Yes, if you by that agree that all species of animals were represented on the ark. I overlined your sentence saying "He did not guide the ones He didn't "create"" because I think it is building on a false premise. There is not such a thing as a species of animal that God did not create, nor was there ever such a thing. A species of animal that was not created by God is comparable to the sphinx of Egypt or the burning phoenix of Phonecia.

Thomas, you disagree with the following statement, then, right?



You disagree with it because you don't think there is any such thing as "confused species" or species that "were the result of amalgamation," correct?

Come on Tom, read the thread. We do not have the slightest idea what Ellen meant by "amalgamation". We simply cannot build theology on a paragraph where we do not understand what the key word means. And more than that, build theology which negates clear teaching in the bible, the gospels non the less.

I'm just trying to understand your position, Thomas. I'm not accusing you of anything.

If you leave off the part about "amalgamation," the statement says that there were "confused species" which God did not create, which were destroyed by the flood. So there were two types of species, those which God created, and those which He didn't, which are called "confused."

I understood your position to be that there were no species which were not on the ark. IOW, there is no such thing as a confused specie.

Have I misunderstood you?

That is what I said, yes.

Ok, thanks.

Your statement actually provides good reason to believe that she did notspecifically have dinosaurs in mind. If that's what she meant, and the word was in usage, I would expect her to use the correct word.

I have no ax to grind one way or another. I so have a problem with expanding on the biblical or SOP text and then concluding that this expansion is what was meant in the original. It smacks too much of "adding" to the word of God, which is expressly forbidden in Scripture.