christians, namely Republicans. Sure.... They even find it Biblical to call this good evil. Talk about being grossly deceived. (Cf. EW 266-269) Jesus clearly did not love, worship and serve Mammon and Self as they do.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/17/11 07:46 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
I agree with you that there is no justification for mistreatment of other fellow human beings on the basis of a curse. Curse or no curse, Christians have a duty to treat people as befits ambassadors of Christ on behalf of "the least of these." It is only the heathen who fulfill such curses as these, without any need of help on the part of Christians.


I think that, factually speaking, you are now glibly going to the other extreme. If God curse another people, or worse, orders, as with Israel conquering those same “Canaanite” peoples, that some be entirely disseminated then, the “Christian” (i.e., God’s People) has the duty to faithfully execute the will of God here, indeed as with Samuel vs. Saul & Agag, at the peril of their own standing before God (1 Sam 15:22-35). Indeed had Shem and Japheth descendants not done their part (e.g, with Israel engaging in their conquering and disseminating expeditions), the Canaan curse would not have been fulfilled.

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Christians should do all in their power to correct such injustices--and I think, for the most part, Christians are doing just that.



Let's look together at what Mrs. White wrote concerning some of these curses.
Originally Posted By: Ellen White
17, 18. The Curse on All Creation.--All nature is confused; for God forbade the earth to carry out the purpose He had originally designed for it. Let there be no peace to the wicked, saith the Lord. The curse of God is upon all creation. Every year it makes itself more decidedly felt (MS 76a, 1901). {1BC 1085.5}
The first curse was pronounced upon the posterity of Adam and upon the earth, because of disobedience. The second curse came upon the ground after Cain slew his brother Abel. The third most dreadful curse from God, came upon the earth at the Flood (4SG 121). {1BC 1085.6}
The land has felt the curse, more and more heavily. Before the Flood, the first leaf which fell, and was discovered decaying upon the ground, caused those who feared God great sorrow. They mourned over it as we mourn over the loss of a dead friend. In the decaying leaf they could see an evidence of the curse, and of the decay of nature (Ibid., 155). {1BC 1085.7}
(Romans 8:22).--The sin of man has brought the sure result,--decay, deformity, and death. Today the whole world is tainted, corrupted, stricken with mortal disease. The earth groaneth under the continual transgression of the inhabitants thereof (Letter 22, Feb. 13, 1900). {1BC 1085.8}
The Lord's curse is upon the earth, upon man, upon beast, upon the fish in the sea, and as transgression becomes almost universal the curse will be permitted to become as broad and as deep as the transgression (Letter 59, 1898). {1BC 1085.9}


Now, let's start with that curse which God pronounced upon the ground for Adam and his posterity--the curse which brought so many thorns, thistles, and the like. Let's take a look at one more statement by Mrs. White about those thorns and weeds.

Originally Posted By: Ellen White
When Adam and Eve transgressed the command of God, they could no longer cultivate their beautiful Eden home. They were shut out of the garden, to work among the thistles and brambles that Satan had sown. Satan told our first parents that by eating of the forbidden fruit they would have higher perceptions, and be like the angels in heaven. They believed and obeyed the words of the apostate, but they proved his words a lie. Henceforth they must work among the thorns and weeds brought by the curse. {YI, April 26, 1900 par. 4}


Now, let's look at what Mrs. White told us to do with such weeds as were brought by the curse. Do you suppose she has told us to "fulfill the curse" by planting more thorns, thistles and weeds in our gardens? Let's find out....

Originally Posted By: Ellen White
If possible, the home should be out of the city, where the children can have ground to cultivate. Let them each have a piece of ground of their own; and as you teach them how to make a garden, how to prepare the soil for seed, and the importance of keeping all the weeds pulled out, teach them also how important it is to keep unsightly, injurious practices out of the life. Teach them to keep down wrong habits as they keep down the weeds in their gardens. It will take time to teach these lessons, but it will pay, greatly pay. {CCh 148.6}

"Ye are God's husbandry" (1 Corinthians 3:9). As one takes pleasure in the cultivation of a garden, so God takes pleasure in His believing sons and daughters. A garden demands constant labor. The weeds must be removed; new plants must be set out; branches that are making too rapid development must be pruned back. So the Lord works for His garden, so He tends His plants. He cannot take pleasure in any development that does not reveal the graces of the character of Christ. The blood of Christ has made men and women God's precious charge. Then how careful should we be not to manifest too much freedom in pulling up the plants that God has placed in His garden! Some plants are so feeble that they have hardly any life, and for these the Lord has a special care. {AG 65.4}


Does "pulling the weeds" work against God's curse? Should we be planting them instead?

To me, any Christian thinking to use God's curse as an excuse for slavery is tantamount to the same Christian excusing the weeds in his garden, or worse, planting the thorns and thistles in someone else's garden, because of God's curse. To excuse or to cause slavery because of the curse is not Biblical. To acknowledge the sure results of a departure from God as evidenced by God's curse, that is Biblical. We can see the cause and effect of sin, as presented in the various curses, without feeling compelled to perpetuate sin or the curses. We do not need to be trying to fulfill these curses!

Mrs. White taught us to keep the weeds out of our gardens. Those weeds were brought by God's curse. It does not dishonor God for us to work against sin in any of its forms. God's curses are meant to help us see where we should be in relation to sin. Most people do not enjoy a curse--with good reason. That curse, then, is meant to repel us from the evil for which it was given, as opposed to being a command for us to follow and/or perpetuate the evil so that the curse may abound.

God's command to the Israelites to destroy the Canaanite nations is separate from the curse pronounced by Noah. One cannot be both a slave and dead at the same time. smile The Canaanites were not to be made bondmen--they were to be completely destroyed.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/17/11 09:04 PM

I’ll just skip over your Adam&Eve and Flood curse as, to me, these are red herring and straw man arguments and premises, as their implementation was naturally distinct. The fact of the matteris that curses pronounced, or allowed by God are effectuated in whatever tangible means they need to.

I’ll deal with this actually pertinent response:

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
God's command to the Israelites to destroy the Canaanite nations is separate from the curse pronounced by Noah. One cannot be both a slave and dead at the same time. The Canaanites were not to be made bondmen--they were to be completely destroyed.


Deut 20:10-18: The Israelites were to rule over the Canaanites and that by either dispossessing them or in some cases, or if they put up a fight, completely kill them off. For those who lived in cities that were near to Israel were to be defaultly completely destroyed so as not to corrupt Israel, without this option to live and be those slaves, as the curse had ordered. If Israel had been faithful, especially in carrying out that curse (Cf. E.g., Judge 1:27-2:4 ), they would have thoroughly effectuated this curse and rid the world, according to God’s wisdom and judgement of this sinful peoples who actually went on to bring the ruin of God’s Ancient Israel. I suspect they began to have the same self-justifying “Saul-reasoning as you have here and think themselves to know better of God, indeed with such red-herring rationalizations!
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/18/11 04:38 PM

Quote:
First of all, it does not explain the clear climate and skin color correlation. I.e, hotter climates = darker skin | colder climates = lighter skin, and then there are the in between color of the Middle East peoples.

How do you explain the fact that the Eskimos of Alaska have a dark skin, although this northern region does not receive much UV radiation?
Besides, climate changes became pronounced after the flood, and it was only natural that people with a lighter skin would seek the regions with colder climates to live in.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/18/11 09:38 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
How do you explain the fact that the Eskimos of Alaska have a dark skin, although this northern region does not receive much UV radiation?


Eskimos are (according to a non-Biblical, i.e., involving the Flood reality) worldview, said to be indigenous people, however I understand this to me “first there” and not actually “born there”. They migrated from somewhere. Some say from Sibera, and still those in Sibera also came from somewhere else after the Flood. So my view is that they, some time long after Flood, perhaps in the A.D./C.E. period, migrated from some “neutral” or hot, climate (e.g., India or the Persian region, etc) and then, for some geo-political reason, went as far away as possible from civilization inhabited areas. Some stopped in Sibera, other continued to the (now): Alaska Region, others to the Canadian Northern Territories and others, when probably the ice permitted it in the northern most regions of Canada, over to Greenland.

Like I said before, given the shorter lives of people then, it is not enough to trigger the body to make permanent and wholesale/generalized “protective” affectations to skin color. So they kept their neutral tan color, which I hypothesize was around Man’s original color, having been from the earth.

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Besides, climate changes became pronounced after the flood,


Scientifically speaking, climate changes began to be felt in that very first year after the flood. This migration from the ark area took probably began to seriously take place from their common settlement area (Gen 11:1, 2) after the Tower of Babel which was soon after the flood (i.e., Gen 10 vs. 11). So it is from this time that I believe those extreme migrations took place and, obviously to avoid conflicts and wars, they went as far away as they could or saw adequate from each other, which was actually God’s GC grand Plan/purpose (Gen 11:6-9). Probably to avoid another Major/Flood destruction of the earth. So He also would have guided and impelled some group to live in far, even cold regions.

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
and it was only natural that people with a lighter skin would seek the regions with colder climates to live in.


As I understand it, it is only after having migrated to certain regions that skin colors began to be affected and if this is caused by a DNA recoding as it apparently could be, the change could have become most pronounced/drastic starting in a succeeding generation. I.e., the genes of the parents would have made this skin color adaptation switch, and while their own skin color would not have changed much from its original one, the ones of their offspring was quite drastic E.g, from tanned to darker or lighter. So their skin color did not affect their migrating decision or location choice.

Also being then quite remote to each other with especially non visual communications, the link between skin color and their region was probably not made any people group, perhaps even to this day (...until now, by me!?). So they would have only seen it as some unrelated natural development that their offspring were of a darker or lighter skin color.

I think the known science of skin color in tanning can allow for this hypothesis. Indeed skin color is not, at least wholly, an external “burning” one thing, but an internal “biological” one. And as I said, it may have been originally or injunctively (after the Flood) pointedly designed so by God to be able deal with the sudden change in climate caused by the flood.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/19/11 03:31 PM

Quote:
As I understand it, it is only after having migrated to certain regions that skin colors began to be affected and if this is caused by a DNA recoding as it apparently could be, the change could have become most pronounced/drastic starting in a succeeding generation. I.e., the genes of the parents would have made this skin color adaptation switch, and while their own skin color would not have changed much from its original one, the ones of their offspring was quite drastic E.g, from tanned to darker or lighter. So their skin color did not affect their migrating decision or location choice.

If what you are saying is true, why is it that the skin of Eskimos has not made the color adaptation and become lighter after 2000 years?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/19/11 09:00 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
If what you are saying is true, why is it that the skin of Eskimos has not made the color adaptation and become lighter after 2000 years?


Because, as my view had implied, not one single person has lived for those 2000 years, (vs. the 438, if not more, years of those living right after the Flood) where their body would have been so constantly affected by an excess or a lack of sunlight to cause a permanent coping recoding in their DNA to deal with this, which then would be passed on, and defaulty implemented in offsprings from their birth. Our current average lifespan of 70-80 years with, moreover a variously sheltered lifestyle, is, according to my hypothesis/theory/understanding not enough to cause this (permanent) DNA recoding.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/29/11 08:42 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Re: #4
I don't believe that all of our current races were borne on the ark. In that sense, you and I agree. However, I do believe that there was sufficient variety represented on the ark to pass on the diversity which we now have.

If you look at at people who live for generations in the hot sun, you will not see that their color changes because of it. At least, I have not seen that. Look at the Middle East, for example. How many of the so-called "Arabs" are black? Do they not live in some of the hotter and more desert-covered terrains on the planet? Why should they not be much nearer to ebony in their appearance? Genetics are not quickly changed by a little sunshine. Wrinkles may come. Dark tans may come. But permanently black or wrinkled skin in one's progeny does not come.

So, I would return the question to you--where do you think the black color would have "evolved?"
Where?
Ummmm.... in the hot sun?
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/29/11 08:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
First of all, it does not explain the clear climate and skin color correlation. I.e, hotter climates = darker skin | colder climates = lighter skin, and then there are the in between color of the Middle East peoples.

How do you explain the fact that the Eskimos of Alaska have a dark skin, although this northern region does not receive much UV radiation?
Not much? Could you give some quantitative comparisons?

Quote:
Besides, climate changes became pronounced after the flood, and it was only natural that people with a lighter skin would seek the regions with colder climates to live in.

Huh? Why would it be "natural" for lighter skinned people to seek colder climates? If you switched that around and said that people who sought colder climates (actually, more non-equatorial) became lighter skinned, I would agree. Those genes would serve no purpose and die out. "Adaptation" only occurs with death over time.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/30/11 03:18 AM

Quote:
Not much? Could you give some quantitative comparisons?

This is from 2009, but it will do for purposes of comparison:

Average UV index for Alaska, North Pole:
January 0.27
February 0.5
March 1.36
April 2.61
May 3.97
June 4.28
July 4.08
August 3.26
September 1.59
October 0.6
November 0.21
December 0.1
The Average UV Index for 2009 was 1.87
http://www.homefacts.com/uvindex/Alaska/Fairbanks-North-Star-County/North-Pole.html

Average UV index for Miami (which is not in the Equator, but 1,779 miles from it):
January 5.83
February 6.78
March 9.05
April 10.58
May 10.16
June 10.64
July 11.57
August 11.34
September 9.82
October 8.01
November 5.52
December 4.47
The Average UV Index for 2009 was 8.54
http://www.homefacts.com/uvindex/Florida/Miami-Dade-County/Miami.html

In Honolulu, Hawaii, the Average UV Index for 2009 was 9.17.
http://www.homefacts.com/uvindex/Hawaii/Honolulu-County/Honolulu.html

In a city located in the Equator, the UV Index is, most of the year, extreme (above 11).

Quote:
Huh? Why would it be "natural" for lighter skinned people to seek colder climates?

Because, of course, the lighter your skin the less tolerance you'll have for sun exposure.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/30/11 04:14 AM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Originally Posted By: kland
Huh? Why would it be "natural" for lighter skinned people to seek colder climates?


Because, of course, the lighter your skin the less tolerance you'll have for sun exposure.


That may surfacely seem to be likely, however, as already explained in Post #135256, that does not seem to be the reason for the chosen destinations for post-flood migration. It seems most sequitur to me that the migration came first and then people had to cope with whatever climate they were in, especially as they probably did not have much options for another place without generating a serious conflict with an already occupying group of people.

Also, as EGW states (3SG 78.2), the area where (I extrapolate) Eden and its surrounding was and where most people lived was, because of its elevated populating, was destroyed more than other (uninhabited, even vacant) parts the Earth. (As I see it, the current predominantly barren and desert relief Middle East and Northern Africa). So many people would have preferred going to further places within the contiguous Europe-Asia Continent to find more fertile places to settle in.

Also I see it as logical that people living immediately after the Flood were much healthier in every aspect than people today (which I why I see that they lived ca. 430+ years). They thus would have been able to much better tolerate sunlight exposure, and probably did not have cases of sunlight caused skin cancer as we readily see today. They may not have experienced sun burns, even while they may be tanning.

So to me the darker and lighter skin colors came about simply by the various climate where those most early post flood people persisted in living. And all started by being tanned.

Also your “less tolerance” claim does not explain why many lighter skin people live in e.g., Florida, and if it was geopolitically and socio-economically seamlessly “easy” to do, many would live in more Southern, hotter regions, e.g., Cuba, Jamaica, and Other Carribean and (northern) South America regions.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/30/11 08:53 AM

A very interesting map of the racial distribution of the three primary races (European, Asian, Negroid) as of 1911, still in Mrs. White's day, and somewhat ahead of the global age of travel, can be found here:

http://www.emersonkent.com/map_archive/world_races_1911.htm

Of course, you will notice that some of the migrations of peoples are already in evidence there, such as the darkening of the south-east US, and the Europeans represented in the southern tip of Africa. But if you consider for a moment that both Africa and South America have long traditions with the native peoples there, one might wonder why, if Africans got black through sun exposure, the same did not happen to the the South Americans who are at the very same latitudes.

Again, genotypes have not been proven to "evolve" to black as a result of sun exposure. Nor has the reverse ever been shown to be the case. I think most any bright young, up-and-coming scholar in the scientific world who proposed that black people who had moved to England would in a calculated number of generations, even if strictly marrying with only their own kind, "evolve" into "whites," would be laughed to scorn. Any scientist making such fanciful claims would be held in derision in the scientific community. There is simply no proof of it. Of course, they might say that if we were to give it a few million years that it might occur, but I don't know of any scientist who would risk tarnishing his reputation by even considering such a preposterous evolution in but a few generations. "Few" is a relative term, of course. Six thousand years of life yields very "few" generations in the minds of most of today's scientists.

Considering that for the first 2000 years of this earth's history only 20 generations are recorded in the Bible, that significantly reduces the total possible number of generations that we might arrive at today.

How many generations would it take for "whites" to evolve into "blacks," given a hot, sunny environment?

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/30/11 09:25 PM

Quote:
Also your “less tolerance” claim does not explain why many lighter skin people live in e.g., Florida, and if it was geopolitically and socio-economically seamlessly “easy” to do, many would live in more Southern, hotter regions, e.g., Cuba, Jamaica, and Other Carribean and (northern) South America regions.

???
Obviously I refer to the time when the several peoples first began to look for a place to settle in after the flood, not to modern times. Examples from the modern world make no sense in this discussion. Our lifestyle today is completely different from then.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/30/11 09:57 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
A very interesting map of the racial distribution of the three primary races (European, Asian, Negroid) as of 1911, still in Mrs. White's day, and somewhat ahead of the global age of travel, can be found here:

http://www.emersonkent.com/map_archive/world_races_1911.htm


That does not address my hypothesis. I claim that this change occurred in the first 430+ to even, roughly speaking 800-1100 years (i.e., 2-3 400/300 year generations), right after the flood. You chart is only showing where those races have globally migrated by 1911. Who populous, if any, even lived in areas such a Australia, North and South America before relatively recent times (ca. 1492)??

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Of course, you will notice that some of the migrations of peoples are already in evidence there, such as the darkening of the south-east US, and the Europeans represented in the southern tip of Africa. But if you consider for a moment that both Africa and South America have long traditions with the native peoples there, one might wonder why, if Africans got black through sun exposure, the same did not happen to the the South Americans who are at the very same latitudes.


By the time that “South America” was, even indigenously, populated, in the second half of the 20th century, according to my hypothesis which require a long life by a single ancestor, sun exposure would not be long enough to effectuate this permanent UV protection genetic change.

And if that were substantively applicable, unlike the pre-flood populated, “African/Middle East” Region, which was more severely damaged than the unpopulated South American regions, indeed as seen by the extreme difference in foliage, anyone living in the tropics of South America would predominantly, even deliberately be living under and/or seeking the available natural sun shade. That was not, as enduringly seen today, an availability for post-flood people who lived in the Africa/Middle East region.

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Again, genotypes have not been proven to "evolve" to black as a result of sun exposure. Nor has the reverse ever been shown to be the case. ... There is simply no proof of it.


I do not even think it has even been hypothesized let alone, then tested and proven.

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
I think most any bright young, up-and-coming scholar in the scientific world who proposed that black people who had moved to England would in a calculated number of generations, even if strictly marrying with only their own kind, "evolve" into "whites," would be laughed to scorn. Any scientist making such fanciful claims would be held in derision in the scientific community.


Objection!! Speculating! Indeed this is just pure subjective/biased speculation on your part and shows/proves absolutely nothing factual.

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Of course, they might say that if we were to give it a few million years that it might occur, but I don't know of any scientist who would risk tarnishing his reputation by even considering such a preposterous evolution in but a few generations. "Few" is a relative term, of course. Six thousand years of life yields very "few" generations in the minds of most of today's scientists.

Considering that for the first 2000 years of this earth's history only 20 generations are recorded in the Bible, that significantly reduces the total possible number of generations that we might arrive at today.


Obviously you don’t understand my hypothesis. I advance/posit a single generation/person, living 430 years, with constant UV exposure or deprivation to the point where the body genetically, permanently reacts, resulting in this altered skin color coding being fully passed on the next offspring. No “evolving” or ‘gradually become darker/lighter. It is, according to my view, a single generation affectation.

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
How many generations would it take for "whites" to evolve into "blacks," given a hot, sunny environment?


According to my hypothesis: one from a 430+ year, 12-16 hours per day, tropical, unhindered suntanning.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/30/11 09:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Also your “less tolerance” claim does not explain why many lighter skin people live in e.g., Florida, and if it was geopolitically and socio-economically seamlessly “easy” to do, many would live in more Southern, hotter regions, e.g., Cuba, Jamaica, and Other Carribean and (northern) South America regions.

???
Obviously I refer to the time when the several peoples first began to look for a place to settle in after the flood, not to modern times. Examples from the modern world make no sense in this discussion. Our lifestyle today is completely different from then.


I am fully aware of that and that emphasized specification still does not validate your claim here. Why would light skin people (and most likely equally, if not much more fully clothed than those in our day) today be able to “better tolerate” the sunlight??

Also my view is that all people were tanned to start with and those after the flood who went to live in climates with less sun became gradually then “genetically permanently” lighter over their 400+ year life while the opposite occurred for people living in tropical and “uncovered” places, particularly with those who wore very little clothes.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/30/11 10:19 PM

Quote:
Why would light skin people (and most likely equally, if not much more fully clothed than those in our day) today be able to “better tolerate” the sunlight??

You yourself pointed out that our lifestyle is now much more sun-sheltered than it was then.

Quote:
Also my view is that all people were tanned to start with and those after the flood who went to live in climates with less sun became gradually then “genetically permanently” lighter over their 400+ year life while the opposite occurred for people living in tropical and “uncovered” places, particularly with those who wore very little clothes.

What do you mean is that acquired characteristics can be passed on genetically?
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/30/11 11:50 PM

Quote:
NJK: Why would light skin people (and most likely equally, if not much more fully clothed than those in our day) today be able to “better tolerate” the sunlight??

R: You yourself pointed out that our lifestyle is now much more sun-sheltered than it was then.


In regards to what actually addresses the issue, I am seeing that my view and yours are being confused here. You are claiming they migrated to a place where their already altered skin color would be better for them. I am saying their skin color was altered after this migration move, according to their common language and to avoid conflicts with other people.

On the other side issue, I am saying that people back then were probably more fully clothed (wearing full robes - both men and women) than (liberal) people today. So the sun then would not affect them more than it would today. And given their better overall health, they probably could better tolerate it than today. So with both of these factors taken into consideration, if people should be running to a climate that their skin color tolerates, it should e.g, be light skin people running away from sunny climates (e.g., light skin Floridians, Souther Californians, Arizonians, etc indeed the whole U.S. Southern region coast to coast). I lived in Florida, in your above example city Miami for 7 years and I now as a fact that it is indeed constantly above the U.S. average Sunny, with really only rain breaking up this abundant sun dose.

And really, what do you mean exactly by “tolerant”. As far as I know damaging and painful surface sunburns can almost equally occur to person of any shade of skin color. Only the damage by skin penetrating UV rays is what is varyingly blocked by skin color.

Quote:
NJK: Also my view is that all people were tanned to start with and those after the flood who went to live in climates with less sun became gradually then “genetically permanently” lighter over their 400+ year life while the opposite occurred for people living in tropical and “uncovered” places, particularly with those who wore very little clothes.

R: What do you mean is that acquired characteristics can be passed on genetically?


If I get your question accurately, I am saying that the genetic control of skin color itself/alone may be the only thing that can be externally affected in order to adequately protect again this UV variation. And that recoding can indeed be passed on their (immediate) offspring. However a lot of constant exposure time by a single person is the key requirement for that genetic recoding.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/31/11 02:12 AM

Quote:
So with both of these factors taken into consideration, if people should be running to a climate that their skin color tolerates, it should e.g, be light skin people running away from sunny climates

People today don't need to run from sunny climates. They have sunscreens. They have cars to take them to places, and most of them work indoors. Most men don't have to till the ground. Most men don't have to care for sheep or cattle herds. Women don't have to wash clothes in the river. And so on. Obviously there are much less exposure to the sun rays. Even so, in Brazil (which began to be colonized in 1500) we see that people with lighter skins (mostly from German descent) are located in the colder climate regions (the shouthern part of the country and mountain regions). Regions at or near the Equator (the northern part of the country) are populated by people with a darker skin (European + American Indian or European + African descent). This is clearly perceptible.

Quote:
And really, what do you mean exactly by “tolerant”. As far as I know damaging and painful surface sunburns can almost equally occur to person of any shade of skin color. Only the damage by skin penetrating UV rays is what is varyingly blocked by skin color.

Almost equally?

Quote:
Skin Type I Burns easily and rarely tans. These people most likely have bright white skin, blue or green eyes and freckles, which usually reveals an English, Irish or Scottish heritage. People with Type 1 skin should not tan indoors or outdoors. Their skin is unable to produce significant amounts of melanin to protect them from sunburns that can lead to skin damage.
Skin Type II Can tan, but still susceptible to sunburn. Common traits include brown or blue eyes, red or blond hair and freckles. Heritage usually is English, Scottish or Scandanavian. Type II tanners should be cautious and take any precautions to avoid sunburn.
Skin Type III Tans easily, but still susceptible to moderate sunburns. The most common skin type in America. These people often have brown eyes, dark hair and Central European heritage.
Skin Type IV Tans easily and almost never burns. These people often have dark eyes, dark hair and Mediterranean, Oriental or Hispanic heritage.
Skin Type V Rarely burns and tans easily. These people have dark hair and eyes and are of Indian, American Indian, Hispanic or African descent.
Skin Type VI Can tan despite their black skin. Never sunburns. They usually have dark hair and are Africans, African-American or Aborigines.

http://www.maya-tan.com/skintypes.html

Obviously the tolerance is much higher for some skins than for others.

Quote:
If I get your question accurately, I am saying that the genetic control of skin color itself/alone may be the only thing that can be externally affected in order to adequately protect again this UV variation. And that recoding can indeed be passed on their (immediate) offspring. However a lot of constant exposure time by a single person is the key requirement for that genetic recoding.

Where is the scientific basis for this claim? There are indeed some who claim that some acquired characteristics can be transmitted to offspring. However, if this happens at all, it happens within the average modern lifespan; it doesn't require hundreds of years.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/31/11 03:34 AM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
How many generations would it take for "whites" to evolve into "blacks," given a hot, sunny environment?


According to my hypothesis: one from a 430+ year, 12-16 hours per day, tropical, unhindered suntanning.


This is absolutely silly. I don't know how a dead person can pass on his genes. For that matter, I don't see how a 430-year old, still-alive person can then give his genes to his 400-year old son.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/31/11 05:12 AM


Originally Posted By: Rosangela
People today don't need to run from sunny climates. They have sunscreens. They have cars to take them to places, and most of them work indoors. Most men don't have to till the ground. Most men don't have to care for sheep or cattle herds. Women don't have to wash clothes in the river. And so on.


Sure we have different “remedies” and a sheltered lifestyle, but I e.g., still see that people today are, for recently accepted cultural reasons, probably less sun shieldingly dress than many others in the past and that would greatly affect how much constant/consistent sun exposure they get. And all of this non-slave, “household” work would have been done in the past by mostly fully robe-clothed people, only rolling up the bottom of their robe when necessary and probably, in moral groups, when amongst the same gender.

Also, people rarely wear sunscreen except when they plan to lie in the sun for a while.

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Obviously there are much less exposure to the sun rays. Even so, in Brazil (which began to be colonized in 1500) we see that people with lighter skins (mostly from German descent) are located in the colder climate regions (the shouthern part of the country and mountain regions). Regions at or near the Equator (the northern part of the country) are populated by people with a darker skin (European + Indian or European + African descent). This is clearly perceptible.


This is where I would like to know what exactly you understand by “toleration”. Is it, as the data below involves, to avoid sunburns? In that case it that would make sense for them to be migrating elsewhere. However is this only a, relatively, recent (i.e., sometime around and/or into the A.D. era) development. Again the longevity (=health) factor of those living 400+ years needs to be taken into full consideration and this toleration may have become gradually less and less over time, indeed as men’s longevity lessened (=healthiness decreased)

So if my ‘tanning genetic alteration’ hypothesis is valid, “toleration” would not have been the, at least initiating reason for migration destination selections, indeed those skin color changes would have come after those migrations.

Quote:
Quote:
NJK: And really, what do you mean exactly by “tolerant”. As far as I know damaging and painful surface sunburns can almost equally occur to person of any shade of skin color. Only the damage by skin penetrating UV rays is what is varyingly blocked by skin color.


R: Almost equally?

Quote:
Skin Type I Burns easily and rarely tans. These people most likely have bright white skin, blue or green eyes and freckles, which usually reveals an English, Irish or Scottish heritage. People with Type 1 skin should not tan indoors or outdoors. Their skin is unable to produce significant amounts of melanin to protect them from sunburns that can lead to skin damage.
Skin Type II Can tan, but still susceptible to sunburn. Common traits include brown or blue eyes, red or blond hair and freckles. Heritage usually is English, Scottish or Scandanavian. Type II tanners should be cautious and take any precautions to avoid sunburn.
Skin Type III Tans easily, but still susceptible to moderate sunburns. The most common skin type in America. These people often have brown eyes, dark hair and Central European heritage.
Skin Type IV Tans easily and almost never burns. These people often have dark eyes, dark hair and Mediterranean, Oriental or Hispanic heritage.
Skin Type V Rarely burns and tans easily. These people have dark hair and eyes and are of Indian, American Indian, Hispanic or African descent.
Skin Type VI Can tan despite their black skin. Never sunburns. They usually have dark hair and are Africans, African-American or Aborigines.

http://www.maya-tan.com/skintypes.html

Obviously the tolerance is much higher for some skins than for others.


Those statistics probably do support your claim in regards to skin color toleration capabilities. I was just informally going by experiential observations were I, particularly in my first sun exposed outing in the Spring time (e.g., a walk or just mowing the lawn) after the long and shielded winter season here in Quebec, Canada, personally can quickly get a sudden blackened blotch on uncovered skin areas (forearms, even forehead, above my sunglasses line).

I also based it on the often and common, particularly lately, (based on apparently some new scientific observations), emphatically said caution that ‘even dark skinned people need to wear sun screen/block when prolongedly out in the sun.’

Quote:
NJK: If I get your question accurately, I am saying that the genetic control of skin color itself/alone may be the only thing that can be externally affected in order to adequately protect again this UV variation. And that recoding can indeed be passed on their (immediate) offspring. However a lot of constant exposure time by a single person is the key requirement for that genetic recoding.

R: Where is the scientific basis for this claim? There are indeed some who claim that some acquired characteristics can be transmitted to offspring. However, if this happens at all, it happens within the average modern lifespan; it doesn't require hundreds of years.


The study/research of the science of skin genes, especially as they relate to tanning would be in order here, but I don’t presently have various the needed resources for this undertaking. Its time for gene alteration could take a longer while.

The whole study of how lifestyle and other internally “ingested/processed” external affect one’s DNA coding would also be in order here. APL’s seemingly Biblically/Scientifically valid comments above in regards to the hereditary passing on of sin tendencies seems to me to be along this line. Nonetheless sun UV exposure clearly know to begin a biological bodily reaction and DNA affectation, so to me that is a most significant difference to any other such affectations, if they are scientifically true.
Posted By: NJK Project

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 07/31/11 05:15 AM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: NJK Project
Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
How many generations would it take for "whites" to evolve into "blacks," given a hot, sunny environment?


According to my hypothesis: one from a 430+ year, 12-16 hours per day, tropical, unhindered suntanning.


This is absolutely silly. I don't know how a dead person can pass on his genes. For that matter, I don't see how a 430-year old, still-alive person can then give his genes to his 400-year old son.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.


Of course, I never said anything at all about either ‘passing on gene (a) after one is dead nor (b) non-sexually’; but of course you typically need to go on to make such “straw man” and red herring circular arguments.

The offspring passing on would of course have to be at some point before they died. So e.g, they, as men could, especially with non-God fearing people who slept around and/or had many wives, could have a son or daughter e.g, 5 years before their final 438th year birthday. As the line of the more than less (God-fearing) Semitic Hebrews through Abraham remained in one ca. original Middle East Region, the did not have striking skin-color variations amongst them.

I don’t know what the genetic change age/time would be, but it quite plausible could be around 100 which is plenty of time to continue to have ‘many more sons and daughters past a first’ (cf. Gen 11:10ff) and since a while, just a little after Moses’ generation (120 years), people have ceased to live into their hundreds, indeed settling around 70-80 as noted by David (Psa 90:10).
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 08/01/11 07:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
Not much? Could you give some quantitative comparisons?

This is from 2009, but it will do for purposes of comparison:
Well that sure surprised me. For some reason I thought the poles would have high UV.

Quote:

Quote:
Huh? Why would it be "natural" for lighter skinned people to seek colder climates?

Because, of course, the lighter your skin the less tolerance you'll have for sun exposure.
Along the same line of reasoning, would that mean that blind cave fish sought out dark areas because they were blind?
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 08/01/11 08:34 PM

Quote:
Well that sure surprised me. For some reason I thought the poles would have high UV.

The explanation:

The three images above illustrate how a change in angle between the sun and the Earth’s surface affect the intensity of sunlight (and UV-B) on the surface. When the sun is directly overhead, forming a 90° angle with the surface, sunlight is spread over the minimum area. Also, the light only has to pass through the atmosphere directly above the surface. An increased angle between the sun and the surface—due to latitude, time of day, and season—spreads the same amount of energy over a wider area, and the sunlight passes through more atmosphere, diffusing the light. Therefore, UV-B radiation is stronger at the equator than the poles, stronger at noon than evening, and stronger in summer than winter. (Illustration by Robert Simmon)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/UVB/uvb_radiation3.php

Quote:
Along the same line of reasoning, would that mean that blind cave fish sought out dark areas because they were blind?

That was funny. smile
No, this is an entirely different case. It's a case of loss of information (microevolution), and natural selection has perpetuated the dominance of this characteristic in its offspring. But blind Cavefish can produce sighted offspring.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 08/02/11 08:20 PM

Yes, but there is also the issue of blockage which I thought was less at the poles.

Why is it a different case with the fish? I believe NJK and I were trying to say that white people have lost information. Why do you think it is a different case?

By the way, dominance of loss, seems rather conflicting to me. Maybe I'm trying to relate it to dominate genes.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 08/02/11 10:59 PM

Quote:
Why is it a different case with the fish? I believe NJK and I were trying to say that white people have lost information. Why do you think it is a different case?

Do you think that white skin is a loss of information? What was the original color? Black, yellow or red? And if white is a loss of information, how did the other two colors (except white and the initial color) originate?
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 08/04/11 04:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
Why is it a different case with the fish? I believe NJK and I were trying to say that white people have lost information. Why do you think it is a different case?

Do you think that white skin is a loss of information?
Yes, that's what we've been saying.

Quote:
What was the original color? Black, yellow or red?
A mix of colors. All colors.

Quote:
And if white is a loss of information, how did the other two colors (except white and the initial color) originate?
Huh? They were not lost.
That seemed like an odd question.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 08/05/11 11:18 PM

Kland,

If the original color was a mix of colors, this means that the four skin colors in existence today (not just the white color) result from a loss of information. Is this what you are saying?
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 08/09/11 06:14 PM

No.

I am not saying there are only four skin colors in existence today.

I am not saying that all skin colors necessarily involve loss of information.

I'm saying that white skin color, if it is anything at all like such genetics in plants and other animals, involves a loss of information.

If you do not understand classical Mendelian genetics, with multiple genes or alleles being especially relevant here, and along with what I perceive some resistance to the concept, we really do not have the same basis and would require extensive and tedious interactions. But if you can explain agouti mouse color, perhaps we can discuss this more.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 08/09/11 10:48 PM

You claim to be saying the same thing NJK was saying, but NJK wasn't saying anything about loss of information. What he was saying was:

Quote:
My, albeit, hypothesis, is that God could have expressedly wired man to be able to recode the skin cells in order to deal with various sunlight exposure, depending on where exactly one lives, including elsewhere in this universe. So the body having to constantly deal with extreme sunlight exposure, resulting in it darkening the skin color, could then be encode for that color in the genes and indeed genetically passed on through the gamete, as any other gene information. And that would occur at the sub-epigenetic level.


Now, about skin color (not race), I see four basic colors in existence today (it could be 3 if red is considered a variation of yellow), with the others being a result of the mix between the main types.

What I'm saying is that in Adam the potential combination of genes was enormous, and all colors are a result of selection from the existing gene pool. What you are saying is that the original color was a mix of colors, and that white is a loss of information. But, if none of the colors in existence today is the original color, I fail to see how white involves a loss of information, while the other colors don't (although all of them would lack elements which were present in the original color).
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 08/11/11 03:24 PM

Originally Posted By: NJK Project
So peoples who went to a certain area over their ca. 438 years for that first generation (cf. Gen 11:12), were not only affected by the constant lopsided climate, but were now, if this was not always possible, genetically susceptible to be, as a protective measure, affected by this exposure to the sun.
In reading (or re-interpreting) is comments, I now see he may be referring to an individual rather than a population.

While epistatic methylation may very well be part of the equation, it was not what I was talking about.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/04/11 05:03 PM

If you cross a black, with a white and then cross them with an oriental, and then with Eskimos and Indians, what color would you get? Then, you take those amalgamated peoples and let them segregate out.

If you can take the different races, mix them together, then let them separate out, why couldn't all races be combined at the beginning?
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/10/11 11:52 PM

What does this have to do with EGW and the almalgamtion of man and beast? confused

Originally Posted By: kland
If you cross a black, with a white and then cross them with an oriental, and then with Eskimos and Indians, what color would you get? Then, you take those amalgamated peoples and let them segregate out.

If you can take the different races, mix them together, then let them separate out, why couldn't all races be combined at the beginning?
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/11/11 03:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Daryl F
What does this have to do with EGW and the almalgamtion of man and beast? confused

Originally Posted By: kland
If you cross a black, with a white and then cross them with an oriental, and then with Eskimos and Indians, what color would you get? Then, you take those amalgamated peoples and let them segregate out.

If you can take the different races, mix them together, then let them separate out, why couldn't all races be combined at the beginning?

Probably not as much as some might wish, Daryl. The argument kland is presenting is one which seems to make sense in a sort of reverse-logic way (working back from the end to the beginning), but the actual argument here is probably a logical fallacy. One simply cannot demonstrate lineage based on an experiment of this sort.

The fallacy here might be one of "Loaded Question."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

Here's how it seems to break down:

P: If you cross a black, with a white and then cross them with an oriental, and then with Eskimos and Indians, what color would you get?
P: "Amalgamated" people allowed to breed freely will produce different races.
Q: All races were combined at the beginning.


The first premise above is actually stating an unproven and disputable fact in the form of an unanswered question. The second premise uses the term "amalgamated" without its having been clearly defined by the group (another fallacy, actually). The conclusion, of course, cannot be logical on the basis of such premises.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/11/11 05:29 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Here's how it seems to break down:

P: If you cross a black, with a white and then cross them with an oriental, and then with Eskimos and Indians, what color would you get?
P: "Amalgamated" people allowed to breed freely will produce different races.
Q: All races were combined at the beginning.


The first premise above is actually stating an unproven and disputable fact in the form of an unanswered question. The second premise uses the term "amalgamated" without its having been clearly defined by the group (another fallacy, actually). The conclusion, of course, cannot be logical on the basis of such premises.
You're partially right, partially wrong.
It would be true if I was addressing it to all. However, I was only addressing it to those who had determined what amalgamated was and that implied it was impossible for all the races to come from one couple. You might say I was arguing against the fallacy of another. I had disputed this previously. I'm not sure I would imply nor require to breed "freely". Freely, would seem to perpetuate some people's definition of "amalgamated" or better, mixed race. However, there are choices involved with people in breeding which aren't involved with plants and animals. It may result in much more speedier separations than in plants and animals. I'm reminded of the large scale slaughters in the middle east by subgroups of people who look very similar to me.

As far as the first premise, I was going from observations. Have you not seen the offspring of a black and white or any other mixed race offspring. They look very mixed to me. It is not unprovable. One can merely do research on family lines to see what has actually occurred, or one could actually do a controlled breeding experiment. Very testable as to what the outcome would be.

If you start at one state, and the result is a variety of races, mix them together to a mixed race, and if they should separate out, wouldn't that allow for the possibility that original state was a mixed race and had separated out? It can't be direct proof of what actually happened, because we can't go back there, but it sure is more inductive, supporting evidence, or whatever you want to call it, more so than what evolutionists go on as "science".

The only issue I see, regards as to whether it can be separated out. I'm only speculating as to what the result would be from segregations of plant and animal experiments, that God said all humans came from one pair, that there are currently multiple races in the world, that crossing them creates a mixture, so therefore, there would be a possibility they could separate out. I would agree, that they would not likely separate out in the exact races they started with as there are different environmental conditions, different cultural conditions, and it may be due to random factors.
Posted By: crater

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/21/11 08:42 PM

"Here's how it seems to break down:

P: If you cross a black, with a white and then cross them with an oriental, and then with Eskimos and Indians, what color would you get?"

I'd think you would end up with a Tiger Woods! ; D
Posted By: dedication

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/22/11 03:49 AM

Well, that's good for a laugh, but I don't think that's what EGW was talking about when she wrote:

Quote:
"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 amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before him." 1SP69


This is talking about altering God's creation in abnormal ways.
I think someone brought forth the concept of genetic engineering.

Personally I'm convinced that's what was going on. I don't for a minute believe they were some kind of backward primitive race. They had minds that would make people today look mentally challenged beside them. They had life spans of hundreds of years to experiment and learn.

Originally Posted By: EGW
More was lost in the Flood, in many ways, than men today know. Looking upon the world, God saw that the intellect He had given man was perverted, that the imagination of his heart was evil and that continually. God had given these men knowledge. He had given them valuable ideas, that they might carry out His plan. But the Lord saw that those whom He designed should possess wisdom, tact, and judgment, were using every quality of the mind to glorify self. By the waters of the Flood, He blotted this long-lived race from the earth, and with them perished the knowledge they had used only for evil. When the earth was repeopled, the Lord trusted His wisdom more sparingly to men, giving them only the ability they would need in carrying out His great plan (Letter 175, 1896). {1BC 1089.2}
Posted By: dedication

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/22/11 03:54 AM

Notice too -- she says RACE (singular) she's not taking about mixing different races of people.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/22/11 07:54 AM

Originally Posted By: dedication
Notice too -- she says RACE (singular) she's not taking about mixing different races of people.

In that particular quote, it is reasonably clear that the word "race" is used to refer specifically to that group of people we would call the "antediluvians." However, in other places, Mrs. White has referred to subsets of that group using the same word "race." The word can be used to denote larger groups, or subsets of those groups, and Mrs. White's use of the word "race" to speak of the entire population does not tell us anything in particular about the characteristics of that population. How could they not be mixed?

The people could only have not been mixed if they had maintained their peculiar family lines pure. That this was not the case is clear from Genesis 6. The race of Shem, called the "sons of God," intermarried with the race of Cain, referred to as the "daughters of men."

In an interesting statement, Mrs. White speaks of both the "human race" and of plural "races" in reference to Noah's three sons after the flood.

Originally Posted By: Ellen White
To repeople the desolate earth, which the Flood had so lately swept from its moral corruption, God had preserved but one family, the household of Noah, to whom He had declared, "Thee have I seen righteous before Me in this generation." Genesis 7:1. Yet in the three sons of Noah was speedily developed the same great distinction seen in the world before the Flood. In Shem, Ham, and Japheth, who were to be the founders of the human race, was foreshadowed the character of their posterity. {PP 117.1}
Noah, speaking by divine inspiration, foretold the history of the three great races to spring from these fathers of mankind. Tracing the descendants of Ham, through the son rather than the father, he declared, "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." The unnatural crime of Ham declared that filial reverence had long before been cast from his soul, and it revealed the impiety and vileness of his character. These evil characteristics were perpetuated in Canaan and his posterity, whose continued guilt called upon them the judgments of God. {PP 117.2}


More references to races...

Originally Posted By: Ellen White
Thus he [Dr. Wolff] persevered in his labors until the message of the judgment had been carried to a large part of the habitable globe. Among Jews, Turks, Parsees, Hindus, and many other nationalities and races he distributed the word of God in these various tongues and everywhere heralded the approaching reign of the Messiah. {GC 361.3}

"I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Genesis 3:15. The divine sentence pronounced against Satan after the fall of man was also a prophecy, embracing all the ages to the close of time and foreshadowing the great conflict to engage all the races of men who should live upon the earth. {GC 505.1}

Through their contact with peoples who should have given them a knowledge of God, the heathen are led into vices which are proving the destruction of whole tribes and races. And in the dark places of the earth the men of civilized nations are hated because of this. {MH 339.5}


Clearly, Ellen White recognized "races" of mankind in more than one sense. In the broad sense, she certainly does lump us all together in one big family and human race. Yet she was not blind to the reality of a grand variety of "races" among us, and recognized them in her writings. To use any single instance of her usage of the word to define all other instances in her writings would be an error.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/22/11 08:06 AM

In light of Mrs. White's perspective on the white versus the black races, it seems probable to me that the intermarriage of "white" and "black" people constitutes amalgamation.

Originally Posted By: Ellen White
We are one brotherhood. No matter what the gain or the loss, we must act nobly and courageously in the sight of God and our Saviour. Let us as Christians who accept the principle that all men, white and black, are free and equal, adhere to this principle, and not be cowards in the face of the world, and in the face of the heavenly intelligences. We should treat the colored man just as respectfully as we would treat the white man. And we can now, by precept and example, win others to this course. {2SM 343.1}
But there is an objection to the marriage of the white race with the black. All should consider that they have no right to entail upon their offspring that which will place them at a disadvantage; they have no right to give them as a birthright a condition which would subject them to a life of humiliation. The children of these mixed marriages have a feeling of bitterness toward the parents who have given them this lifelong inheritance. For this reason, if there were no other, there should be no intermarriage between the white and the colored race.--Manuscript 7, 1896. {2SM 343.2}

Answer to an Inquiry
Dear Friend:


In reply to inquiries regarding the advisability of intermarriage between Christian young people of the white and black races, I will say that in my earlier experience this question was brought before me, and the light given me of the Lord was that this step should not be taken; for it is sure to create controversy and confusion. I have always had the same counsel to give. No encouragement to marriages of this character should be given among our people. Let the colored brother enter into marriage with a colored sister who is worthy, one who loves God, and keeps His commandments. Let the white sister who contemplates uniting in marriage with the colored brother refuse to take this step, for the Lord is not leading in this direction. {2SM 344.1}
Time is too precious to be lost in controversy that will arise over this matter. Let not questions of this kind be permitted to call our ministers from their work. The taking of such a step will create confusion and hindrance. It will not be for the advancement of the work or for the glory of God.--Letter 36, 1912. {2SM 344.2}
The Lord looks upon the creatures He has made with compassion, no matter to what race they may belong. God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth."... Speaking to His disciples the Saviour said, "All ye are brethren." God is our common Father, and each one of us is our brother's keeper.--The Review and Herald, Jan. 21, 1896. {2SM 344.3}


Notice that Mrs. White always upheld equality among the races. But equality in value, love, talents, etc. does not always mean sameness. Similarly, men and women may speak of equality between them, but they are certainly not the same!

For purpose wise which God must see, He has asked blacks and whites not to intermarry. To disobey would be a sin. In Noah's era it may be, however, that the predominant issue was that of spiritual lineage and not merely racial lineage. Exactly what Mrs. White meant by "amalgamation" may always be a debatable question.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: dedication

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/23/11 12:08 AM

Well that may be your opinion on the matter.
For me it just doesn't hold up.

First of all --
I don't think there were black and white races immediately after creation. There was ONE couple, Adam and Eve, who had children. They naturally passed on the genetic codes God placed within them -- these descendents of Adam and Eve were all one race.



The different races came about because of amalgation.
They didn't come about because one of Adam's sons or grandsons suddenly had a black baby that had to be kept separate from the fairer skinned cousins to be sure he didn't intermarry.

Amalgation produced different races, they toyed with the skin color genetic codes adding some DNA making some whiter and some darker.
They toyed with the eye shape genetic codes.
They did other things that aren't evident today because it was erased in the flood.

After the flood they tried it again.
Some of the minor results are probably the things we see in the different races of people.


So how many races were there immediately after the flood?
How could "amalgamation" be carried out with only ONE family preserved if it really meant intermarriage between different races?

"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. {1SP 78.2}

Luckily that knowledge died out quickly. I don't think they got too far with it after after the flood. My own guess would be it died out during the dispersal at the tower of Babel. The reason the Babel rebellion was stopped is because they were rebuilding the pre-flood culture as well as defying God with their tower.

Another thought:
WHY does EGW council against black and white marriages? It's not because it's a great sin so terrible that God has to send a flood.

No -- it's because of attitudes of people that it is not wise, especially during her time when the blacks were slaves or just liberated from slavery, The culture imposed segregation laws. The mixed couple couldn't even go into public places together. But mostly it was for the sake of the children who are not accepted by the white community or the black.

However, these children are NOT an example of God's image being defaced!
They are just as beautiful and intellegent as any other children.

But the amalgamation that EGW refered to DEFACED the image of God in mankind.

It didn't just cause confusion in spirituality, or confusion in people's attitudes, it caused confusion in species and defaced the very image of God in which mankind was created.

I'm convinced that amalgation refered to GENETIC ENGINEERING.
Something EGW didn't even understand at the time of writing, but we understand quite well!

The world is now standing on that same brink where they are messing with God's creation in ways that will demand the destruction of creation.



Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/23/11 01:19 AM

Originally Posted By: dedication
Well that may be your opinion on the matter.
For me it just doesn't hold up.

I have not found any contradiction to what I believe in scripture.

Originally Posted By: dedication
First of all --
I don't think there were black and white races immediately after creation. There was ONE couple, Adam and Eve, who had children. They naturally passed on the genetic codes God placed within them -- these descendents of Adam and Eve were all one race.

I agree. That is, until God "marked" Cain so that anyone finding him would remember the curse pronounced upon the one who should kill him. Up until that time, they were all one race. Following that, however, there were two very distinct races--both in appearance and in spirituality.

Originally Posted By: dedication
The different races came about because of amalgation.

Amalgamation can only create different races if there is a difference to be had in the genetic source. So, if you believe that humans were all one race up until amalgamation happened, where is the new material that they would have mixed in with that race to create a new one? Animals? Of course, Ellen White's quote certainly leaves that option open. But then, I think we already mentioned bestiality earlier in this thread.

Originally Posted By: dedication
They didn't come about because one of Adam's sons or grandsons suddenly had a black baby that had to be kept separate from the fairer skinned cousins to be sure he didn't intermarry.
No, Cain was not a baby when he was marked.

Originally Posted By: dedication
Amalgation produced different races, they toyed with the skin color genetic codes adding some DNA making some whiter and some darker.
Or rather, God made the adjustment, just like He did with the languages at Babel.

I heard one person not long ago who tried to persuade me that all of our present languages had come from one original language as well. Trouble is, if you learn more than about two languages, you'll quickly see why this is simply an impossibility. I could disprove such a theory on phonics alone, without even making vocabulary comparisons and illustrating the futility of having all such words in a single language. There is simply no need of me having 8000+ words that all say "tree!"

Originally Posted By: dedication
They toyed with the eye shape genetic codes.
They did other things that aren't evident today because it was erased in the flood.

This sounds a bit odd. Are you referring to the Asian eyes? If so, such was not "erased in the flood." And if it actually were "erased in the flood," please show me your scripture that tells the story of this--for we would obviously not have it in evidence today, right?

Originally Posted By: dedication
After the flood they tried it again.
Some of the minor results are probably the things we see in the different races of people.
How did Noah's three sons get to be of different races? Did Noah "amalgamate" his own progeny? Or did they marry wives of different races that had been impacted by the pre-flood amalgamation? I believe that the latter option cannot be easily dismissed. Thus, I believe, the race of Cain survived, to be continued in the line of Ham.


Originally Posted By: dedication
So how many races were there immediately after the flood?
How could "amalgamation" be carried out with only ONE family preserved if it really meant intermarriage between different races?

I think I've suggested how this would be possible above.

Originally Posted By: dedication
"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. {1SP 78.2}

Luckily that knowledge died out quickly. I don't think they got too far with it after after the flood. My own guess would be it died out during the dispersal at the tower of Babel. The reason the Babel rebellion was stopped is because they were rebuilding the pre-flood culture as well as defying God with their tower.

I think after the flood they would have had sufficient difficulty just making a pencil. It would take time and much human resources to get back into doing highly technical things. Perhaps at Babel itself they were doing such, who knows, but I don't think Noah's sons themselves had much part in it.

Originally Posted By: dedication
Another thought:
WHY does EGW council against black and white marriages? It's not because it's a great sin so terrible that God has to send a flood.

No -- it's because of attitudes of people that it is not wise, especially during her time when the blacks were slaves or just liberated from slavery, The culture imposed segregation laws. The mixed couple couldn't even go into public places together. But mostly it was for the sake of the children who are not accepted by the white community or the black.

It should be noted that this condition still exists today, not just in Mrs. White's day.

Originally Posted By: dedication
However, these children are NOT an example of God's image being defaced!

God's image was already defaced. Not one of us is born in the image of God. After man fell, that image was lost. When Adam had children, the Bible makes a careful point to say they were born "in his own likeness." That, by the way, was even said for his son Seth, the one who was most faithful to God and in the lineage of Christ.

So, black or white doesn't matter--neither of them would be in "God's image."

Originally Posted By: dedication
They are just as beautiful and intellegent as any other children.
That's a good opinion to hold.

Originally Posted By: dedication
But the amalgamation that EGW refered to DEFACED the image of God in mankind.

I'm sure it did. And God's image is increasingly defaced with each new generation. And there is no hope of us reviving it, in physical form, this side of Heaven. Praise the Lord for the hope we have of being changed in the twinkling of an eye. smile

Originally Posted By: dedication
It didn't just cause confusion in spirituality, or confusion in people's attitudes, it caused confusion in species and defaced the very image of God in which mankind was created.

I'm convinced that amalgation refered to GENETIC ENGINEERING.
Something EGW didn't even understand at the time of writing, but we understand quite well!

I think you might be right here in part. However, I think we have to be careful about making assumptions as to the manner of "amalgamation" back then. They may have been quite far from test tubes and microscopes in a laboratory. They may well have had a superior understanding of human and animal physiology and have worked in more "natural" ways of which we are ignorant today.

Originally Posted By: dedication
The world is now standing on that same brink where they are messing with God's creation in ways that will demand the destruction of creation.

Agreed. We are seeing prophecy fulfilled in this area.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: dedication

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/23/11 06:48 AM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa

I have not found any contradiction to what I believe in scripture.

I haven't found anything in scripture concerning amalgamation being the crossing of black and white races prior to flood.
So, yes it is an OPINION, not a scriptural fact.

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa

I agree (there was just one race). That is, until God "marked" Cain so that anyone finding him would remember the curse pronounced upon the one who should kill him. Up until that time, they were all one race. Following that, however, there were two very distinct races--both in appearance and in spirituality.


Again the idea of the "mark" being a genetically transferrable feature that changed the physical appearance of all his descendants is an opinion.

Yes, there was a division between those who served God and those Who did not. But the term "amalgamation" has connotations that mean more than "marrying an unbeliever".

EGW has lots to say about not marrying unbelievers and she never calls it "amalgamation".

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa

Amalgamation can only create different races if there is a difference to be had in the genetic source. So, if you believe that humans were all one race up until amalgamation happened, where is the new material that they would have mixed in with that race to create a new one? Animals? Of course, Ellen White's quote certainly leaves that option open. But then, I think we already mentioned bestiality earlier in this thread.


I don't think it was bestiality.
I don't think it was any kind of interbreeding.
They had knowledge of genetic manipulation.
And genetic engineering changes the genetic source.




Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: dedication
After the flood they tried it again.
Some of the minor results are probably the things we see in the different races of people.
How did Noah's three sons get to be of different races? Did Noah "amalgamate" his own progeny? Or did they marry wives of different races that had been impacted by the pre-flood amalgamation? I believe that the latter option cannot be easily dismissed. Thus, I believe, the race of Cain survived, to be continued in the line of Ham.


Again you seem to be think I'm talking about some kind of natural breeding. No, I'm talking about genetic engineering.
The sons of Noah probably carried the knowledge of how to do genetic engineering. Someone, possibly someone like Nimrod (Gilgamesh?) decided to experiment with it.




Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: dedication
"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. {1SP 78.2}

Luckily that knowledge died out quickly. I don't think they got too far with it after the flood. My own guess would be it died out during the dispersal at the tower of Babel. The reason the Babel rebellion was stopped is because they were rebuilding the pre-flood culture as well as defying God with their tower.

I think after the flood they would have had sufficient difficulty just making a pencil. It would take time and much human resources to get back into doing highly technical things. Perhaps at Babel itself they were doing such, who knows, but I don't think Noah's sons themselves had much part in it.


I think the ark itself was far more sophisticated than the pictures show. They brought sophisticated stuff with them. They KNEW they had to bring with them everything they needed to start a new civilization. They had 120 years to accumulate everything they thought they might need. If the Egyptians were able to build the greatest pyrimids ever built shortly after the flood, I'm sure people had skills we don't even know about.


Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: dedication
However, these children are NOT an example of God's image being defaced!

God's image was already defaced. Not one of us is born in the image of God. After man fell, that image was lost. When Adam had children, the Bible makes a careful point to say they were born "in his own likeness." That, by the way, was even said for his son Seth, the one who was most faithful to God and in the lineage of Christ.

So, black or white doesn't matter--neither of them would be in "God's image."


If what you wrote is how EGW was thinking when she wrote the paragraph, then why would she even mention it? If the image of God was alreadly defaced (lost), then intermarriage defacing something that wasn't there, won't matter.

Yet it was a problem.

EGW uses the term "image of God" in different ways.
You have shared one way -- the perfect moral part of the image of God that was lost at the fall.

But she also uses it more generally, like:

" Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to that of the Creator-- individuality, power to think and to do." Ed 18
She also says intemprance destroys the image of God in mankind by benumbing the nobler faculties.

So it leaves the option open that the pre-flood tampering rendered human beings whose individulity and power to think was greatly modified. It was the pre-flood amalgamation that was destroying the image of God in mankind.

The post flood attempts were short lived and seem to have been minor changes. Probably affecting appearance somewhat, but not the ability to reason and think.



Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: dedication


I'm convinced that amalgation refered to GENETIC ENGINEERING.
Something EGW didn't even understand at the time of writing, but we understand quite well!

I think you might be right here in part. However, I think we have to be careful about making assumptions as to the manner of "amalgamation" back then. They may have been quite far from test tubes and microscopes in a laboratory. They may well have had a superior understanding of human and animal physiology and have worked in more "natural" ways of which we are ignorant today.


I can fully agree that we don't know HOW they did it. It seems they had technology in a number of areas that is quite different from what we have today. For example, they harnessed energy from the magnetic lines of the earth that scientists today still can't understand how they did it.
Another example is the great pyramid said to have been erected in 2560 BC. That must have been almost immediately after the flood!!! Yet they precision cut 2.3 million huge stones each weighing an average of 25 tonnes, transported them 500 miles from Aswan, hoisted them into perfectly placed position to build a pyramid 480 feet tall.
I don't think they did that by hand as often depicted, they had some technology we don't understand.
So, just how they did it we don't know.

How they did their genetic engineering we don't know either -- they may have known something scientists still don't know today.

Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/23/11 07:24 AM

Noah was given precise instructions in how to build the ark--exact dimensions. And he followed them. Do you think God would have asked Noah to build a special room into the ark for a genetic engineering laboratory? Do you think God would have allowed that, much less designed space for it?

Do you realize that the animals which came to the ark were seven days in entering it? That's a lot of animals. Noah and his family were so busy fitting the animals into the ark at that time that I'm sure they had time for little else. And they would not have known how much room the animals would occupy until after they had all entered.

Furthermore, Mrs. White tells us something else rather interesting about babies before the flood, and these don't sound like the test-tube variety.

Originally Posted By: Ellen White
Moses, the first historian, gives quite a definite account of social and individual life in the early days of the world's history, but we find no record that an infant was born blind, deaf, crippled, or imbecile. Not an instance is recorded of a natural death in infancy, childhood, or early manhood. Obituary notices in the book of Genesis run thus: "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died." "And all the days of Seth were nine hundred and twelve years; and he died." Concerning others the record states, "He died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years." It was so rare for a son to die before his father, that such an occurrence was considered worthy of record: "Haran died before his father Terah." [Genesis 5:5, 8; 25:8; 11:28.] The patriarchs from Adam to Noah, with few exceptions, lived nearly a thousand years. Since then the average length of life has been decreasing. {CTBH 7.3}


Modern genetic engineering involves obtaining stem cells, generally from a fetus. The fetus is destroyed in the process. It seems this would have been a notable event, and Moses would have recorded something about it.

Genetic engineering is not something that simply requires knowledge. It is something that requires a high amount of civilization and development.

If a disaster destroyed our world today, and a few top scientists were all that remained (with their wives), do you suppose they could do genetic engineering? Remember, the internet is gone. The laboratories are gone. Everything is gone, and one must be agrarian just to survive. There is no store in which to buy one's food. No money, in fact. Inventions and genetic engineering?! Last thing on one's mind at that point. Remember, no plastic factory, no oil industry, no glass shop, no oxyacetylene tanks and hoses with which to weld or smelt metal, no large machines or expensive robotic tools for precision work....

Of course, we really don't know what level of invention the antediluvians had, but I tend to think that a God who would be so particular as to forbid the mixing of wool and linen in one's clothing and who forbad the people to sow their fields with diverse kinds of seed (lest they cross pollinate), would be particular enough to call a "base crime" that which we might take rather lightly. I don't think they needed to do "genetic engineering" such as we do today to have committed such a crime as "amalgamation." I think simple cross-breeding between different kinds would have qualified.

In other words, I truly think we are worse today than they were back then.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: APL

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/24/11 07:06 AM

It is not only man that is doing genetic manipulation.

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}

If a person lived a perfect life, no stress, ate right, exercised, etc. They still would die. Why? DNA. There are just so many cell divisions that are possible and the system fails. If the "seeds" of death are in the system, Satan put them there. I would argue it was at the Tree of Knowledge because of the warning given about that tree. As I have argued earlier in this thread, mobile genetic elements, which evolutionist often call "selfish DNA" I think is the finger print of sin.

Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. 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. {1SP 78.2}

Today, we can do genetic manipulations to do strange things, such as making an eye grow on a leg of a fruit fly. That does not mean it is functional, but it can be done. We have statuary of half human, half animal. Was this just a figment of the sculptor's mind, or was this pointing back to the confused species that God did not create?

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 amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before him. {3SG 64.1}

Sin is transgression of the law. Amalgamation was a sin. All organisms are controlled by their genetic code. The genetic code contains the law of how a organism operates. Romans 5:12 AKJV Why, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed on all men, for that all have sinned:

Since the flood, there have been more amalgamations. Did man do this in the laboratory? I think a lot of that was lost in the flood. However, meat eating came into being. And there is a huge amount of lateral transfer of DNA going on. If you check the genes that code for protein in marsupials compared with placental animals, we find that the genes are the same. However, the transposable genetic elements are different, and these affect gene expression. The different in the various dog breeds is do to the transposable elements. Viruses are one type of transposable genetic element. Viruses are clearly selfish. They exists to only make more of themselves. Who is now pushing forward transposable elements? The devil is still at work. Read the parable of the sower.

What does a man pass to his offspring? 23 chromosomes in a protein cap. That's it, physically. Death is coded in the genes. What wages of sin is death, Romans 6:23. Sin is in the DNA. Ellen White was just ahead of her time when she spoke about amalgamations.
Posted By: dedication

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/24/11 08:55 AM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Do you think God would have asked Noah to build a special room into the ark for a genetic engineering laboratory? ....
Noah and his family were so busy fitting the animals into the ark at that time that I'm sure they had time for little else.


People look at the ark as simple a floating barn like structure, with just one little window near the top, with Noah and his family busily trying to feed, clean, and keep peacable the thousands of animals who were cramped into little cages for a year? The very concept causes any realistic person to doubt the authenticity of the Bible story. The problems, if this is limited to a primitive understanding are simply astronomical.

BUT -- what if there was a sophisticated scientific labatory on board? What if they were able to put all those animals into a state of semi-hibernation, a very carefully controlled scientific process of lowering their metabolic rates.
What if they had a light source that wasn't a flame of fire (which would have been extremely dangerous in a pitching wooden boat filled with straw and other flamibles)

What if they had sophisticated equipement to feed, and clean the animals.

What if they had equipment to turn salt water into drinking water? All those thousands of animals would have needed an awful large amount of water during their year on board.

So yes, they could have had a scientific lab on board, as well as a whole roomful of stuff to keep technology alive in "the new world".



Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Furthermore, Mrs. White tells us something else rather interesting about babies before the flood, and these don't sound like the test-tube variety.

EGW is describing the great health of those first generations. They were not suffering from 6000 years of degeneration.

However, she also says there was amalgamation.
And that's what we are dealing with here.

With the continual violence the Bible says was taking place, there is no question that there was a lot of death even at young ages. It just wasn't from natural causes.

Moses account of the preflood era was very brief and I'm sure left out enough details to fill volumes of books.


Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
If a disaster destroyed our world today, and a few top scientists were all that remained (with their wives), do you suppose they could do genetic engineering? Remember, the internet is gone. The laboratories are gone. Everything is gone, and one must be agrarian just to survive.

You are comparing a sudden devasting disaster that wipes out everything, with the situation of Noah and His family who had 120 years to carefully gather and preserve in the ark a lot more things than just the animals that arrived a week before the flood came.
The two situations are not really the same.

Of course understanding about this amalgamation isn't a salvation issue. It's a point of interest.

But I do believe God is allowing "knowledge to increase" once again to show what would have happened had He not stepped in back then to put a stop to it.
Right now the amalgation of food is bringing the world into the powerful control of a few men who claim a monopoly on their genetically modified foods and are busily getting rid of organic seeds.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/24/11 04:24 PM

Originally Posted By: dedication
Notice too -- she says RACE (singular) she's not taking about mixing different races of people.
I think you are being sidetracked. One had said that amalgamation must and can only mean a certain unfavored race (of their choosing) since how else could that race possibly come about from 2 people. I was only showing that that indeed was possible as we see a mixture of races today, plant and animal breeding programs show how different phenotypes segregate out, and therefore, there is nothing which would preclude all races being combined within Adam and Eve. Races, bestiality, or what not has nothing to do with what she was talking about.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/24/11 04:45 PM

Quote:
"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 amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before him." 1SP69


Green, can you find other places of where the idea of amalgamation is used? Maybe, what does amalgamation mean, and how could that be used with man and corrupting their ways.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/24/11 05:35 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
Quote:
"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 amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before him." 1SP69


Green, can you find other places of where the idea of amalgamation is used? Maybe, what does amalgamation mean, and how could that be used with man and corrupting their ways.
Short on time just now, but Ellen White uses "amalgamation" as a synonym for "mixing." I'll find quotes for you later.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/24/11 06:00 PM

I think she talks about
Ge 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Posted By: dedication

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/25/11 04:53 AM

ELLEN WHITE'S USE OF THE WORD AMALGAMATION

Quote:
"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....
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. {2SM 288.2}

"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 amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere. 1SP 70

"The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. 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. {1SP 78.2}

"by union with the world, the character of God's people becomes tarnished, and through amalgamation with the corrupt, the fine gold becomes dim. {RH, August 23, 1892 par. 3}

"Jesus also alluded to the faith of the Samaritans being amalgamated with the worship of graven images. {2SP 144.1}

"The message given to man for these last days is not to become amalgamated with human devising. {UL 310.3}

"There is constant danger that the obedient and the disobedient in the world and in the nominal churches will become so amalgamated that the line of demarkation between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not will become confused and indistinct. {18MR 26.3}

But now the careful reader will ask --
Does the word refer to the same situation everytime it is used?

No reader would say the word "build" means the same in the following sentences even if the same author wrote them all:

He will build a house.
He builds up confidence in his listeners.
He builds his defense step by step.

Amalgation confusing species isn't the same thing as
Amalgating faith with idol worship
except that in both cases things that do not belong together were joined.

I don't think the confused species of animals that perished in the flood were a direct result of mixing faith with idol worship. Some other form of amalgamtion took place.









Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/25/11 05:32 AM

Thank you, dedication, for taking the time to give us the quotes and showing how the word is used. You have adeptly shown that she would use the word when speaking of "joining" things.

Here is the 1828 Webster's Dictionary definitions that show the word's meaning for her day (and as far as I know, it's still the same meaning today too).

Originally Posted By: Webster's 1828 Dictionary
AMALGAM, n. [Gr. to soften. Its usual derivation is certainly erroneous.]
1. A mixture of mercury or quicksilver with another metal; any metallic alloy, of which mercury forms an essential constituent part.
2. A mixture or compound of different things.
AMALGAMATE, v.t.
1. To mix quicksilver with another metal. Gregory uses amalgamize.
2. To mix different things, to make a compound; to unite.
AMALGAMATE, v.i. To mix or unite in an amalgam; to blend.
AMALGAMATED, pp. Mixed with quicksilver; blended.
AMALGAMATING, ppr. Mixing quicksilver with another metal; compounding.
AMALGAMATION, n.
1. The act or operation of mixing mercury with another metal.
2. The mixing or blending of different things.


So, in light of the meaning, how does this impact our understanding of Mrs. White's statements?

I noted in the above statements that Mrs. White never once mentioned the "amalgamation of Man" or the "amalgamation of beasts" without putting the two words together. She does not speak of them singularly. And, come to think of it, what exactly would it mean to "mix man?" To mix "man and beast" has a bit more significance.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: dedication

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/25/11 07:53 AM

They were obviously bringing something together that wasn't supposed to be together.

Have you ever looked at the depiction of their gods? Was it merely an overactive imagination, a sense of fairy tale telling, a mask ritual -- or was there some substance to their half man half animal creatures that they worshipped as gods?

Though there was probably considerable occultic influence there as well.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/25/11 08:23 AM

Originally Posted By: dedication
They were obviously bringing something together that wasn't supposed to be together.

Have you ever looked at the depiction of their gods? Was it merely an overactive imagination, a sense of fairy tale telling, a mask ritual -- or was there some substance to their half man half animal creatures that they worshipped as gods?

Though there was probably considerable occultic influence there as well.



I don't know that we have any such depictions from _before_ the Flood. God effectively erased that civilization. Even their remains are mostly converted to coal and oil.

Carbon dating is wildly inaccurate that far back for several sound scientific reasons.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/25/11 06:18 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
So, in light of the meaning, how does this impact our understanding of Mrs. White's statements?
So it's quite obvious Ellen White meant to mean that man and animals were contaminated with mercury? laugh
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/25/11 06:34 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa

Carbon dating is wildly inaccurate that far back for several sound scientific reasons.
Wow, some promote it being valid for almost 52,000 years and it's wildly inaccurate for approximately 4,000?
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/25/11 06:45 PM

Originally Posted By: dedication

I don't think the confused species of animals that perished in the flood were a direct result of mixing faith with idol worship. Some other form of amalgamtion took place
Were we talking about man or animals?
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/25/11 06:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
I noted in the above statements that Mrs. White never once mentioned the "amalgamation of Man" or the "amalgamation of beasts" without putting the two words together. She does not speak of them singularly. And, come to think of it, what exactly would it mean to "mix man?" To mix "man and beast" has a bit more significance.

Would you say that any time Ellen White talks about two or more things together and never singularly, then we can safely conclude the two are somehow connected and that she cannot mean to apply her statements individually and separately to those items?

As far ax "mixing man", read dedication's quotes.
Posted By: dedication

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/25/11 08:30 PM

Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa
Originally Posted By: dedication
They were obviously bringing something together that wasn't supposed to be together.

Have you ever looked at the depiction of their gods? Was it merely an overactive imagination, a sense of fairy tale telling, a mask ritual -- or was there some substance to their half man half animal creatures that they worshipped as gods?

Though there was probably considerable occultic influence there as well.



I don't know that we have any such depictions from _before_ the Flood. God effectively erased that civilization. Even their remains are mostly converted to coal and oil.

Carbon dating is wildly inaccurate that far back for several sound scientific reasons.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I'm not talking about carbon dating. I was referring to the pictures that are very apparent in the remains from ancient cultures, especially in the ancient Egyptain culture.

They were obviously painted in the early years just after the flood. But could they have resulted from memories of something before the flood? And why would anybody think of them as "gods"?

It was just a question.

Seems all the clues from archeology I've brought up are dismissed or ignored. And that's what kind of interests me in the subject. But it's not important.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/26/11 02:47 AM

Dedication,

When you said "they" it was unclear to whom you were referring. As we had just been talking about the antediluvians, I assumed you were still talking about them, and I'm a bit wary of people who think they know much about the pre-Flood civilization (such as the man who wrote the book "Secrets of the Lost Races"). So I'm sort of questioning your source material, I guess. I wasn't questioning you personally. If you were to state your sources, it would make it easier for someone like me to check them out for myself. Until then, I'm fairly unpersuaded. smile

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/26/11 02:49 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: Green Cochoa

Carbon dating is wildly inaccurate that far back for several sound scientific reasons.
Wow, some promote it being valid for almost 52,000 years and it's wildly inaccurate for approximately 4,000?

kland,

I presume you're being sarcastic. If you really do want the scientific reasons, we might go into such in another thread.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: dedication

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/26/11 07:00 AM

Sources?

Just go to any search engine, click on the image browser, and type "gods of egypt" into your browser --
I thought everyone KNEW what the ancient gods looked like. -- eagle heads on mens bodies, dog like heads on men's bodies. Men or womens faces on cat like bodies etc.
Guess not everyone likes history.

BUT I ALREADY SAID IT'S NOT IMPORTANT. I've just wondered at times why they had gods like that.


As to the pyrimids -- everything I wrote on them is COMMON KNOWLEDGE you can find anywhere.

As to the pre-flood people -- the BIBLE and spirit of Prophecy are in stark contrast to the evolutionary image of first civilizations. They were a VERY INTELLIGENT civilization.
I could give you several quotes -- but why spend the time?

I don't even know what you are "Unpersuaded" about?

Were you refering to my comments on the ark -- the source for those was simply my own thinking on what it may have been. After all I have two German Shepherd dogs that love to be in the house -- what would it be like to have several THOUSAND different animals cooped up in close quarters and you can't even send them outside to do their "business" and run off their energy, for a whole year? Imagine?


Or the genetic engineering --
Now there is no source for that, either for or against. It's simply putting her quotes together with the understanding that the pre-flood people were much more intelligent than we are today, (that's from EGW) and the fact that now, at the end of time scientists are figuring out how to amalgamate genetics.
Posted By: dedication

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/26/11 07:22 AM

Actually I did do a webpage on amalgamation about ten years ago.
http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/amalgamation.html
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/26/11 11:22 PM

Originally Posted By: dedication
Sources?

Just go to any search engine, click on the image browser, and type "gods of egypt" into your browser --
Um, Egypt is post-flood.
Posted By: dedication

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/27/11 07:14 AM

Of course Egypt is post flood.
Never said it was preflood.

But Egyptian civilization flourished back in 2500 BC!
The biggest pyramid, according to history books, was built around 2530 BC.

Bible scholars place the flood somewhere between 2300 -2500 BC.

What does this tell you?
For me it says, the Egyptian civilization was developed IMMEDIATELY after the flood. It could not be long after the flood, for it takes a bit of stretching of the numbers just to get the pyramid building closer into the time after the flood.

The people by whom civilization sprung up like new growth after winter, were still STRONGLY remembering or hearing first hand reports of the preflood civilization.

The First Dynasty of pharaohs, that some historians place in 3000 BC, apparently corresponds to the arrival of a group of people from Mesopotamia who in a short time established a complete civilization. Arts, crafts, architecture, etc. of a high level suddenly (possibly in less than a hundred years) appeared all over Egypt! Including some of the biggest structures ever built prior to modern technology.

The flood washed the pre-flood civilization away, but the survivors REMEMBERED and tried to rebuild and re-establish.

So if you want clues as to what was, one has to look at cultures that sprang up immediately after the flood.




Posted By: Elle

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/27/11 01:56 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: dedication

I don't think the confused species of animals that perished in the flood were a direct result of mixing faith with idol worship. Some other form of amalgamtion took place
Were we talking about man or animals?


KJV Gn 6:2 "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose."

In the OT "Sons of God" is referring to angels like in the book of Job.

The JPS Tanakh Bible (Hebrew-English) translation agrees with the above : Gen 6:1-2 "When men began to increase on earth and daughters were born to them, the divine beings saw how beautiful the daughters of men were and took wives from among those that pleased them."

Also, we have in Ju 1:6 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."

The above and other texts shows that there is more biblical support that the amalgamation happened between the angels and man than anything else. But that is something we SDAs will never be able to consider for it contradicts what EGW said.

Are we suppose to be a people of the Bible? Or have we regressed with time being like Mormones who openly believes that their latest prophet is above any previous revelation including the Bible? At least the Mormones are honest about it, but we wouldn't admit to that. We are a good blend of Mormones(making EGW writings an authority and interpretation of the Bible) and Catholics(making all her writings infallible). Ellen and James would of never approved of that and would of reprimended us severely.

NJK Project sent me a very good link of a sermon by a renown SDA Historian, George R. Knight, which support the above.

FP782 - The Great Gulf Joseph Smith vs. Ellen White on the Relation of the Gift of Prophecy

http://betterlifetv.tv/watch_videos_now.php?ProgID=15

I'm surely happy George is trying to get us back to the Bible like EGW and James work so hard to do.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/27/11 04:56 PM

Originally Posted By: dedication
Of course Egypt is post flood.
Never said it was preflood.

Sorry, I got confused with what Green was questioning you on and asking for sources.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/27/11 05:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Elle

In the OT "Sons of God" is referring to angels like in the book of Job.

No it isn't.

As has been discussed before, if you try to support such an idea as you think Genesis 6 is saying, you have to go to all kind of contortions.

And in the most recent, the others of presented quotes saying "amalgamation" is happening today. Do you say angels are having sex with people today, the beings which do not marry nor give in marriage?
Posted By: dedication

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/28/11 04:35 AM

"Sons of God" --

Luke 3:38
Cainan, which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Adam stood at the head of the human race --
he was the representative for this world until he sold out to satan.
The "sons of God" are the representatives from the worlds God created.

In Job
these representives came together before God, and who appears as the one from earth?
None other than the usurper, satan.
Posted By: dedication

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/28/11 05:40 AM

Sons and daughters of God is also a term used in scripture to refer to people who accept God as their Father and trust in His salvation.
Posted By: dedication

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 10/28/11 06:03 AM

Originally Posted By: Elle
The JPS Tanakh Bible (Hebrew-English) translation agrees with the above : Gen 6:1-2 "When men began to increase on earth and daughters were born to them, the divine beings saw how beautiful the daughters of men were and took wives from among those that pleased them."

Also, we have in Ju 1:6 "And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day."


Quite frankly I don't trust that translation.
The MOST OBVIOUS fallacy --
Fallen angels are NOT DIVINE beings to begin with.
Even unfallen angels are not divine beings.

Secondly
Jesus says angels don't marry.

Thirdly
The fallen angels left their first estate and followed lucifer into rebellion before mankind was even created.


However, I also realize that interpretation is quite popular in certain Christain circles. I remember going to a Creation vs evolution seminar once (not by Adventists). The speaker eloquently defended creation, but he also delved into this issue and made it sound quite convincing.
His strong points included the statement that this union produced giants - unnaturally tall, strong people, men of renown, even for that time in history.
Posted By: Elle

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 11/05/11 03:48 AM

Originally Posted By: dedication
"Sons of God" --

Luke 3:38
Cainan, which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Adam was the only man that was created directly & perfectly -- with no taint of sin -- by God. All of Adams descendents where procreated having the taint of sin. They were not recognized as “sons of God”. They were sons of the fallen man – Adam. The genealogy of Cainan depicts that. Only Adam is said to be a son of G-d, the rest were sons of fallen men.

Angels, like Adam, were a direct creation from G-d – perfect in all aspects -- and therefore where called “sons of God”.

Originally Posted By: dedication
Adam stood at the head of the human race --
he was the representative for this world until he sold out to satan.
The human race was never sold to Satan, nor Adam had any rights to sell himself for he didn't own himself. Man by creation belonged to G-d. And only G-d had the right to sell human race to who ever He desire. However abiding to His own Laws given to Moses, so G-d sold man to his nearest kinsdred which was the earth for man was taken from the earth.

AV Gn 3:17, And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed [is] the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat [of] it all the days of thy life;…(19) In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou [art], and unto dust shalt thou return.

Originally Posted By: dedication
The "sons of God" are the representatives from the worlds God created. In Job
these representives came together before God, and who appears as the one from earth?
None other than the usurper, satan.

At the time of Job, Adam did not stand for the human race for he probably was dead. Probably it was Shem that had been given the authority and fruitful mandate. We do not know if Shem was permitted or capable to present himself to God in heaven. I really doubt it. But we do not know. Satan was not the representative of the earth, nor did God gave him any authority over the earth. I do agree that Satan always tries to have it via his influences whenever God allowed it.

Regardless, the point is up to now scriptures indicates that the “sons of God” are created beings from God directly. We will become “sons of God” after we are changed and re-created having immortality and incorruptibleness.
Posted By: Elle

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 11/05/11 05:04 AM

Originally Posted By: dedication
Quite frankly I don't trust that translation.

Are you telling me that you prefer to put all your trust in the KJV or another English translation translated by English speaking scholars who often had no Jewish background nor know how to speak the Hebrew language? FYI. All English translations are not perfect and all have their own mistakes with biases. I am not saying the Tenakh is perfect either, however, the Jewish people do know the Hebrew language and do know the laws and customs and culture and much history which is well inscribed in their beings and philosophy. So I will not put my trust solely in one translation, but rather study the original Hebrew words, and compare the literal translation in Youngs, Concordance and the Tenakh and all it's usage in context with other word studies. All of these with a prayer for Jesus to guide me and teach me the truth is my best I can do.

Originally Posted By: dedication
The MOST OBVIOUS fallacy --
Fallen angels are NOT DIVINE beings to begin with.
Even unfallen angels are not divine beings.

Well just recently in this topic many seem to disagree what is the definition of Christ divinity and what it actually compose of.

Divinity is not a word used in the KJV vocabulary. As far as I know, it is a finite man concept in the attempt to define what we do not fully know nor understand. The closest terminology to the word “divine” the Bible uses that I could think of is “G-d” or other forms of His name. Also there are His many characteristics that are related everywhere by which some of these we all share and we only can speculate that this or that is what make up our “divine” definition by which could be far from the truth.

Besides that we do know that G-d is known as Spirit and celestial by which so does the angels share those characteristics by which we, earthy human beings, don’t share. So basically, the angels shares more “divine” characteristics than human does. Maybe that’s what the Jewish Society were trying to encapsulate in using the “divine” word here. We both do not know unless we further inquire or study further their interpretation elsewhere.

So just because we, modern society Christian people, attempt to define “divine” in a certain way, doesn’t mean that the Jews has define it the same way we did.

Originally Posted By: decication
Secondly
Jesus says angels don't marry.
Like many other texts, we have the ability to distort what actually what Jesus was saying. What you are saying is only a speculation and your interpretation of what you think Jesus is saying. Plus you only have one seemingly Biblical text to back that up. Any truth to be established needs to have at least two texts(witness). I have given another acceptable interpretation of that text in post #122842 here . Which interpretation is true? Mine or yours? Maybe none of ours is, maybe Jesus was meaning something else. The only way to know what is truth is with direct revelation from Jesus Himself(1Jn 2:27). Did you have that revelation? I personally didn’t, so I cannot claim mine as truth either. We are both speculating here until someone get’s it from above.

Originally Posted By: dedication
Thirdly
The fallen angels left their first estate and followed lucifer into rebellion before mankind was even created.
There’s no biblical support nor proof of that! Be careful Dedication, don’t add to the Bible what is not written. I myself have done it many times in the past and I was reprimended by a brother. I am on the path to repent of this. I encourage you to do the same. We both do not want to do this. This is called worshipping Ba’al Peor (The Lord of the gap)-- putting our own interpretation where there's gaps or absence of information.

Jude 1:6 could be referring to the angels falling during the time of the incident of Gen 6. Here is what I could recall what the Bible tells us about the when of the fall of the angels:

#1. Rev 12:1-5 “(1) And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: (2) And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. (3) And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. (4) And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. (5) And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.”

In this prophecy, the dragon appeared after the woman. Typically a revelation is depicted in chronological order. I will not speculate who is the dragon in it’s specific time here. I am not into studying Daniel/Revelation anymore until I understand the Laws of Moses firmly first.

We understand that the woman is the Church of God on earth which existed ever since Adam and his descendents by which the spiritual blessings of authority and fruitfulness was given to one of his sons and passed on down from generation to generation until Christ was born.

However, the dragon description with the tail taking 1/3 of the angels seems to be after the woman(Adam and sons) and sometimes before she gaved birth to the man child(Jesus). So from this text alone, it doesn’t support your speculation that the third of the angels has fallen before mankind was created. It could be after mankind was created from this text.

#2. Gen 6:3 “And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also 1571 [is] flesh 1320 7683 : yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.” KJV

Notice that man is compare with some other creatures. The speculation that man intermarried with daughter’s of Cain wouldn’t bring a comparison with another creature. The comparison has to be with two different created beings like man & the angels would fit in this comparison. Man with beast would not because of the context of verse 4 which is elaborated next in point #3.

#3. Gen 6:4 NKJ “"There were giants(Nephilim) in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare [children] to them, the same [became] mighty men which [were] of old, men of renown." Gn 6:4

CLV Gn 6:4 “Now the distinguished(Nephilim) come to be in the earth in those days, and, moreover, afterward, coming are those who are sons of the elohim to the daughters of the human, and they bear for them. They are the masters, who are from the eon, mortals with the name.” Concordant literal Version

From reading this passage, we see that (i) the Nephilim seems to be in the earth in those days. I really don’t know who they are. Are they a product of the sons of God crossed with the daughters of men? Or as some interpret it as another name for the angels? (ii) However, the sons of God produced with the daughter of men, mighty men which were men of renown(or great influences). To me this text says that this cross produced something more powerful than the ordinary crosses of man with a woman.
Here the marrying of the daughters of men and the “sons of God”(not animals, not cain decendants, but most likely angels) produced children called “mighty men”. The "giants" are refered in Nu 13:33 De 2:20,21 3:11 1Sa 17:4 2Sa 21:15-22).

Now Dedication, may I see your Biblical texts to support that the angels fell before man was created.
Posted By: dedication

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 11/06/11 04:16 AM

Rev. 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Genesis 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God has said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

That old serpent, the devil, who was cast out of heaven with his angels was at the tree deceiving Eve.
Posted By: Elle

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 11/07/11 02:21 PM

Originally Posted By: dedication
Rev. 12:7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
12:8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

Genesis 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God has said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

I appreciate the scriptures you’ve provided and the opportunity to study this Dedication. I do not doubt that the devil, Satan had fallen before the incidence of the tree of knowledge. We both agree on that one.
Originally Posted By: dedication
That old serpent, the devil, who was cast out of heaven with his angels was at the tree deceiving Eve.

Be careful, your scriptures provided above does not say nor suggest that they were cast out of heaven before the tree of knowledge. You are adding to scripture.

The texts you provided does not establish the following :

1. that the 1/3 of the angels were all already deceived by the time of the tree of knowledge.
2. that the war in Rev 12:7-9 had taken place before the Tree of Knowledge were presented to A&E
3. that the devil and the angels were already cast out of heaven before the tree of knowledge & A&E.

These three beliefs are all speculation and we have no biblical support to establish that. The following are things that came to mind :

i) Concerning the timing of the war mentioned in Rev 12:7-9, it is mention in Daniel 10:12,13,20,21 that there were a war going on at that time. Is it the same war referring in Rev 12:7-9???

ii) I do not understand the dimension of angels vs. earth affairs regarding spiritual warfare. For sure Paul told us very clearly in Eph 6:12 that the war is not against “flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in heavenly places.” In Daniel 10 it seems to indicate that what happens in heaven is highly connected with the affairs on earth.

iii) We also know that in the time of Job, Satan could go to heaven and present himself. So to me, that strongly suggest that he were not yet cast out.

iv) In Jude, it says that they had left their abode, but that doesn’t mean that they were yet cast out.

v) I do know that there are many battles within a war. And a war can take place over a long period of time. So this war mentioned in Rev 12:7-9 may not be over. Is it a battle within the big war??? I do not know since I really haven’t studied this.

vi) I do know that at Jesus resurrection, there was a great measure of victory that happened. What type of implication it had versus the spiritual warfare that is going on-- ??? Maybe it is at that time that Satan and the fallen angels were cast out of heaven???

vii) Also there’s this question of authority in this warfare. Christ was given “authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.(John 5:26,27). From what I’m starting to understand, this authority was given to Adam which were past down the line. With this authority, it seems that man had some ability or position to judge the angels that are part of this spiritual warfare by which has its effect on earth. I do not know how much man was aware of this dimension and thus be able to use this authority effectively in the time of the patriarch and before Jesus came. But once this authority was past down to Jesus, He knew what to do with it and finally He could, as a son of man, use it. Maybe that’s how and when Satan and the fallen angels were cast out of heaven???
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 11/07/11 03:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Elle
Now Dedication, may I see your Biblical texts to support that the angels fell before man was created.

Elle, do you reject what Ellen White says on the matter?

Can you provide any Biblical texts which support angel's ability to have sex with anyone let alone with man and produce offspring?

Could good angels sin before they "fell"?
Posted By: Elle

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 11/10/11 03:38 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
Originally Posted By: Elle
Now Dedication, may I see your Biblical texts to support that the angels fell before man was created.

Elle, do you reject what Ellen White says on the matter?

You could be the one that rejects Ellen on this matter. I recommend you watch this video. FP782 - The Great Gulf Joseph Smith vs. Ellen White on the Relation of the Gift of Prophecy

http://betterlifetv.tv/watch_videos_now.php?ProgID=15

Originally Posted By: kland
Can you provide any Biblical texts which support angel's ability to have sex with anyone let alone with man and produce offspring?

Whether I can prove if angels can have sex or not does not stop me from believing from what the Bible says. You cannot prove that G-d created the world in 6 days, however, because the word of G-d says that He did, we believe it. This is a question of searching for what the word of G-d is simply saying and not going off some tangems about what it is not saying like the amalgamation is between man and beast when it is not even written nor hinted that it is.

We do know that angels can take physical form(Gen.18-219; Mt.1:20; Jn.20:12; Heb.13:2). We do not know to what extend this manifestation can be done.

Originally Posted By: kland
Could good angels sin before they "fell"?

Fallen and being cast out of heaven is two different things. Man has fallen and we're not cast out of the earth.

G-d chose not to tell us much details of what's the ordeal with the angels. His focuss is on man.

Maybe after the fall, the angels might of been able to continue communing with man just as it was before the fall. We simply do not know those details. We do know that there were two angels garding Eden after the fall of men before the flood. We assume they were visible to the people in that time. But that's another assumption.

I think there is room for assumption or speculation when we seek for truth and to understand deeper scriptures as long as we do not call it truth and stay within the context of the Bible and continue to seek this matter until Jesus reveals it to us.
Posted By: dedication

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 11/10/11 10:06 AM


Originally Posted By: Elle
I do not doubt that the devil, Satan had fallen before the incidence of the tree of knowledge. We both agree on that one.

Nice to have at least one common ground point to start with.

Originally Posted By: Elle
Originally Posted By: dedication
That old serpent, the devil, who was cast out of heaven with his angels was at the tree deceiving Eve.

Be careful, your scriptures provided above does not say nor suggest that they were cast out of heaven before the tree of knowledge. You are adding to scripture.


So you are saying that Satan continued to live in heaven after his fall?
He continued to live in heaven after having tempted Eve to sin and started the entire human race on the horrendous track of sin and suffering?

Somehow that does not sound right to me.

2 Cor. 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial?

That doesn't sound like satan would have continued in heaven after his fall.

Yes, I believe the war IN HEAVEN took place prior to Adam and Eve's creation.







Originally Posted By: Elle
i) Concerning the timing of the war mentioned in Rev 12:7-9, it is mention in Daniel 10:12,13,20,21 that there were a war going on at that time. Is it the same war referring in Rev 12:7-9???


I don't see the war in Daniel 10 as being in heaven.
Daniel 10 gives us a behind the scene look at what happens here on earth between the forces of evil and God's angels.
Notice it was over the king of Persia.

Satan's angels were trying to get the king to do something evil, while God's angels were countering them

God's angels ever put a check on the evil that fallen angels try to get people and national leaders to do.




Originally Posted By: Elle
ii) I do not understand the dimension of angels vs. earth affairs regarding spiritual warfare. For sure Paul told us very clearly in Eph 6:12 that the war is not against “flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in heavenly places.” In Daniel 10 it seems to indicate that what happens in heaven is highly connected with the affairs on earth.


I don't understand it all either, but I do know there is severe battle going on over every person pertaining to their salvation. So again I don't see this as a war in heaven but a continual war over the souls of people here on earth.
The phrase "heavenly places" = the word "places" is added, it's not in the original, and the word "heavenly" can mean 1)our atmosphere, 2) the universe 3) heaven.

Satan is also depicted by Paul, as the prince of the power of the air
Ephesians 2:2
These malevolent spirits work evil and mischief and operate in our atmosphere, trying to deceive and destroy everyone of us.



Quote:
iii) We also know that in the time of Job, Satan could go to heaven and present himself. So to me, that strongly suggest that he were not yet cast out.


But he wasn't living in heaven -- he was roaming to and fro on this earth.
The text doesn't even say the meeting was in heaven. Just that they all come to present themselves before the Lord.

Originally Posted By: elle
iv) In Jude, it says that they had left their abode, but that doesn’t mean that they were yet cast out.


It's true, Jude doesn't give a time frame.
Just refers to the past event.

However the word "abode" isn't really the best translation.
The word "archē" means 1)beginning 2) origin 3) first position 4)what they began as

They left the position God had created them to fulfill.




{quote=Elle]v) I do know that there are many battles within a war. And a war can take place over a long period of time. So this war mentioned in Rev 12:7-9 may not be over. Is it a battle within the big war??? I do not know since I really haven’t studied this.[/quote]

The war isn't over, I agree.
But yes, I believe Rev. 12 also refers to the initial battle when Satan and his angels were cast out of heaven.

It also refers to the battle at the cross.
When Satan killed the Son of God it sealed his defeat.

When Eve (the first representation of the woman) was given the promise -- one of your offspring (your seed) will bruise the head of the serpent (dragon). It was a promise that Christ, at the cross, would defeat satan.

Satan and his angels were cast out of heaven before creation, but that was merely a physical defeat ending his residence in heaven. His real defeat was sealed at the cross. However the battle isn't over, the final end comes when satan is destroyed.


Originally Posted By: elle
vii) Also there’s this question of authority in this warfare. Christ was given “authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.John 5:26,27). From what I’m starting to understand, this authority was given to Adam which were past down the line. With this authority, it seems that man had some ability or position to judge the angels that are part of this spiritual warfare by which has its effect on earth. I do not know how much man was aware of this dimension and thus be able to use this authority effectively in the time of the patriarch and before Jesus came. But once this authority was past down to Jesus, He knew what to do with it and finally He could, as a son of man, use it. Maybe that’s how and when Satan and the fallen angels were cast out of heaven???

The authority of Jesus was given Him by God.

Adam had authority but he lost it when he sinned. Satan claimed that authority over the earth for himself.

Of course the true authority always is in God's hands. And it is only through the power of God that mankind can withstand the fallen angels. And yes, scripture does say
1 Cor. 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels?
But that is future tense, not present tense.


It is only in the name of Jesus that anyone can withstand the forces of evil angels. We have no authority in and of ourselves that can withstand them.

Jesus is our defender and strength

I like how James writes it in envelope fashion:


James 4:7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
4:8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you.

God before us, and behind us, His presense all around --
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 11/10/11 03:52 PM


Elle, why do you hyphenate God?



Quote:
k: Could good angels sin before they "fell"?

E: Fallen and being cast out of heaven is two different things. Man has fallen and we're not cast out of the earth.

So what was the meaning of saying:
Quote:
Now Dedication, may I see your Biblical texts to support that the angels fell before man was created.
Do you believe the angels fell or did not fell before man was created?
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 11/14/11 06:50 PM

Elle, here's an article in the Review which should answer your questions. I think the author did a good job and it includes the sons of God in Job.
http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=4544
Posted By: Charity

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 11/20/11 11:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Daryl F
Here is another relevant and more enlightening EGW quote:
Quote:
Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. 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. {1SP 78.2}
This obviously took place after the flood resulting in an almost endless species of animals and affecting certain races of men.

What this means is something I do not know yet.

Does anybody have any thoughts regarding this?

Did you arrive at any consensus on this? What's your thinking now Daryl?
Posted By: Elle

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 12/10/11 11:48 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
Elle, here's an article in the Review which should answer your questions. I think the author did a good job and it includes the sons of God in Job.
http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=4544

Gee, Kland, you think the author did a good job to prove that where the Bible says "sons of God" in OT(mainly making reference of Job references) it means human beings from another planet???

That article is a pretty good desperate attempt to prove that EGW writing's is correct saying their is people in other planets. Let's face it, that's something that we totally cannot prove from the Bible.

I have checked all of the writer's proof text. And he has no proof at all, just a bunch of speculations and false assumptions to lay some form of foundation to make his proof.

So if we accept this unfounded speculation, then to be consistent Gen 6:2 where men from another planet taking Adams daughters for wives.

Well this article would make happy those who believe in aliens and seeking any type of Biblical proof to support their belief.
Posted By: Rosangela

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 12/10/11 07:56 PM

Quote:
Gee, Kland, you think the author did a good job to prove that where the Bible says "sons of God" in OT(mainly making reference of Job references) it means human beings from another planet???

I have not been following this discussion, but we can exam the term "sons of God" in the Bible.

In Gen. 6:2, 4, although some say that the expression "sons of God" refers to angels, they are entirely mistaken, because angels do not marry (Mark 12:25). So here the expression must refer to human beings.
However, in Job 1:6; 2:1 it obviously can't refer to human beings. It could refer to angels, but since the angels are always in the presence of God, would it make sense to say that they "came to present themselves before the Lord"? Perhaps, but the expression could refer to other beings besides men and angels. No, it's not possible to prove from the Bible that there are inhabitants in other worlds, but it's a view which is not ruled out by the Bible, either.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 12/12/11 08:04 PM

Thanks, Rosangela.
Posted By: Daryl

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 12/19/11 04:52 PM

I always also used this to imply that there are unfallen beings living on other planets.

Originally Posted By: Rosangela
Quote:
Gee, Kland, you think the author did a good job to prove that where the Bible says "sons of God" in OT(mainly making reference of Job references) it means human beings from another planet???

I have not been following this discussion, but we can exam the term "sons of God" in the Bible.

In Gen. 6:2, 4, although some say that the expression "sons of God" refers to angels, they are entirely mistaken, because angels do not marry (Mark 12:25). So here the expression must refer to human beings.
However, in Job 1:6; 2:1 it obviously can't refer to human beings. It could refer to angels, but since the angels are always in the presence of God, would it make sense to say that they "came to present themselves before the Lord"? Perhaps, but the expression could refer to other beings besides men and angels. No, it's not possible to prove from the Bible that there are inhabitants in other worlds, but it's a view which is not ruled out by the Bible, either.

Posted By: Daryl

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 12/19/11 04:54 PM

Need to first read all the posts since I posted that before attempting to anser your question, Mark.

Originally Posted By: Mark Shipowick
Originally Posted By: Daryl F
Here is another relevant and more enlightening EGW quote:
Quote:
Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. 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. {1SP 78.2}
This obviously took place after the flood resulting in an almost endless species of animals and affecting certain races of men.

What this means is something I do not know yet.

Does anybody have any thoughts regarding this?

Did you arrive at any consensus on this? What's your thinking now Daryl?
Posted By: Bobryan

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 12/22/11 03:11 PM

Originally Posted By: kland
Elle, here's an article in the Review which should answer your questions. I think the author did a good job and it includes the sons of God in Job.
http://www.adventistreview.org/article.php?id=4544


That article concludes with

Quote:

The Sum of the Matter Is . . .
Let’s bring all the arguments together. In the New Testament “sons of God” refer to: (a) Jesus; (b) believers; (c) glorified believers. Indeed, true sonship is not achieved until after the resurrection. In the Old Testament “sons of God” refers to: (a) the king as a type of the Messiah; (b) believers; (c) a class of heavenly beings, distinct from angels, who appear to live afar from the throne of God, but who visit on a regular basis for worship and heavenly councils.


There is more than one context for the term "Sons of God" in the Bible. So in Gen 6 the fact that it is the "unequally yoked" problem whereby the "salt of the earth" has lost its savor - is not at all hard to see.

in Christ,

Bob
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 03/20/12 07:48 PM

Another good explanation is found at SecretsUnsealed on their current newsletters.

I'm not sure he was saying this, but regarding the quote in relation to what he was saying "confused" means (polygamy)
Quote:
Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. 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. {3SG 75.2}
what if she had said
Quote:
Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost all of the endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.
Does that really change anything? That is, does leaving those words out really subtract from what she was saying? That is, polygamy was going on before the flood and has happened after the flood in almost all the animals and in certain cultures. I have observed it's considered a rare thing to come across a species of animal where they mate for life.


I agree with him that these kind of complaints merely serve to discredit and distract from Ellen White.
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 03/21/12 06:51 AM

Polygamy does not create a new variety or species of animal. Nor would it have such an effect on humans. Polygamy is bad, but it cannot fully summarize what Mrs. White is alluding to in her statement.

As for animals, they seem to be designed the way they are. I was just looking at how bacteria reproduce today. They are rather interesting. Some animals are hermaphrodites...by design. I believe God created life on this planet with variety, not just in "kinds," but in design and function. Animals are not all created to be monogamous, nor sexual. Many reproduce asexually or via parthenogenesis. For example, worker honey bees can all lay eggs. But only the queen can lay eggs that will become females. The workers' eggs become drones, because they are not fertilized.

To be able to produce a new variety or species of animal or race of mankind requires more than mere polygamy.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 03/21/12 06:07 PM

I'm sorry Green, but it seems we aren't even talking about the same thing. Did you read the newsletter?
Posted By: APL

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 03/21/12 06:15 PM

Steve Bohr tries hard to make amalgamation polygamy. It may be part of the problem (think micro chimeras) but I don't think that was entirely what EGW was talking about.

A better explanation can be found in the following presentations:
R. Melashenko - the Science of Sin (Part 1)
and
R. Melashenko - The Science of Sin (Part 2)
Posted By: Green Cochoa

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 03/22/12 02:34 AM

Originally Posted By: kland
I'm sorry Green, but it seems we aren't even talking about the same thing. Did you read the newsletter?
No, you mentioned polygamy in your post. I was responding to that.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 03/23/12 02:37 AM

As APL pointed out, maybe there was a reason I mentioned polygamy?

Let me know when you read it.
Posted By: kland

Re: Ellen White & Amalgamation of Man and Beast - 04/04/12 06:33 PM

Polygamy was practiced at an early date. It was one of the sins that brought the wrath of God upon the antediluvian world. . . . It was Satan's studied effort to pervert the marriage institution, to weaken its obligations and lessen its sacredness; for in no surer way could he deface the image of God in man and open the door to misery and vice. {CC 36.5}


In the beginning, God gave to Adam one wife, thus showing his order. He never designed that man should have a plurality of wives. Lamech was the first who departed in this respect from
God's wise arrangement. He had two wives, which created discord in his family. The envy and jealousy of both made Lamech unhappy. When men began to multiply upon the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, they took them wives of all which they chose. This was one of the great sins of the inhabitants of the old world, which brought the wrath of God upon them. This custom was practiced after the flood, and became so common that even righteous men fell into the practice, and had a plurality of wives. Yet it was no less sin because they became corrupted, and departed in this thing from God's order. {1SP 93.2}
The Lord said of Noah and his family who were saved in the ark, "For thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation." Noah had but one wife; and their united family discipline was blessed of God. Because Noah's sons were righteous, they were preserved in the ark with their righteous father. God has not sanctioned polygamy in a single instance. It was contrary to his will. He knew that the happiness of man would be destroyed by it. Abraham's peace was greatly marred by his unhappy marriage with Hagar. {1SP 94.1}
© 2024 Maritime 2nd Advent Christian Believers OnLine Forums Consisting Mainly of Both Members & Friends of the SDA (Seventh-day Adventist) Church