Question on creation of man

Today at church I had a bit of a disagreement with a member. He said that the different races of man was created on Day 6 of creation. I said no way that only Adam and Eve were created. When he instisted I just told him he was wrong. He kept saying that if I would read it in Hebrew I would believe it.

Has anyone heard of this theory and how he could come to such a conclusion as this?

Avalee

Haven't heard of it, but the DNA existed in A&E for the all races. Telling someone to read it in Hebrew is akin to saying "I know better".

I dont think I will discuss it with him anymore as he is to argumentive. I just wanted to know if anyone else had run across this belief somewhere. I just dont see how he can believe such a thing. I myself have never heard of it before. When he was talking it sounded like he meant that God created all the races on day 6. His reasoning was that something in Hebrew about Adam meant more than one? He said that if you taught that only Adam and Eve were created on Day 6 you were teaching error.

Avalee

Avalee, if it is any support, I have never heard of this theory in a Christian context. It does show up in some Native religions and primitive Origin Myths, but not in Christianity.

It is certainly not supportable from Scripture or EGW.

(Yea, Yea, I know, Green Cochoa. Your suprised that I put EGW there. Despite our conversation, I know what she says, and she doesn't say this.)

If there were more people, how were them involved in the sin of Adam and Eve?

I heard a pastor from the SDA church say the same thing at an evangelistic seminar.

He is wrong, the races came from the son's of Noah. Shem, Ham and Japhet. But I do not believe one was Asian and one Black and one white, there was more of a division of the racial characteristics at the confusion of the languages at the tower of Babel. God divided the characteristics of the different races from that day, giving each of the subgroups their own distinct language base. This was when the races evolved.

I thought of that very thing about an hour after I posted the above. Now why could I have not thought of that when he said all that. Very good observation Rosangela.

The pastor at the evangelistic meeting that I was mentioning above, when I challenged him he said "this is advanced Adventist Theology" as if he knew something Ellen White did not and when I quoted the Spirit of Prophecy in front of the 200 people at the meeting, he said "that is not something we discuss in public" like the SOP is our dirty little secret, and he defended his position by saying "do you think God would have Adam's sons have sex with their sisters? He created more than Adam and Eve in the beginning" then would not let me counter. As if I was not worthy to debate.

This from a man who just baptised 10 people that day into our denomination. Then encouraged our elders to nominate women elders, which opened a whole can of worms from that day forward.

Avalee, these situations will strengthen your resolve to stand up for the truth in the future. Don't beat yourself up for not responding the way you would have liked.

If you did not think it at that moment, then God was not telling you to say it.

Mark 13:11 And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.

So if it didn't come to you then and did after, it was because God wanted to encourage you in your resolve to think that was, but it probably would not have done any good at that moment.

Peace.

Ha! Why not? He needs to read the rest of the Bible and see not only were people having sex with their sisters, but also their daughters! And why did He have to explicitly tell them to not do that anymore? Must be because they were.

I would agree... that the different races of man was created on Day 6 in Adam. Obviously he doesn't know much about genetics and so therefore he would be not be able to comprehend how all the races were in Adam. But, if he brings it up to you, one response could be to ask him what he knows about heterozygosity. And if he does seem to know, then ask him how many genes are involved in race.

Thanks Kland for the advise. I think that is a bit over my head and I would not know the answers either. To me what the Bible and the backup from the Spirit of Prophecy is enough. I have overheard him in an arguement with another man about something and I sure dont want to go that far with him.

I'm not sure that Adam contained all of the races. In a sense, of course he did father all races. But there was one special event that I believe added or adjusted genetic information after the original creation--Cain's curse. I don't have any way of proving this, but it seems quite logical in light of the information we do have. Here's the theory: Adam is created of a ruddy appearance and has children like him (the Bible says "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat [a son] in his own likeness, after his image..."). Then Cain murdered his brother, and under God's curse is afraid, so God marks him. "And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." I believe God changed Cain's color. This may have changed the DNA as well, for we have a race of people which all goes back to him.

Mrs. White represents God's treatment of Cain as being a special lesson to the universe.



According to that quote, Cain and his descendants were the ones responsible for bringing God to the point of destroying sinners in the Flood. About Seth and Cain, Mrs. White says more.


She speaks of "the descendants of Seth" and "the race of Cain." This implies that Cain's progeny looked different. This is further reinforced in that the sons of Seth later look upon the daughters of Cain and see them as especially beautiful. There was obviously something of a difference with them in their appearance.

I believe that God made Cain dark, to illustrate his dark deeds to the universe. I believe his race was represented after the Flood via Ham's wife. Ham's son Canaan received the curse of Noah and of God, delayed a few generations, of being a servant to the sons of Shem and of Japheth. When one considers the race which has been most "servant" to other races, the black race is almost universally recognized to fulfill this prophecy. I believe their color goes back to Cain.

All of our modern races have come from the sons and daughters-in-law of Noah. In several hundred generations, the appearance of mankind and the races of them has had opportunity to evolve/devolve. We have grown weaker, smaller, and less long-lived over time, in addition to developing more distinctive appearances in certain regions based on restrictive selection in the gene pool.

There is certainly no evidence in God's Word for there having been more than just Adam and Eve in the original creation. It was not a sin for their sons to marry their sisters. In the beginning, genetics were strong. Later, with weaker genetics, marrying a close kin would produce genetic weakness or defects, and was therefore prohibited.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

And there is absolutely no evidence that God made Cain dark. This is total fantasy in your own mind.

But APL, what if we don't like black people? See, they are the cause for the curse of the earth, they are the cause for the flood, and since they are cursed, we can treat them lower than humans. Never mind there are other races. Never mind genetic damage, genetic weakness, and genetic defects usually result in lack of something (pigments) rather than an increase of something. If we don't like black people, we can insert things, compare English words (for we all know God was white and spoke English, right) and make them appear as other English words regardless of what the underlying words are. If we don't like black people, then what does anything else matter besides our own personal bias?

kland - I hear ya!

EGW on the topic:

"The fact that their skin is dark does not prove that they are sinners above the white race." {SW 35.1}.

And

"Many of the slaves had noble minds, but the fact that their skin was dark, was sufficient reason for the whites to treat them as though they were beasts." {SW 43.1}

And:
"Ask yourselves if Christ would make any difference. In assembling His people would He say, Here brother, or, Here sister, your nationality is not Jewish; you are of a different class. Would He say, Those who are dark-skinned may file into the back seats; those of a lighter skin may come up to the front seats. {TSA 85.3}

In one place the proposition was made that a curtain be drawn between the coloured people and the white people. I asked, Would Jesus do that? This grieves the heart of Christ. The colour of the skin is no criterion as to the value of the soul. By the mighty cleaver of truth we have all been quarried out from the world. God has taken us, all classes, all nations, all languages, all nationalities, and brought us into His workshop, to be prepared for His temple. {TSA 85.4}

Amen to all of those quotes, APL. Thank you.

Some of my best friends are blacks, Asians, hispanics and whites. I don't really look at skin colors much, to be honest. There have been times when I honestly could not recall someone's skin color when I went to describe them to others. (This surprised and challenged even me, because it seems such a basic term in describing someone--I felt embarrassed that I couldn't even remember their color.)

I work in multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-lingual areas and circumstances. All people have the same needs and challenges, though sometimes specific needs and challenges are more highlighted in one region than in another.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green Cochoa, you analysis is based on: supposition, prejudice, lack of spiritual insight and void of love. I do hope that this kind of conversation,does not take place around your dinner table. One must be very careful when interpreting the scriptures.
Jesus said, 'However, when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come.' John 16:13. Can you honestly say, that The Spirit Of GOD lead you to this conclusion. Was your study based on prayful reading of the bible and spirit of prophecy?
Furthermore, you stated that{I'm not sure that Adam contained all of the races}; before giving your ill informed views, should you not of spend the time very careful researching your topic.
The BIBLE clarly states: [Malachi 2:10 - 'Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?'. 'From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands'. Acts 17:16]
You stated-' But there was one special event that I believe added or adjusted genetic information after the original creation'- 'I believe God changed Cain's color': There is a little known principle,that one must adhere to when interpreting scripture{The bible explains itself-you will do well if adherence is paid to this principle. Imagine if the Bible or Spirit of Prophecy used the phrase, I believe rather The Lord GOD said}.
I always find it rather instructive, when evolutionary terms find there way in christian discourse:'for we have a race of people which all goes back to him'. I am here referencing your use of the word...RACE. The bible description for the human family is: 'And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people' Revelation 14:6. Whenever bible believing Christians, borrows/uses evolutionay terminology, i.e., races when referring to fellow humans, then we are consciously/unconsciously
supporting this satantic world view. Lord Jesus said' By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.' John 13:35. And yes I am aware that Sister White used this term, however, at that time it did not have any evolutionary overtones.
'I believe that God made Cain dark, to illustrate his dark deeds to the universe'-perhaps you are unware of this description of Our Lord GOD Jesus Christ' And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write; These things saith the Son of God, who hath his eyes like unto a flame of fire, and his feet are like fine brass.' Revelation 2:18. My reading is... fine brass/burnished bronze is dark.
I rode this in love
Thank You

Augustus,

I'm sure your post is well intentioned. Please be certain that my posts here are as well. I do base what I share on scripture. The Bible says God marked Cain so that anyone finding him would be afraid to kill him. What kind of mark? You know as little about that as I do. We cannot be sure. But one thing we can be certain of: it was visible and obvious to everyone else. Another thing we can be sure of: he looked different after God marked him. Furthermore, we see Mrs. White speaking of the "race of Cain." I'm using my God-given powers of reason to see a trend here. If God did it, why would it be evil?

God created the confusion of languages. Am I prejudiced to recognize this?

I have been around the world much. I know multiple languages, having lived in multiple cultures. I have observed that the single largest cause of prejudice in our world is not skin color--it is language. Am I now "prejudiced" or do I now "lack spiritual insight" to recognize this fact? If you think so, contemplate carefully the following passage by Mrs. White where she makes a similar observation relative to human languages.



Mrs. White was not prejudiced. But she recognized the prejudicial barriers built up by differences in language among peoples. I also recognize this, and I, as a missionary of the Gospel, do not wish to harbor the least form of prejudice against anyone--for God loves every soul.

God bless,

Green Cochoa.

Green Cochoa, happy Sabbath from London UK.
My point is, we do not know what this mark was and as such, should not speculate. The bible and spirit of prophecy is silent on what that mark was {The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.' Deut. 29:29}. By making assumptions, we are only dishonouring Our Loving Lord and GOD. I know that you would agree with this.
Now, as a case in point, are you aware that, this bible text amongst others, were used by Europeans to justify the enslavement of Africans...because their supposition was that, this mark was dark skin. We always should allow the bible to explain itself{'For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little' Isaiah 28:10; 'Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:1}.
In reference to Sister White's use of 'the race of Cain', as stated earlier, the connotation here is sociological i.e.,{societal/cultural} and not evolutionary biological. There is a huge difference.
I did not comment on the linguistic aspects because some research have shown considerable commonality amongst languages. Thus favouring a common ancestor language and thereby, lends support to the accuracy of the Genesis account.
I do very strongly believe that, as representatives foremost of Our Lord Jesus Christ and then, the human family, we ought not to use such terms as RACE{it is purely an evolutionary construct in today's sinful world}, when referring to fellow human beings.
After all, are we not one in Christ Jesus{'There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus-Galatians 3:28 and 'So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith.' Galatians 3:26}.
Finally, you asserted, ['When one considers the race which has been most "servant" to other races, the black race is almost universally recognized to fulfill this prophecy. I believe their color goes back to Cain.']; this statement contains very little historical facts.
Yes their have been enslavement of Africans by greedy, lazy, unchristian and very cruel Europeans, whose only desire was to live the high life at the expense of fellow human misery. Gladly, this painful inhumane treatment experienced by other fellow human beings, whose minds were far more ennobled than their slave masters: lasted for a relatively short time{from the early 1500s to the mid to late 1800s}. And surely, the Lord Jesus would not of being pleased with the treatment received by his sons and daughters {"God is punishing this nation for the high crime of slavery. He has the destiny of the nation in His hands. He will punish the South for the sin of slavery, and the North for so long suffering its overreaching and overbearing influence." Ellen G. White, Testimonies Vol. 1, p. 264.}.
Prior to this sad and regrettable episode of human history, Africans ruled the would i.e Egyptians[personally I am not a fan of these Pharaohs, anyone who boastfully and arrogantly denies and defies The Lord GOD doesn't sit well with me, no respect for them or their accomplishment, not matter how grand]. Another is nimrod and his satanic exploits.
As far as I am aware, there has been no long history of servitude by people of colour.

GOD Bless

Language is a lot different that skin color.
Hm, does God then change the mans skin color or his language? I don't think so.

Interesting observations you have made there, APL. I would observe the following in response.

1) This is a "mark" that Mrs. White speaks of as being visible, not to us mortals, but to all of the watching universe. If this mark were visible to us, we would have no need of wonderment as to what Cain's mark looked like! (And we know that people were able to see the mark Cain was given, because God did it so that they could see it and be afraid of killing him.)

2) God changed man's language at Babel. This is something He is well able to do, and has indeed done. The "Ethiopian" may not be able to change his skin, but God could.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green C; you do realize that the things you are saying about the mark of cain is what the KKK and all racist groups have been saying since Darwin don't you?

The problem with that assessment is the flood. Noah was the progenitor of the whole civilization of man after the flood. There were no descendants of Cain on the earth after the flood, unless you happen to think like most Catholics and nominal Christians that the flood was localised in Mesopotamia?

The descendants of NOAH are the beginning of the new line after the flood.

This next quote is confusing but necessary here.

"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 (between species), were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man (with man) and beast (with beast), as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." {1SP 78.2}

She is not saying men bred with beasts here, she is saying the amalgamation of different races intermingling have attained new races of people.

But then you have the group who say Shem was the good son so he must have been caucasian and Ham was negro and Jafet was Asian, etc. I do not agree with this either.

"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}

So this prophecy is foretelling that there would be three great races to spring out of the future descendants of the children of Noah, and that Canaan, the descendant of Ham many generations later would be the father of the cursed race of canaanites. The main distinction between Noah's children was their character not their racial color.

Adam had all of the genetics of the perfection of mankind which were passed down to Noah.

The division of the races was after the confusion of the languages. Genetic divisions within the descendants of Noah began to degenerate, which both shortening their descendants lifespan to 120 years and created genetic differences. God divided the people into groups at the tower of Babel. He saw their potential in racial divisions. He divided them according to His plans. Then they settled within their distinctive characteristics and the races were set, then the descendants of Ham had their characteristics both in race and character and became the canaanites.

In fact Shem, who was the good son of Noah is the Great x64 supposed grandfather of Jesus as according to the lineage recorded in Luke. If you look at the heritage of the Hebrew nation the direct unmingled descendants of Abraham, according to Paleontologists there is more of a dark skin quality to them, black curly hair and dark skin is what most of the children of Abraham had. But it wasn't until other races had been brought into the lineage of Jesus through intermarrying that He attained a more fair complexion and brown hair. (complete supposition but fair for argument)

We need to be very careful not to cast an ugly light on God's intent in these issues. No man is born to go to hell. The character of our fathers has nothing to do with our skin color. To say the mark of Cain is for the black people shows contempt for God's will. The mark of Cain is for anyone who would kill their brother for jealousy against the blessings God gives in accepting one mans service over others. So the mark is the contrast of men who do not have faith but yet claim to serve God.

"The black man’s name is written in the book of life beside the white man’s. All are one in Christ. Birth, station, nationality, or color cannot elevate or degrade men. The character makes the man. If a red man, a Chinaman, or an African gives his heart to God in obedience and faith, Jesus loves him nonetheless for his color. He calls him His well-beloved brother.—The Southern Work, 8, written March 20, 1891. {ChS 218.2}
The day is coming when the kings and the lordly men of the earth would be glad to exchange places with the humblest African who has laid hold on the hope of the gospel.—The Southern Work, 8, written March 20, 1891. {ChS 218.3}

JSOT,


No one here is advocating racism. To say, however, that racism has never existed, and that the Bible has nothing to say on the topic at all, would, in my mind at least, seem racist. I recognize that the Bible does indeed touch on the topic, both of racism, and of slavery. Interestingly, the Bible upholds the authority of slave masters over their slaves, and God Himself instituted a system of servanthood/slavery in the Kingdom of Israel.


Looking at races themselves should be completely separate from racism, just as looking at the Bible's words of other gods, idols, etc. should be completely separate from idolatry. One is not an idol-worshiper for recognizing what the Bible has to say on the topic, and one is not a racist for recognizing that races exist and are alluded to in the Bible.

God bless,

Green Cochoa.

Its very painful to the mind, when individuals use terms that they are unfamiliar with at best or having very little knowledge about, in the least. And I am being particularly generous here.
I have two very simple questions for you:-
1) give a biological definition on RACE underpinned by haematology, cellular[Mitochondrial], anatomical and neurological differences.
2) biblical evidence of the aforementioned.

Thank You

I'm something of a biologist (per college degree). But this topic is not directly about biology, Augustus. The topic of this thread was about Biblical origins. The discussion, as such, should center upon how the Bible treats the topic, not how scientists, most of whom eschew the Bible, would look at it. Scientists may research mitochondrial DNA and find that it always comes from the mother. How then can there be more than one such DNA, if Eve was the mother of all living (according to the Bible)?



The fact that there are more than one DNA for mitochondria and the fact that the scientists find this to always come from the mother adds some interesting questions to this topic, I suppose. Apparently, what it tells me, is that scientists don't always get it right. They either don't have all of the facts, or they choose not to accept all of the facts.

So, skip the modern science....and let's get back to the Bible.

The Bible itself does not use our modern word "race," nor does it subscribe to the "scientific definition" of it. The Bible speaks of tribes, families, nations, and peoples. The Bible mentions nationalities at times. For example people are mentioned as having come from Ethiopia, from Asia, from Rome, from Grece, from Babylon, from Canaan, from Egypt, from Israel (Jews), etc. While Jews, Greeks, Romans, Ethiopians, etc. are all mentioned in the Bible, the Bible focuses on their spiritual attributes. They either accept God, or they reject Him. They either follow His law, or they do not. Their physical attributes are rarely mentioned. The Ethiopan's skin is a rare exception. Moses' wife, Zipporah, being a Midianite, we are told had somewhat darker skin. This, too, is a rare exception.

In the Greek, the word "nation" is "ethnos," which makes one think of ethnicities. The same word is also used for Gentiles, for heathen, and for peoples. Speaking of which, why is the word "people" pluraled if we are all one and the same "people?" The plural highlights the fact that differences and/or categories of people do exist. The Bible does not attempt to teach that all people are the same. There are differences among individual persons, and there are differences among groups of people.

The major emphasis of the Bible is upon reaching all of these people groups with the Gospel. That should be our focus as well.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Why then do you persist in this discourse...RACE.
Your post is constantly littered with this evolutionary counter-Christian world view. And now, you henceforth deprecate its pseudo-biological rendition.

Augustus,

Kindly look at the opening topic for this thread, and perhaps your answers will all be found there.

God bless,

Green Cochoa.

OK lets stay on topic GC. Between me and you here, I'll inquire and you answer OK?

1) Do you believe that the flood was universally covering the whole earth?

2) Do you believe Noah was a descendant of Cain?

3) If not then how did the descendants of Cain (to you the black race) continue after the flood?

Just a side note.

Ham, the irreverent son of Noah became the father of the canaanites who dwelt in Egypt and Arabia.

“With great power, and with a mighty hand,” God brought His chosen people out of the land of Egypt. Exodus 32:11. “He sent Moses His servant; and Aaron whom He had chosen. They showed His signs among them, and wonders in the land of Ham.” “He rebuked the Red Sea also, and it was dried up: so He led them through the depths.” Psalm 105:26, 27; 106:9. He rescued them from their servile state, that He might bring them to a good land, a land which in His providence He had prepared for them as a refuge from their enemies. He would bring them to Himself and encircle them in His everlasting arms; and in return for His goodness and mercy they were to exalt His name and make it glorious in the earth. {PK 16.2}

"Noah, speaking by divine inspiration, foretold the history of the three great races to spring from these fathers of the human race. 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.”... Evil characteristics were perpetuated in Canaan and his posterity, whose continued guilt called upon them the judgments of God.... {CTr 68.3}
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.... {CTr 68.4}
For a time the descendants of Noah continued to dwell among the mountains where the ark had rested. As their numbers increased, apostasy soon led to division. Those who desired to forget their Creator and to cast off the restraint of His law felt a constant annoyance from the teaching and example of their God-fearing associates, and after a time they decided to separate from the worshipers of God. Accordingly they journeyed to the plain of Shinar, on the banks of the river Euphrates. They were attracted by the beauty of the situation and the fertility of the soil, and upon this plain they determined to make their home. {CTr 68.5}
Here they decided to build a city, and in it a tower of such stupendous height as should render it the wonder of the world. These enterprises were designed to prevent the people from scattering abroad in colonies. God had directed men and women to disperse throughout the earth, to replenish and subdue it; but these Babel builders determined to keep their community united in one body, and to found a monarchy that should eventually embrace the whole earth.... The magnificent tower, reaching to the heavens, was intended to stand as a monument of the power and wisdom of its builders, perpetuating their fame to the latest generations.—Patriarchs and Prophets, 117-119. {CTr 68.6}

So the majority of the people who dwelt in Babylon when the languages were confused were the descendants of Ham, even though we know There were some descendants of Shem there also because Abraham was called out of BaBYLON and he was a descendant of Shem.

After the confusion of the languages the children of Ham became the canaanites and they were enslaved by the descendants of Shem and Japhet.

Green, I thought APL and I helped you past the racism part. You seem to still be clinging to it.

You said:
Indicating darkness, being black, is a curse of God, being most "servant" to other races, "universally recognized". If that is not racist, I don't know what is!

And did God "curse" another person by making him black for his father's sin? Was Ham's wife black and God saved one who was "cursed" from the flood?

JSOT,

Noah did not father his daughters-in-law, nor did his sons marry their sisters. Kland, in the post above, indicates a recognition of the correct possibility here, and one that would fall into agreement with Genesis chapter six where we are expressly told that the sons of God looked upon the daughters of men that they were fair. Mrs. White tells us this was the sons of Seth's lineage looking upon the daughters of the race of Cain. This was happening just before the flood. Noah had his own PK's.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Kland,

God did not curse another person making him black for his father's sin. The blackness, if indeed it existed (it is my theory that it did), came from Ham's wife and was already present. The support for the concept of races (not to be confused with "racist"--please!) comes from the following statement of Mrs. White.



Notice especially the part where Mrs. White says that God's curse did not fix the destiny of Noah's sons. It only predicted it. This is a different manner of curse than that of the curses given in Eden. In this case, it is not a Christian's duty to "enforce the curse." To the contrary, we should work against evil to the fullest of our ability. It is evil to enslave other men. Slavery should be abolished. Prejudice against others should cease. We can and should use our influence against these wrongs.

Are there races of men? Certainly. Need we be prejudiced against any of them? Of a certain not.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

This is how I see the descendants of Noah.


Adam---- FULL GENETICS passed to Noah-

Slight division of available DNA but nothing radical given to; Shem---- Ham---- Jafet----

They had wives who made genetic distinctions in their offspring--- The offspring of Noah's children created the three great races.

Inbreeding of these three different races in isolated conformity created sub races.

ALSO;

At the flood meteorites penetrated the upper firmament and cracked the surface of the earth.

When the covering of the upper firmament, the protective oceanic bubble-like barrier above the atmosphere, was withdrawn and came crashing down at the flood, this resulted in our earth being exposed to the sun and other cosmic sources of radiation.

Also at the flood the general crushing of rocks and the tearing of the core of the earth exposed us to other radiation producing elements like Uranium and thorium, and potassium, and their radioactive derivatives. Since this exposure was no longer filtered from its harmful elements, we were exposed to DNA altering and limiting factors and the Beta, Gamma and x rays caused great genetic variations which became more and more common.

Since the flood our race has degraded to genetic mutations which causes one in 4 children to have some kind of genetic malfunction.

Jesus needs to come soon or no flesh will be saved.

The son's of God (the descendants of Seth; who were white according to you)

Looked upon the daughters of men (the descendants of Cain who were black according to you)

And saw that they were fair, but they were black?

Since so many white people would agree with you, you might be onto something in your theory that you obviously didn't think through all the way. Maybe the Black race of men are the fair race.

You don't realise that you just proved your theory is wrong.

Another point is, if God illustrated that the flood was inflicted upon the earth because of Commingling of the Son's of God with the daughters of men and this was one of the main reasons that showed that they did not have faith and their thoughts were evil continually, then why would a fallen couple get onboard the ark and why would God preserve them?

God destroyed the earth for this reason yet He preserved them to repopulate the earth?

Doesn't make much sense. Ham hated his father and committed a fresh sin in the sight of God after directly seeing the results of sin. There is no more excuse after you see the results and still covet sin. This is the hardening of his heart and his character was what caused his ancestors to be cursed, because they were raised with the same irreverent attitude.

Those who honored and feared to offend God, at first felt the curse but lightly; while those who turned from God and trampled upon his authority, felt the effects of the curse more heavily, especially in stature and nobleness of form. The descendants of Seth were called the sons of God—the descendants of Cain, the sons of men. As the sons of God mingled with the sons of men, they became corrupt, and by intermarriage with them, lost, through the influence of their wives, their peculiar, holy character, and united with the sons of Cain in their idolatry. Many cast aside the fear of God, and trampled upon his commandments. But there were a few that did righteousness, who feared and honored their Creator. Noah and his family were among the righteous few. {1SP 66.1}

Doesn't sound like they were considered commingled does it?

Do YOU have Adam's "full genetics?" If so, why? If not, why not? If different from Noah's case, why would Noah have had Adam's "full genetics?"

Separately, if Noah had Adam's full genetics, what makes Noah NOT be a "clone" or an "identical twin" of Adam?

So, to your view, Noah gave his sons his genes, and the three great races were all the "fault" of the wives?

Last time I checked, "inbreeding" had a very different meaning than that of interracial marriage. Perhaps you would like to clarify your particular usage of this term. In fact, it comes to my mind that "inbreeding" within a race is far more likely to promote racial distinctions than would "interbreeding" with other races.

This seems of little relevance to this topic, in my opinion. Perhaps you'd like to start a new thread with this regarding the degeneration of mankind. The topic here was focused on the origination of the races, and whether or not Adam fathered them all or whether God created other humans with a separate DNA set from that of Adam in order to promote the races we have today.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Please quote where I said that the descendants of Seth were white. I don't remember ever saying such a thing. It's my understanding that the word "Adam" means "red." If I had ever ascribed a color to the descendants of Seth, I probably would have used a word like "ruddy."

You can attempt to say I've proved myself wrong by misstating my words, but that does not make your statement true.

Now, let's look at your misunderstanding of the word "fair." The Hebrew word here is "towb." Used as an adjective, as in the verse you quoted, it means:


Do you see any mention of colors? (I don't.) Most translations use the modern equivalent of the old-English "fair" and say "beautiful." I've noticed that most whites think a nice dark tan looks beautiful. In fact, I've also noticed that most dark Asians think light skin looks beautiful. So the whites go suntanning and the darks go under umbrellas to hide from the sun. It seems it's human nature to want a different look....which, by the way, supports my theory that Cain's race looked different.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

JSOT,

It seems to me that those who believe it was a cardinal sin, on account of their racial differences, for the line of Seth to marry the race of Cain are the real racists here. If you believe that God destroyed the world by flood for the intermarrying of two different races, then it follows that you believe those races should have remained separate and that it was a very grievous sin indeed for them to intermarry.

I believe this was not the problem at the time of the flood at all. I believe the great sin for which the Flood was caused was the rejection of God and of His authority (His law), which generally prevailed, and even among those who had professed to worship Him. Of particular note, we are told, was the law of "kinds" having been blatantly broken by the antediluvians in direct defiance of God and His order.

It is my understanding that this involved the intermingling of man and beast, not man and man.



Remember, the "image of God" was not given to animals. It was an attribute of man. To deface this, a mixture of that which did not have God's image with that of God's image would be required. There are two possible ways to interpret, at this point:

1) God's image means "mankind": Therefore, mixing man with animal would deface it; OR
2) God's image means "character": Therefore, mixing children of God with children of the world would deface it.

I lean towards the second, but am open to the first being also valid. Notice that in either case, "race" has no special place. The "race of Cain" was only problematic because of its character and not because of its color. The color would merely have been symbolic.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

It is good that you seem to be movable in your position. I don't want to argue any more.

Everyone alive today is a descendant of Noah's family (wife, sons, and daughter-in-laws). Was it a mixed race family? Or, does everyone have the same dominant and recessive race genes? And, does it matter? "God so loved the world"?

GC, did I use the word FAULT? I meant what I said in the way DNA is passed to the next generation. The children of one mother and one father vary rarely have Genetic differences on the level of racial difference. If the mother and Father are Red then three children are all going to be Red. But when those children marry three different women then they are going to have different genes passed down to their offspring. For you to argue like I meant what I said to mean something else is shortsighted and argumentative.

In the case of Biracial children the DNA Chromosomes of the mother and Father usually create children which look the same. It is very rare for even a white woman/ black man marriage to have children that look all black or all white, they usually are Mulatto or light skinned as a result. So if you think about this the idea that Noah and his wife had three children and one looked white and one looked black and one looked asian does not make sense. The division would have to be after the children.

Also, when I used the word 'inbreeding' it was a hastily, ill chosen word. I should have used the same word Mrs White used, 'Amalgamation' because it was the intent of what I meant.

The three different races "amalgamated" in different ways not inbred, because that would imply within their own families, which was also a problem but it was not the intent of what I meant.

JSOT,

I guess you believe that blacks and whites should not marry because it would deface the image of God. So all those "mulattoes" would be "defaced" in your view, i.e. the products of "amalgamation"?

That is what sounds racist to me.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Basically, JSOT, that is the concept that I think has fostered so much ill will regarding even the idea of discussing the several races. Some try to argue that we are all of just one race. I agree with them--partially. We are all of the human race. But the usage of the word can change its sense. In one sense, we are all human. Any human should therefore be of the same biblical "kind," and it should not have been a sin to marry another human. In another sense, we have "races" of mankind that have clearly differentiated in their physical characteristics. This is alluded to both in the Bible and in Mrs. White's writings, especially the latter.

This discussion was started on the question of whether or not the races could all have come from Adam. I'm not sure that question has been fully resolved, but I think there are sufficient hints given us to open up the question to some other possibilities, such as that of the intermingling of man and beast. For my part, I think God may well have adjusted Cain's genetics, and why would we not see other adjustments along the way for other reasons? You suggested the power of harmful atmospheric radiation to affect the DNA. I agree that this can and does perhaps make genetic alterations in certain individuals. However, I would be less willing to accept that these alterations were responsible for creating new races of mankind. To think such a think would be to assume some almost impossible and/or extremely racist concepts: 1) that all the adjustments took place disproportionately in one race over others (which is why not every human degenerated in the same fashion and remained more or less a homogeneous race); and/or 2) that one race or another is a mutation of the species or a result of mutation (a good piece for the start of some animated discussion, no doubt). I would not be willing to suggest either of them as possibilities.

If you think through some of the ideas you've been expressing, I think you might see where they would logically lead. Hopefully, at that point, the evidence helps you to abandon such thinking. Even if it were true (which I don't believe) that one race or another of mankind were a mutation of the species or caused by such, I would hope that no one would walk around pointing it out--for it would surely lead to some of the most racist thinking possible.

Think about it.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

EGW stated the following in regards to the mark of Cain:

Per the bolded and underlined section of the above quote it seems like anybody can bear the mark of Cain.

Daryl,

That quote has already been posted in this thread and responded to, if you'll go back and read it. It is obvious, biblically, that this quote refers to a symbolic mark whereas the Bible event with Cain involved a literal one. So this quote brings an orange into a discussion of apples.

Here's another quote from Mrs. White about Cain's transgression that brings a worthwhile point to this discussion.



The question might be asked: "If Cain's life was spared, why wasn't that enough?" In other words, "why did God mark Cain?" Answer that, and it is readily seen that this was a visible mark. It had to be a visible one, because it was given so that others, upon seeing it, would fear to kill him. Thus, Cain's life was doubly spared--first from God, and second from man. God was merciful in order to teach the universe the results of permitting sin.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

I noticed that too.



and

Kland,

"Fair," as in "my fair lady," used to mean simply "beautiful." It has taken on a more modern meaning of "light" or "white." In any case, when I used the word, I was but quoting it from the Bible's own translation, which was done centuries ago when the word still meant "beautiful." I already explained here that the Hebrew does not indicate any color.

As for yours and JSOT's understanding of my position having changed, I'm glad I'm finally able to make myself more clear. I don't always manage to explain things well the first time around, so it may appear to you that my position has changed when your understanding of it has been updated.

God bless,

Green Cochoa.

WHAT? This is the greatest stretch of the imagination that I have ever heard. And why are you putting words into my mouth by putting "defaced" in quotation marks? Show me where I said that. This would be suitable grounds for a libel case in the world of journalism.

I suppose if you knew me these words would have never come out of your mouth or from your mind.

I am the greatest supporter of equal rights other than our creator then you will ever meet. My wife is Asian and I come the greatest line of bigots you could ever imagine. You have no idea what I have gone through in this life. I would say how dare you, but I won't because I actually think you are a truly devoted man. But you should be careful how you judge me.

That is not how I or Mrs White was using the term 'amalgamation', it is not derogatory, it simply means to mix
one race with another. I actually believe in usually results in F1 hybrids in genetic terms. An alpha male from one race married to an alpha female from another usually creates beautiful, intelligent, and strong children. But if you want to play the race game with me, I'll just state that I am less inclined to think on those terms then you obviously are.

But what strikes me is how you seem to be striking against our SDA prophet Mrs White... She didn't mean the term amalgamation the way you cited either so why are playing against her here?
Are you saying you are against what she present in our doctrines on this subject?

Amen, this is exactly what my God has shown me and in perfect harmony with what I stated earlier, soundly resolved in my mind.

You mean to tell me that James was misusing the sense of the word and putting into it something which wasn't there? And that he shouldn't do such things?

Good Advice.

"Blessings".

James,

One of the early lessons on punctuation and quotation marks will teach you that they can be used for other purposes besides quoting someone. I may choose, by them, to quote myself or to present an expression which I don't actually support. If you suppose something to be true, and I address it using quotation marks, it means that I am dubious about the truthfulness of that which I have thus quoted.

Your "libel case" would be laughed out of court. In that last sentence I used quotation marks not to quote you but to indicate that what was said to be a case of libel was not actually such a case. In other words, what is supposed or alleged to be true, I am calling into question by my use of the quotation marks. It is a pity to need to provide grammar lessons here in order to dispel misunderstandings. Just the same, please keep this usage of quotation marks in mind for future readings of posts here. Other posters will frequently use the same grammar tool to indicate the same sort of thing as I have exemplified here.

Now, regarding your allegations of Mrs. White's use of "amalgamation," if you married someone not of your own race, why did you not commit this crime? You say it was a crime to marry someone of another race in the time of the flood, so would it be different today? If so, why?

You see, I radically differ from you on Mrs. White's intent. She says clearly "man and beast" in reference to "amalgamation." To me, she means just what she says. We are told that in the last days, the sins of the antediluvians will be repeated. Jesus Himself taught us this. If you observe what is happening in the laboratory today, and if you listen to any of the music of a decade or two ago (I am not up-to-date, but perhaps it's ongoing), you will notice an emphasis on creating chimeras with human DNA and on bestiality. The way I interpret the sin of "amalgamation," this is no surprise. This sort of thing is to be expected, in agreement with the Bible's words that in the last days the sins of Noah's time would be repeated.

If, on the other hand, one interprets Mrs. White to mean that races must never intermarry or they would fall afoul of the law against amalgamating, then that seems particularly racist. I stand by this statement. In other words, I am calling into question your interpretation. I have no doubt that Mrs. White's words are true, but to me they have a radically different meaning than it appears you would suggest.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Green is correct in saying that EGW was talking about amalgamations of man and beast. We see that going on today. And I think it is only the beginning of what we will see. Amalgamation is this context is genetic engineering. Does EGW talk about genetic engineering else where? Yep.In fact, Genesis 3:14-18 is talking about genetics, and there is good science today about it all. Genesis 3:14 - you want to make a snake, start with a lizard. Genesis 3:16 - change mammalian childbirth? Yep, it has been messed with, big time. Genesis 3:18, Tares and thorns? Yet, the system has been hacked.

Oh - just to bring green up today, green said, "The fact that there are more than one DNA for mitochondria and the fact that the scientists find this to always come from the mother adds some interesting questions to this topic, I suppose. Apparently, what it tells me, is that scientists don't always get it right. They either don't have all of the facts, or they choose not to accept all of the facts." Green, you must have graduated from college a long time ago and have not studied genetics recently. You probably know nothing about mobile genetic elements and how the affect the genome. Or that mtDNA fragments can migrate into the nucleus which has interesting implications and is all very new science. I'll bet you've heard of mRNA, rRNA, and tRNA but what about miRNA, siRNA, piRNA and where they come from and what they do? I agree with you! Science is learning more and it is not as nice a picture as it has been told. Particularly if one has not stayed up to date over the just the 6 months in genetics!

Ellen G. White Statements Regarding Conditions at the Time of the Flood
by Francis D. Nichol
Adapted from Francis D. Nichol’s book Ellen G. White and Her Critics, pp. 306-322

Introduction
In the summer of 1864 the “Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association” at Battle Creek, Michigan, published a three-hundred-page Ellen G. White volume entitled “Important Facts of Faith in Connection With the History of Holy Men of Old.” This was the third of a four-volume series carrying the general title of Spiritual Gifts. {Amal 1.1}
In this work the narrative of the early history of the world is presented, commencing with “The Creation” and carrying down to the giving of the law to Israel, these matters, as the author states in her Preface, having been opened to her in vision. {Amal 1.2}
In Chapter 6, entitled “Crime Before the Flood,” Mrs. White in describing the deplorable conditions which led to the catastrophic destruction of the world, speaks of the amalgamation of man and beast. In the next chapter there is another similar reference. Occasionally inquiry is made as to just what Mrs. White did write in this connection and what her statements meant, and why they are not found in her later works, now current. Some have linked the amalgamation statements with the memory of ancient myths regarding strange creatures produced by unholy alliance between human beings and beasts, and have asked if the E. G. White statements do not give support to these fables. It is also intimated that they tend toward evolution. {Amal 1.3}
The only passages in Mrs. White’s writings that are of interest in this connection are found in Spiritual Gifts, volume 3, already mentioned and republished in Spirit of Prophecy, volume 1, in 1870. The first, in chapter 6, “Crime Before the Flood,” is this: {Amal 2.1}
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.—Spiritual Gifts 3:64.
Chapter 7 is entitled “The Flood,” and contains this statement: {Amal 2.2}
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.—Page 75. {Amal 2.3}
These are Mrs. White’s only statements on the subject of the amalgamation of man and beast. {Amal 2.4}
Just what Mrs. White meant by these passages has been the occasion of some speculation through the years, and two explanations have been set forth. Some have held that she taught not only that men and beasts have cohabited but also that progeny resulted. However, those who hold this view have contended that this does not support the doctrine of evolution. The evolution theory depends for its life on the idea that small, simple living structures can gradually evolve into ever higher forms of life, finally bringing forth man. {Amal 2.5}
That more or less closely related forms of life may cross and produce hybrids is not questioned by creationists today. That, in the long ago, when virility was greater, and conditions possibly in some respects different, more diverse forms of life might have crossed—such as man and some higher forms of animals—can be set forth only as an assumption. But this assumption has marshaled against it the whole weight of scientific belief today. Of course, scientists have been wrong, at times, in reasoning that all the past must be understood in terms of the processes we now see going on. {Amal 2.6}
We might leave the matter as being beyond the range of investigation or proof. The Bible itself contains some such statements, as all students of the Scriptures well know. {Amal 2.7}
But there is another explanation of these amalgamation passages which is well supported and we believe more satisfying and which avoids any conflict with the observable data of science. {Amal 2.8}

Chapter 1—What Does the Word “Amalgamation” Mean?
First, what is the general meaning of the word “amalgamation”? Is it ever used to describe the depraved act of cohabitation of man with beast? No dictionaries we have had access to, not even the exhaustive Oxford English Dictionary, indicate that the term has ever been used to describe this act. There is another standard English word that may properly be used to describe such cohabitation. The primary usage of the word “amalgamation” through long years has been to describe the fusion of certain metals, and by extension, to denote the fusing of races of men. In the mid-nineteenth century the word was commonly employed in the United States to describe the intermarriage of the white and the Negro race. 1 {Amal 2.9}
The long-established meaning of the key word “amalgamation” as the blending of races should weigh heavily in determining the interpretation of the questioned passages. {Amal 2.10}
Second, the whole tenor of Mrs. White’s writings provides strong testimony against the claim that she is here seeking solemnly to present as fact some ancient stories about abnormal man-beast progeny. Her writings are not tainted with fanciful fables of the long ago. Rather, they have a strongly matter-of-fact quality to them. If she had been a dreamer and visionary, how frequently might she have regaled her readers with myths and weird stories of antiquity. {Amal 2.11}
Chapter 2—What Does the Key Phrase Mean?
The crux of the “amalgamation” passages is this: “amalgamation of man and beast.” That statement could be construed to mean amalgamation of man with beast, or amalgamation of man and of beast. In a construction like this the preposition “of” is not necessarily repeated, though it may be clearly implied. We might speak of the scattering of man and beast over the earth, but we do not therefore mean that previously man and beast were fused in one mass at one geographical spot. We simply mean the scattering of man over the earth and the scattering of beasts over the earth, though the original location of the two groups might have been on opposite sides of the earth. In other words, the scattering of man and of beast. {Amal 3.1}
Then why may we not rightly understand this particular grammatical construction in the same way when speaking of amalgamation? If we may speak of a scattering of man and beast without at all implying that scattering started from a single spot, why may we not speak of the amalgamation of man and beast without at all implying that man and beast came together in one place in fusion? {Amal 3.2}
We believe (AS SEVENTH DAY ADVENTISTS!!!) that the meaning of the key phrase in question is found by understanding it to read: “amalgamation of man and [of] beast.” Thus the passage would be speaking of the amalgamation of different races of mankind and the amalgamation of different races of animals. The grammatical construction and common usage permit us to understand “of” as being implied. {Amal 3.3}
Chapter 3—The Results of Amalgamation
But does simply the amalgamation of different races of men and the amalgamation of different species of animals suffice to measure up to the description of the evil character of amalgamation and the results that followed from it; namely, destruction by a flood? Let us look first at the amalgamation of races of men. Note again the text of the first quotation cited (Spiritual Gifts 3:64), and observe these characteristics of amalgamation: {Amal 3.4}
1. It was the “one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the Flood.”
2. It “defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere.”
3. “That powerful, long-lived race ...had corrupted their ways before him.”
Two distinct groups of human beings are presented at the opening of the chapter in Spiritual Gifts, volume 3, entitled “Crime Before the Flood”: {Amal 3.5}
(1) “The descendants of Seth,” and (2) “The descendants of Cain.” The two groups were distinct in two marked ways: (1) The first group “felt the curse but lightly.” (2) The second group, “who turned from God and trampled upon his authority, felt the effects of the curse more heavily, especially in stature and nobleness of form.” “The descendants of Seth were called the sons of God—the descendants of Cain, the sons of men.” Here two races are presented which differ both in moral and physical characteristics. {Amal 3.6}
Then follow immediately these words: “As the sons of God mingled with the sons of men, they became corrupt, and by intermarriage with them, lost, through the influence of their wives, their peculiar, holy character, and united with the sons of Cain in their idolatry.”—Pages 60, 61. Next comes a description of their evil course of idolatry, particularly their prostituting to sinful ends the gold and silver and other material possessions that were theirs. Mrs. White then observes: “They corrupted themselves with those things which God had placed upon the earth for man’s benefit.”—Page 63. From a discussion of idolatry she turns to polygamy and makes this statement: “The more men multiplied wives to themselves, the more they increased in wickedness and unhappiness.”—Page 63. {Amal 3.7}
Even in this brief chapter we find sufficient to support the position that the judgment of a flood upon men was because of the amalgamation of races of men. Two races are presented. The amalgamation of the two results in corruption and idolatry, and polygamy only increases the corruption and wickedness. The disputed passage says that God brought the Flood because men “had corrupted their ways before him.” {Amal 4.1}

Chapter 4—The Divine Image Defaced
Let us now note parallel passages in Mrs. White’s writings. In Patriarchs and Prophets, where she writes much more at length on the subject, she speaks thus of the descendants of Seth and Cain: {Amal 4.2}
For some time the two classes remained separate. The race of Cain, spreading from the place of their first settlement, dispersed over the plains and valleys where the children of Seth had dwelt; and the latter, in order to escape from their contaminating influence, withdrew to the mountains, and there made their home. So long as this separation continued, they maintained the worship of God in its purity. But in the lapse of time they ventured, little by little, to mingle with the inhabitants of the valleys. This association was productive of the worst results. “The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair.” The children of Seth, attracted by the beauty of the daughters of Cain’s descendants, displeased the Lord by intermarrying with them. Many of the worshipers of God were beguiled into sin by the allurements that were now constantly before them, and they lost their peculiar, holy character. Mingling with the depraved, they became like them in spirit and in deeds; the restrictions of the seventh commandment were disregarded, “and they took them wives of all which they chose.” The children of Seth went “in the way of Cain;” they fixed their minds upon worldly prosperity and enjoyment, and neglected the commandments of the Lord.—Pages 81, 82.
Here Mrs. White paints a picture of cumulative wickedness, climaxing in the Flood, and stemming largely from the amalgamation of the “race of Cain” and the “children of Seth.” We are using the word “amalgamation” in its proper dictionary meaning, and according to the common usage of the time in which Mrs. White wrote—the intermarriage of different races. {Amal 4.3} (this does not mean different colors of race, but different races in worship)
Further on in Patriarchs and Prophets Mrs. White declares: {Amal 4.4}
"Polygamy was practiced at an early date. It was one of the sins that brought the wrath of God upon the antediluvian world. Yet after the flood it again became wide-spread. 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."—Page 338.
In a comment on the history of Israel, she observes: {Amal 4.5}
"It came to be a common practice to intermarry with the heathen.... The enemy rejoiced in his success in effacing the divine image from the minds of the people that God had chosen as His representatives."—Fundamentals of Christian Education, 499.
Then take this passage from another of Mrs. White’s writings: {Amal 5.1}
"Unhallowed marriages of the sons of God with the daughters of men, resulted in apostasy which ended in the destruction of the world by a flood." —Testimonies for the Church 5:93.
Chapter 5—Parallel Passages Summarized
Let us summarize: The result of the breaking down of the marriage institution, and particularly the intermarriage between the children of God and the heathen, was to “deface the image of God in man.” Further, “Unhallowed marriages of the sons of God with the daughters of men” carried mankind irresistibly forward in increasing iniquity “which ended in the destruction of the world by a flood.” Substituting the word “amalgamation” for “marriage” in the above quotations, note the striking parallel to the following statements in the disputed passage: “The base crime of amalgamation ...defaced the image of God”: and, “God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before Him.” {Amal 5.2}
In none of the parallel passages we have quoted, or in any others that might be cited, does Mrs. White speak of the cohabitation of man with beast as being a feature of the gross and dismal picture of antediluvian wickedness that precipitated the Flood. On the contrary, it would appear that she speaks of intermarriage of the race of Cain and the race of Seth, with its inevitable train of idolatry, polygamy, and kindred evils, as the cause of the Flood. And all this harmonizes with the earlier quoted statement in the opening paragraph of the chapter that contains the passage in question. {Amal 5.3}
As the sons of God mingled with the sons of men, they became corrupt, and by intermarriage with them, lost, through the influence of their wives, their peculiar, holy character, and united with the sons of Cain in their idolatry.—Spiritual Gifts 3:60-61. {Amal 5.4}
As already stated, this introduction to the chapter “Crime Before the Flood” is followed by a recital of the idolatry that grew rampant, the denial of God, the theft, the polygamy, the murder of men, and the destruction of animal life. Then comes immediately the disputed passage, as though summarizing; “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.” 2 {Amal 5.5}
One apparent stumbling block in the way of accepting this interpretation of the passage as an intermarriage of races of men and a crossing of different species of animals is the construction of the statement: “amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God.” How could the crossing of species of animals do this? {Amal 5.6}
But let us look more closely at what she says. Two results follow from the “amalgamation of [1] man and [2] beast”: It (1) “defaced the image of God,” and (2) “caused confusion everywhere.” We have seen how the marriage, the amalgamation, of the races of men produced the first of the results. Why could we not properly consider that the amalgamation of the races, or species, of animals produced the second, that is, “caused confusion everywhere”? When two related things are described in one sentence, it does not follow that we must understand that all the results listed flow from each of the two. {Amal 5.7}
Chapter 6—Second Passage Examined
This brings us to a consideration of the second of the two passages relating to amalgamation: {Amal 6.1}
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.—Spiritual Gifts 3:75.
This passage is separated from the first by only a few pages. The intervening pages give the account of the Flood. {Amal 6.2}
Here she speaks of “every species of animal which God had created,” in contrast with “the confused species which God did not create.” “Confused species” of what? The construction permits only one answer: Species of animal. But an amalgamation of man with beast would produce, not a species of animal, but a hybrid man-beast species, whatever that might be. Mrs. White is here most certainly speaking of “confused species” of animals. And she says simply that such “confused species” “were the result of amalgamation.” {Amal 6.3}
Let us summarize, now, by placing in parallel columns the substance of two statements by Mrs. White: {Amal 6.4}
Amalgamation of Man Amalgamation of Beast
The intermarriage, the amalgamation, of The amalgamation of “species of animals”
races of men defaced the image of God resulted in “confused species.”
We believe these parallel passages fully warrant the conclusion, already reached, that when Mrs. White said, “amalgamation of man and beast,” she meant (1) the amalgamation of races of men, and (2) the amalgamation of species of animals. The first “defaced the image of God,” the second “caused confusion everywhere.” {Amal 6.5}
Chapter 6—Second Passage Examined
This brings us to a consideration of the second of the two passages relating to amalgamation: {Amal 6.1}
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.—Spiritual Gifts 3:75.
This passage is separated from the first by only a few pages. The intervening pages give the account of the Flood. {Amal 6.2}
Here she speaks of “every species of animal which God had created,” in contrast with “the confused species which God did not create.” “Confused species” of what? The construction permits only one answer: Species of animal. But an amalgamation of man with beast would produce, not a species of animal, but a hybrid man-beast species, whatever that might be. Mrs. White is here most certainly speaking of “confused species” of animals. And she says simply that such “confused species” “were the result of amalgamation.” {Amal 6.3}
Let us summarize, now, by placing in parallel columns the substance of two statements by Mrs. White: {Amal 6.4}
Amalgamation of Man Amalgamation of Beast
The intermarriage, the amalgamation, of The amalgamation of “species of animals”
races of men defaced the image of God resulted in “confused species.”
We believe these parallel passages fully warrant the conclusion, already reached, that when Mrs. White said, “amalgamation of man and beast,” she meant (1) the amalgamation of races of men, and (2) the amalgamation of species of animals. The first “defaced the image of God,” the second “caused confusion everywhere.” {Amal 6.5}
Chapter 7—Three Important Conclusions
Mrs. White says that “since the flood” there “has been amalgamation of man and beast,” and adds that the results may be seen in (1) “almost endless varieties of species of animals,” and in (2) “certain races of men.” There are several important conclusions that follow from this passage: {Amal 6.6}
1. Mrs. White speaks of two clearly distinguished groups that testify to this amalgamation. There are (1) “species of animals” and (2) “races of men.” There is no suggestion that there were species part man and part animal. But how could there be amalgamation of man with animal and the result be anything else than hybrid man-animal species? She does not even hint of subhuman monsters or caricatures of man. On the contrary, as just noted, she speaks unequivocally of “species of animals” and “races of men.” She does not single out or name any particular race as bearing the evidence of this amalgamation. {Amal 6.7}
2. Mrs. White speaks of the “almost endless varieties of species of animals” that have resulted from amalgamation. Now it has been suggested that Mrs. White in the matter of amalgamation reflected the thinking of those who believed the fiction of man-animal crosses. If we rightly understand that fiction, as it has been wafted through the centuries by the winds of credulity, a few large, mythical creatures of antiquity were supposed to have resulted from a union of man with animals. And these creatures were always supposed to reveal both human and animal features. But there is nothing in the ancient fiction that supported the idea that “almost endless varieties of species of animals” were the result of an unnatural cross of man with animals. Mrs. White is here certainly not expressing an ancient, mythical view. Not even the credulous pagans, wholly devoid of biological knowledge, would have thought of entertaining such an idea. How much more reasonable to interpret the passage to mean that these “almost endless varieties of species of animals” resulted from an amalgamation of previously existing forms of animal life! {Amal 6.8}
3. Mrs. White calls upon the reader to look about him for proof of what she is saying. In other words, whatever this amalgamation has been, its fruitage is evident today. “As may be seen,” she says, “in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men.” But can anything be “seen” in our day that would provide support for the ancient myth of beast-men? Certainly there is nothing in the savage races of some remote heathen lands that even suggests a cross between man and animals. 3 And if the most degraded race of men does not suggest such a cross, much less do any species of animals suggest it. But the results of the amalgamation of which Mrs. White speaks “may be seen” by the reader. {Amal 7.1}
Chapter 8—Darwinism and Creationism
At the time she wrote her amalgamation statement in 1864, Darwin’s influence was only beginning to be felt in the world. Until he published his Origin of Species (Nov. 24, 1859), most scientists, and religionists generally, had held firmly to the view that the species are “fixed,” that is, they cannot be crossed. Darwin theorized that all creation is in flux, with no ultimate bounds on any form of life. He reasoned that natural law, expressing itself through natural selection and survival of the fittest, causes simple forms to become increasingly complex and to rise constantly in the scale of life, until man finally appears. His theory and the doctrine of the fixity of species could not live together. One devoured the other. To Darwin and those who agreed with him, it seemed that the chief obstacle to acceptance of his theory was the doctrine of species fixity. And to orthodox Christians belief in species fixity seemed absolutely essential to belief in Genesis. {Amal 7.2}
Thus when the battle began between the Darwinites and the believers in Genesis the fighting was chiefly over this question of the fixity of species. Creationists generally considered the term “species” as equivalent to the “kinds,” in Genesis, to each of which was given the divine order to “bring forth ...after his kind.” Genesis 1:24. Such an equating of “species” and “kind” we now know to be unwarranted. {Amal 7.3}
The outcome of such an uneven fight is known to all. Evolutionists had little trouble in proving that there are “endless varieties of species of animals,” if we might borrow Mrs. White’s words in her amalgamation statement. And whenever creationists have sought to make their stand on the point of fixity of species, as that term is generally understood, they have been put to rout. {Amal 7.4}
Present-day creationists who have any knowledge of genetics, which treats of the laws governing “heredity and variations among related organisms,” fare much better than did their fighting fathers. Genetics shows how endless varieties may develop within certain limits—the limits of the potential variations within the original strain—but no farther. In other words, the simple fact of variations in species does not, in itself, provide any proof for evolution. That much is certain. Thus we may believe in “endless varieties of species” after Ararat without believing in evolution. Mrs. White wrote in 1864 that these “almost endless varieties” “may be seen,” though creationists at that time, and for about a half century more, saw no such thing; they saw only fixity of species. Yet Mrs. White had no leanings toward Darwin’s theory. From the outset she spoke vigorously against evolution! {Amal 7.5}
Chapter 9—Was It Sin?
Mrs. White describes the “amalgamation of man and beast” as a “sin” and a “base crime,” but why should the amalgamation of various species of animals be thus described? {Amal 7.6}
Note first that Mrs. White, in the chapter “Crime Before the Flood,” is using the word “crime” as loosely synonymous with “sin.” The key word before us, therefore, is “sin.” And what is sin? It is transgression of the law of God. This is often restricted in theological thinking to violations of the Ten Commandments, the moral law. That Mrs. White frequently uses the word “sin” in a much larger sense, as including any violation of so-called natural laws, is evident from an examination of her writings. The reason she does this is that she declares that these so-called laws of nature are as truly an expression of the mind and will of God as are the Ten Commandments. For example: “It is just as much sin to violate the laws of our being as to break one of the ten commandments, for we cannot do either without breaking God’s law.”—Testimonies for the Church 2:70. {Amal 7.7}
Now let us turn to the Bible record of the condition of the whole created world, man and beast, before the Flood: {Amal 7.8}
“And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.” Genesis 6:7.
Why should the Lord repent that He had “made them,” the beasts and birds and creeping things, as well as man? In a few verses farther on is found the answer: {Amal 7.9}
“And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his [A.R.V. their] way upon the earth.” Genesis 6:12.
“And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man.” Genesis 7:21.
Chapter 10—The Plan of God for Eden
When God first made the world He placed upon it a wide variety of animals and plants, distributed over hills and valleys, on sunny plain and in shady dell. The picture was one of beauty and harmony in diversity. We can, of course, only conjecture as to details of the Edenic world. The record declares that God commanded that each form of life should bring forth “after his kind.” Genesis 1:24. {Amal 8.1}
And the fossil records bear silent testimony that between the major forms of life there appear to be no intermediary forms. There are sharp gaps instead. Whether the Lord designed that His perfect earth should also preserve distinctions between the more closely related forms of life, we can only venture a guess. But if He placed all these more or less closely related forms upon the earth, it would seem a reasonable assumption that He did so as an expression of His divine conception of what a perfect world should be like. {Amal 8.2}
We think this is even more than a reasonable assumption in the light of specific counsel later given to Israel, as God sought to set up in this sinful world a government according to the plans of heaven. Through Moses God said to Israel: {Amal 8.3}
“Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.” Leviticus 19:19. (See also Deuteronomy 22:9-11.) {Amal 8.4}
Chapter 11—Satan and the Animal Kingdom
The Bible presents a picture of a controversy between God and the devil that starts with the beginnings of our world and covers everything that has to do with our world. That Satan, as a free moral agent, has been allowed of God to roam the earth and use his diabolical skill in creating disorder and destruction, the Bible amply testifies. {Amal 8.5}
The first instance of Satan’s attempt to bring disorder in our world was his speaking through an animal, a serpent. And though Satan was the instigator of the serpent’s wily words, the Lord included the serpent in the judgments meted out at the fall. {Amal 8.6}
Where the Scripture record is so brief we must be slow to dogmatize. But we may find in the fact of Satan, his evil purposes, and this specifically mentioned instance of his control of a member of the animal kingdom, a strong suggestion that the animal kingdom has suffered from his diabolical cunning. We cannot believe that in Eden there were blood-thirsty beasts, ill-tempered, snarling, and vicious. All believers in the Bible grant that these evil changes in the beasts were the result of sin. But how could a beast, which does not have a moral nature, and therefore has no knowledge of sin, be changed in nature by the entrance of sin into the life of Adam and Eve? The Christian mind will not permit the idea that God so changed the animals. In the fact of Satan, whose domination of the serpent is recorded for our learning, is surely found the only real explanation of the sorry change that came over the animal kingdom. Part of that change, we believe, was the confusing of the species, the blurring of a wondrous picture of divine harmony in diversity. {Amal 8.7}
Chapter 12—A Belief Consistent With Scripture
We grant that this belief as to the cause of the confusing of species cannot be supported by a clear text of Scripture. We affirm only that this belief is consistent with such scriptures as discuss those earliest days. And nothing more than this need be affirmed in order to protect the belief from being lightly dismissed by any Bible believer, as an unreasonable explanation. {Amal 9.1}
It is evident that on this view of the confusion of species in the animal kingdom we find a satisfying answer to the question: How could the crossing of different forms of animal life be described as sin? Was sin involved in the activity of the serpent? We all answer Yes. But we immediately think of Satan. Even so with the crossing of animals. Any and every move to mar God’s original, orderly plan can be described only as sin. {Amal 9.2}
Chapter 13—Mrs. White Focuses on Satan as Evil Power
One cannot read far in Mrs. White’s writings before becoming aware that she views the whole drama of our world from its earliest days onward as a great struggle between God and the devil. Mrs. White pictures Satan as stalking over the earth, bent on disorder and devastation, even as the Bible pictures him. It is true that she did not specifically refer to Satan in the amalgamation statements in Spiritual Gifts. However, another reference to amalgamation discloses her views as to the cause of certain of the changes that took place in our world after Adam and Eve fell. The statement reads: {Amal 9.3}
"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? how then hath it tares?” The Master answered, “An enemy hath done this.” 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."—Selected Messages 2:288.
This statement, viewed in the setting of the whole tenor of Mrs. White’s writings which attribute to Satan the active responsibility for all evil in our world, fully warrants us in concluding that she attributed to Satan the “confused species” of animals. Hence she would most certainly describe these “species” as a manifestation of sin, even as she could properly speak of the appearance of insensate but “noxious, poisonous herbs” as an exhibit of the activity of the “evil one.” Thus her amalgamation statement regarding “sin” is consistent with all that Scripture has revealed of earth’s early days, in terms of the interpretation we have given to the key phrase, “amalgamation of man and beast.” {Amal 10.1}

Did you guys notice how Dr Nichol's here states that as Seventh Day Adventists we believe that Mrs White never intended for this statement to be viewed as saying that man and beast had sex and out came little man-puppies?

Why do we continually have to fight our own peoples ignorance in our own denomination? We do more damage to our cause than you will ever know. And Satan just sits back and laughs at us because of the ignorance of the men who teach this garbage in our churches. He laughs and laughs. When are you going to wake up and listen to God's Holy Spirit trying to teach you what He meant by telling Mrs White these important truths?

Ignorance does more damage than the Catholic church in our denomination. Sheer ignorance. My God is saddened by the stupid arguments. WAKE UP!

James said:


I think that you would be hard put to find an attorney who would take the statement made as a libel case. You seem to me to not understand our legal system.

jsot - when did Nichol write this article? Was genetic engineering understood or even possible? Today genetic engineering can place genetic material very precisely into the genome. No sex is involved! We do have combinations of man and beasts via several methods. The antediluvians were vastly superior to us, do you not agree? Satan is also a master geneticist. I wonder what Nichol would write today if you understood current science...

"Precisely"? Maybe something dramatically did change in the last 6 months, then!

Everything I've ever read puts "precision" about as precise as buckshot and hope for the best. I participated in a class and went through the buckshot process where the DNA was placed on gold particles and then using an air gun, it was shot through cell plasm, and then after that, it was screened to make sure it was even inserted, and then it was grown out to see if it was expressed in the desired portions with outcomes not much better than classical breeding methods other than getting foreign DNA into the target organism. And all this with the excision and the insertion of the foreign DNA not being anywhere near what one would call precise but more of near enough without too much extraneous DNA being inserted, or at least hoping not.


Could you elaborate a little on this precision bit?

What would she have meant if she had said, "man with beast"? How would she have said it if she had not meant man with beast but amalgamation of both man and beast?

The "gene gun", a patented technique by Dr. John Sanford (book: Genetic Entropy), was like buckshot, literally! It was called Biolistic - think Balistic. That is old school. The latest techniques use use things like transposons which can target specific areas of the genome "precisely", some with in a few base pairs of the target. Google PiggyBac Transposon and/or Sleeping Beauty Transpson as examples. Transposons are a class of mobile genetic elements (MGE). Other names are transposable elements (TE) or Jumping Gene. Viruses are also a type.

Transposable elements:
You want to make a snake? Use transposable elements, Genesis 3:14.
You want to mess with mammalian reproduction? Transposable elements, Genesis 3:16.
You want to make thorns? Transposable elements, Genesis 3:18.
There is good science behind all these. Makes on wonder what God was talking about in Genesis 3:15. But I digress...

kland - was this experiment you did in the last 6 months? Really? The gene gun technique was blind luck if it worked! Yes, there are accurate techniques now. Google also zinc fingers...

That's a good and reasonable question. I think there are certain limitations to how we can interpret her words, but a good start can be made by looking at the definition of "amalgamation" as used in her day. (It hasn't changed much, but it is quite simply stated in the 1828 dictionary as quoted below.)


If she meant mixing man and beast with mercury, as #1, then that is one possible interpretation. If she meant mixing man with something different than man, and beast with something different from beast, then that is another interpretation.

Here is where interpretation must be used. A descendant of Cain was a "man" (in the sense of "human"). A descendant of Seth was also a "man" in this sense. Intermarriage of them does not mix "different things." It mixes like things. So this could not qualify under the term "amalgamation."

How then would one cause such a thing to qualify? There is only one way-- to define the difference in terms of spirituality. This is just what the Bible does. "Sons of God" and "daughters of men" are said to intermarry. This spiritual difference between marriage partners was odious to God.

It's not so much a matter, then, of "race," but of spirituality.

Again, "amalgamation" cannot be defined as the marriage of two separate races, such as "black" and "white." If it were thus defined, then one would necessarily conclude that this is one of the great sins of this modern age as well--which view I believe to be egregiously in error and racist at its core.

Finally, if "amalgamation" creates races, how so? How can one create a new race by intermarriage between persons who were not already different? How does this difference come about? How could Cain be so different as to constitute a new "race" of people when he proceeded from the genetics of the same parents as had all of his siblings? This is the core topic of this thread. I maintain that Cain's DNA may well have been adjusted by God. I acknowledge that this is not provable by scripture, and remains in the realm of "theory." Perhaps even it is idle speculation. I have no need of teaching this to anyone for his or her salvation. Nor is it worth spending more time on here. It's an unnecessary detail best reserved for resolution in Heaven when we can see what really happened and ask God all that we desire.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Is it not common to dismiss something when we do not understand it? "that's not important" ... I think EGW was ahead of her time, and perhaps many of this time.

Amalgamation - mixing with mercury? Nah. Mixing with different things? Sure, and there is science to support this. Weeds come from grasses, "infection" of mobile genetic elements. Did God create these mobile genetic elements? No. Can you mix humans with non-human DNA? Yes. And it is not a shotgun technique anymore. The techniques being used today are quite sophisticated and very targeted.

The parable of Jesus used by EGW in this quote should make us take note. Jesus used his observation of nature to draw illustrations of truth. (see {DA 70})

No, I was saying something must have changed in the last six months. That meant it was prior and I had read something prior.

I'll have to look up the stuff you gave, but I'd be impressed if it's as good as you suggest. Precision may it be, but is it accurate, that is, do the researchers know what the precision is they want? Do they know what "junk DNA" they want or don't want?

I'll have to look up the transposons, but from what I understood them to be, I'll learn something new as to how they could be helpful for insertion and excision precision.

I once heard someone suggest that thorns, such as honey locust thorns were caused by something like bacteria. I tried searching for such on the internet and never came up with anything. I don't think the person really understood what was happening and I sure didn't understand what they were telling, but it made me think of something like a symbiotic relationship. When you look at the thorns, there are often times a swelling and clustering where the thorns come out and they seem to exit the bark differently than say a black locust thorn.

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



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

Oh, how about:

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

Yes and no. This depends on your definitions. According to my understanding, where this breaks down is upon the definition of "different." I do not believe that one's DNA had anything to do with the "amalgamation" question if, and only if, one is dealing with human-human intra-species breeding. If we wish to apply "amalgamation" to this sort of purely human marriage, then I think we must look at the spiritual difference. In that case, I would accept the term "amalgamation" as applicable.

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

Yes. But it has absolutely nothing to do with DNA if one is dealing with intra-human breeding.

If it did, the Bible would have to have provided us rules for not intermarrying with those of other races. I see no such thing. Jesus Himself was a descendant of Ruth, a Moabitess, of Rahab, a harlot and a Canaanite, and of GOD, who is not human. Was it an abomination for Him?

The "abomination" was that of mixing the image of God with things, either spiritual or physical, that defaced that image. This is where the term "amalgamation" applies. Ruth and Rahab had both accepted God and worshiped Him. Therefore, "amalgamation" would not apply.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

How does the "amalgamation" question work with the quote I listed speaking about tares? Does not the same apply to the question of amalgamations of man and beast?

APL,

I'm not sure what your question is. The words "amalgamation" and "amalgamated" speak of mixtures. Would you agree? If you have a mixture, is it necessary to have two separate kinds?

For example, can I mix water with water? Would there be any sense in speaking of such a "mixture," assuming both ingredients were identical? If equal components, put together, equaled a "mixture," or, to use the more emphatic word "amalgamation," would not everything, however pure, become an abominable "amalgamation?" The most beautiful and preserved apple tree would be an "amalgamation," simply because its seed had resulted from mixing one apple tree's pollen with another apple tree's egg. This would then morph into a "mixture," or an "amalgamation," would it not?

Mrs. White speaks of "amalgamations" of things other than genetics. Look at the following:


Obviously, this "amalgamation" did not involve literal DNA. It was a spiritual amalgamation.

This is precisely the sort of application I find more fitting in terms of the antediluvians' great sin. When one who is godly marries an ungodly worldling, it is abominable in God's sight.

Look at how the statement reads if we insert the definition of amalgamation (mixing or blending) into it in place of the word itself.



Does that not appear clear? If I mix or blend "man and beast," and then find that I have defaced the image of God (man), does this not seem logical? If I mix the image of God with the image of God (man and man), how would that deface it?

Your statement on tares has dual application. One is the literal weeds, the other is a spiritual application referring to the ungodly. I cannot reasonably mix the two applications to have some sort of "spiritual DNA" nor to have it speaking of churches with both blacks and whites in it, can I? That would not follow the context at all. We must understand spiritual things spiritually. In other words, it is NOT speaking of races of men intermarrying when it speaks of "amalgamation." I continue to maintain that those who would imply such are the more "racist" involved in this discussion. (Note that I do agree that races of men may have come out from genetic meddling, just that it was not by intra-human or inter-human (depending on your perspective) marrying.)

We must be careful to interpret the words of God. God is no respecter of persons. One's color means little to God. One's heart means much.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Huh? Were you talking to me or someone else?

Speaking of mixing things, were you talking to APL or me?

You seem often to contradict yourself and refute your own statements. I thought you were talking about spiritual mixing of sons of God with sons of man? In this context, are the sons of man regarded as the image of God? Next breath you're talking science fiction (or modern science as the case may be).


Oops! You just kicked science out the door!

First, the obvious, why do we have separate races if choice in marrying has nothing to do with it?

Second, what happens when you have a population of semi-brown individuals and you cross them? Then you take the darker ones and cross them and the lighter ones you cross them. You keep on doing this through several generations (I'd guess about 8). Do you think there may possibly be some dramatic differences in color between the two sub-populations?

Amalgamation and mixing applies here in regards to your statements from one to the next.

A general comment not specific to any one person:


I see the term "race" is being used here. According to people who study populations, that word does not have a clear, specific meaning. IOW, the term "race" is not clearly defined.

Here is what Wickipedia has to say as to its meaning:



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