Adventist Online

Did Ellen G. White teach 
amalgamation of man with beast?


man-beasts? amalgamation?

________________________________________




No! And were going to prove it. Here are the two quotes that our critics throw at us:

“But if there was one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race by the flood, it was the base crime ofamalgamation 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, vol. 3, p. 64.

“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.

But there are a couple of points we want to address here:

Point #1: What is said and what is not said.

It is as equally as important to note what a quote does NOT say as it is to note what it does say. Please note that the quotes, as well as the entire chapter, does not say:

1) Amalgamation of man with beast.'
2) That the amalgamation produced a type of man-beast species.

Point #2: Context of the quote in question.

The passage “amalgamation of man and beast” by itself can certainly be construed to mean “amalgamation of man with beast” but it can also be construed to mean “amalgamation of man and ofbeast.” To understanding which is the appropriate interpretation we must read the whole chapter in its context. If read, one will notice that if what Mrs. White meant was the amalgamation of animals with humans, she would have certainly spoken about that in a more in-depth way. She would have used words such as “man-beast, monsters, creatures, etc.” We can only find this two passages in this chapter, and the context will reveal why there here.

From the very beginning, she begins to speak about the intermingling of “certain groups” of people. She speaks of only two races, the descendents of Seth and the descendents of Cain. Notice her opening statements:

"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."

Notice first that she begins speaking about two classes of people, those who felt the curse “lightly” and those who felt it “more heavily.” Who are these two groups of people? The descendents of Seth and of Cain. Both are addressed by their different titles: Seth’s descendents are called the “sons of God” while Cain’s are the “sons of man.” What crime did these two groups commit?

“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.”

They intermarried. Why was this a crime? Because the descendents of Cain were idolaters! God had never approved of intermingling with people of another religion and beliefs, especially of people who lived and enjoyed a life of sin. The Lord even gave laws some time after the flood to prevent this from happening again:

Deuteronomy 7:1-4
When the LORD thy God shall bring thee into the land whither thou goest to possess it, and hath cast out many nations before thee….Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

Leviticus 19:19
(19) 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. (See also Deut. 22:9-11.)

If the account in Genesis 6 were read, one could easily see the results of this intermingling. As soon as the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were “fair” they “took them wives of all which they chose.” –verse 2. As soon as this took place, in verse 3 God says his spirit will not always strive with man, and verse 4 says that there were “giants in those days.” The offspring produced by this intermingling of the sons of God with the daughters of men were men “of old” and “renown” – verse 5. Apparently the Lord was not pleased with the men of the earth in those days, and said that their thoughts were constantly wickedness. Note this carefully... the number of righteous men (sons of God) appeared less and less as they intermingled, while the sons of men with their wickedness increased. So much so, that only “Noah” and his family were the only “perfect and just” people found in his generation –verse 9. Consequently, only these were saved in the Ark. This steady increase of wickedness from verses 1 through 6, and the steady decrease of the sons of God through these verses, is the very reason why intermingling with other races or peoples of different beliefs is, as Ms White calls it, a “crime.” The problem here is not with the mixing of people, but with the mixing of people with different beliefs. As Ms White puts it…

“... 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.” –3SG, page 60

They were influenced by the daughters of men into idolatry, and the very title “daughters of men” rather then “of God” shows they were not a people who worshiped the true God. God knew that intermingling with heathens would cause his people to turn astray…

Deuteronomy 7:1-4
“…For they will turn away thy son from following me that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

It is through this context that we should therefore understand her concluding statement “amalgamation of man and beast. Ellen G. White was in agreement with Paul when he said:

2 Corinthians 6:14
(14) Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

If what she meant was a mixing of man "with" beast, the context of the chapter would have dealt more with just that.

Point # 3: We now want to address a crucial question:

How can animals deface the image of God by amalgamation, as they are not created in his image?

The following web site (www.ellenwhitedefend.com) examines this particular point in a very informative way. Notice closely the underlines we have added to emphasis (the two graphics are ours):

“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.' And how could the crossing of species of animals do this? But let us look more closely at what she says. Two results follow from the 'amalgamation of [A] man and [B] beast:' It...


(A) 'defaced the image of God,' and
(B) 'caused confusion everywhere.'

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


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. This brings us to a consideration of the second of the two controversial passages:

'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.'—Ibid., p. 75.

This passage is separated from the first by only a few pages. The intervening pages give the account of the Flood. 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.'

Let us summarize, now, by placing in parallel columns the substance of two statements by Mrs. White:

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Note: The graphic is ours.


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.” -visitellenwhitedefend.com 

In addition to their response, we want you to note that the second quote in question actually confirms that when Mrs. White said amalgamation of animals the results of this, she concluded, was “confusion everywhere:”

“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, we 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.”—Ibid., p. 75.

Again, WE EMPHASIS that the quote which speaks of TWO types of living beings (humans and animals) results in TWO types of problems. It was the amalgamation of MAN that defaced the image of God, not that of the animals. The result of the amalgamation of the animals was the only result left in the quote… “confused species.”

Point # 4: Some critics provide sources to prove Ellen White supported Uriah Smith’s explanation of her quote.

We again quote from our friends at ellenwhitedefend.com on this matter:

“At no time did Mrs. White offer any comment on the matter. James White spoke approvingly of Smith's book defending Mrs. White against fifty-two objections. But it would be a bold assumption to conclude from this that he agreed with every detail of every explanation and defense that Smith presented. (See James White's approving paragraph in the Review and Herald, Aug. 25, 1868, p. 160.) In the chapter “The Image Beast and 666” we noted that James White approved, with apparently no qualification, a certain prophetic chart. But later, and in another connection, he gently ridiculed a point of prophetic interpretation that is reflected in one statement in the chart. Now, if we are not warranted in drawing from James White's approval of Smith's book the conclusion that he specifically endorsed Smith's statement on amalgamation, we are even less warranted in concluding from James White's approval that Mrs. White approved. Mrs. White's silence proves nothing. Only rarely did she make a statement regarding the accuracy or inaccuracy of explanations made by others concerning her writings.”

Amalgamation: Ellen G. White Statements Regarding Conditions at the...

Views: 4085

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

While it is true that those of the antediluvian world were smarter (I believe they used 100% of their brain, but now we use less than 10%); they did not need to write stuff since they had perfect memory, but this does not mean that they had the level of inventions we now have. We are told that in latter times knowledge will be increased. We today have what I call 'accumulative knowledge', we are continually building on inventions or knowledge of the past.
The same amalgamation which took place before the flood according to Genesis 6:2 is happening presently according to Ellen White, there is nothing new or strange about this amalgamation.   
.
.
How did man gain his knowledge of how to devise?—From the Lord, by studying the formation and habits of different animals. Every animal is a lesson book, and from the use they make of their bodies and the weapons provided them, men have learned to make apparatus for every kind of work. If men could only know how many arts have been lost to our world, they would not talk so fluently of the dark ages. Could they have seen how God once worked through His human subjects, they would speak with less confidence of the arts of the antediluvian world. More was lost in the Flood, in many ways, than men today know. Looking upon the world, God saw that the intellect He had given man was perverted, that the imagination of his heart was evil and that continually. God had given these men knowledge. He had given them valuable ideas, that they might carry out His plan. But the Lord saw that those whom He designed should possess wisdom, tact, and judgment, were using every quality of the mind to glorify self. By the waters of the Flood, He blotted this long-lived race from the earth, and with them perished the knowledge they had used only for evil. When the earth was repeopled, the Lord trusted His wisdom more sparingly to men, giving them only the ability they would need in carrying out His great plan (Letter 175, 1896). {1BC 1089.2}
.
.
True knowledge has decreased with every successive generation. God is infinite, and the first people upon the earth received their instructions from that infinite God who created the world. Those who received their knowledge direct from infinite wisdom were not deficient in knowledge. {1BC 1089.3}
.
.
Society at the present time is corrupt, as it was in the days of Noah. To the long-lived antediluvian race, only a step from paradise, God gave rich gifts, and they possessed a strength of body and mind of which men now have but a faint idea; but they used his bounties, and the strength and skill he gave them, for selfish purposes, to minister to unlawful appetites, and to gratify pride. They expelled God from their thoughts; they despised his law; trampled his standard of character in the dust. They reveled in sinful pleasure, corrupting their ways before God, and corrupting one another. Violence and crime filled the earth. Neither the marriage relation nor the rights of property were respected; and the cries of the oppressed entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. By beholding evil, men became changed into its image, until God could bear with their wickedness no longer, and they were swept away by the flood. {SpTEd 43.3}

  As I posted moments ago, there seems to be more than one application by Mrs. White of the term "amalgamation." 

My point has been simply this, that the worst case scenario before the flood was a possibility.  Jill stumbles over that possibility in order to discredit the Testimony of Jesus.

Incidently, I have never read comic books but I recall people saying that 50 years ago or more they read in comic books about space  travel and going to the moon. Many believed it could never happen.

Jill:

"why would she couple it with a discussion of beasts?  Beast breeding has nothing to do with humans marrying non-believers"

They were also a different race.

and he gave to the world, not a race of righteous men, but two idolatrous nations, at enmity with God and warring upon His people...{PP 168.1}

But, they were pretty smart, back then.  If they saw that mixing these two races produced giants, then why not mix the animals?  They must have bred their dinosaurs to be as ferocious as possible.

As soon as Noah got off the ark, God promised him:

Gen. 9:2    And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth...

I won't flood the earth again, murderers will be put to death, and you won't have to be afraid of the animals, anymore.

Jill said: "Your theory was that the race of men that amalgamated was the "race" that intermarried with non-believers.  My question is, if that is what Ellen White meant why would she couple it with a discussion of beasts?  Beast breeding has nothing to do with humans marrying non-believers, Ellen White would not have brought up two entirely different subjects in the same sentence like that."  

Jill I posted the answer to this question a long time ago, I will post here again:

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.' And how could the crossing of species of animals do this? But let us look more closely at what she says. Two results follow from the 'amalgamation of [A] man and [B] beast:' It...


(A) 'defaced the image of God,' and
(B) 'caused confusion everywhere.'

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


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. This brings us to a consideration of the second of the two controversial passages:

'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.'—Ibid., p. 75.

This passage is separated from the first by only a few pages. The intervening pages give the account of the Flood. 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.'

Let us summarize, now, by placing in parallel columns the substance of two statements by Mrs. White:

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Note: The graphic is ours.


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.” -

 we want you to note that the second quote in question actually confirms that when Mrs. White said amalgamation of animals the results of this, she concluded, was “confusion everywhere:”

“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, we 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.”—Ibid., p. 75.

Again, WE EMPHASIS that the quote which speaks of TWO types of living beings (humans and animals) results in TWO types of problems. It was the amalgamation of MAN that defaced the image of God, not that of the animals. The result of the amalgamation of the animals was the only result left in the quote… “confused species.”

Thank you for that well reasoned response Jason.  That parallel construction theory is remotely conceivable for the pre-flood statements, but not the post flood.  

Post 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.”   Some of you want to change that to:  "Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man as may be seen in certain races of men AND amalgamation of beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals”.  

For that construct to work there would have to be an amalgamation of man that can be seen is certain races of men.

She only had a 3rd grade education.  She does her best, but she fails to make herself clear sometimes, and these flaws get blown out of proportion.  She meant to say "amalgamation of man and of beasts".

All the species of animals that are the result of amalgamation.  Lions, tigers, leopards, and all the crazy looking cats in my neighborhood, used to be one species of cats.  There are so many mixed race people everywhere, too.  The Babel event caused mankind to scatter all over the world, forming their own races, but there has been a lot of mixing, since then.  Natural mixing, and purposeful, like in the breeding of dogs.  I doubt there has been the same kind of sinister activity as before the flood.  But, God still had something to say about the topic:

Lev.  19:19    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.

That seems kind of arbitrary, but there must be a purpose for it.

She probably meant to say something else, I agree with that.

I know you have a good intention Rush but don't get drawn into Jill's issue with Ellen White but suggesting that it may have something to do with a 3rd grade education. 

"TO US" Paul was not always clear on what he was referring to but we know for sure in this case Ellen White was not referring to man joined WITH beast for she speaks of RACES OF MEN and SPECIES OF ANIMALS.

That is a very good analogy of this subject, Jason.:

A)Defaced the image of God.

When the Bible and SOP speaks of "the image of God, it is speaking of physical attribute and features. Therefore,it must be referencing to something done to change that.

When a person uses proper reasoning it.is easy.to get a veiv of what is said their is always going to be those that ake what is said(becAuse they confused.in ignorance) they take it and twist it to say what they think it means unknowingly or knowingly allowing themselves to be satans vessles.their.minds become darkened "n no "mount of.proper reasoning or gentle spirit filled persuation will they allow to change their mind Jason your ability to put this Almagamation topic into a easy to see format Is excellent

Mutinta

The great crime in the marriages of the days of Noah was that the sons of God formed alliances with the daughters of men. Those who professed to acknowledge and revere God associated with those who were corrupt of heart; and without discrimination they married whom they would. There are many in this day who have no depth of religious experience, who will do exactly the same things as were done in the days of Noah. They will enter into marriage without careful and prayerful consideration. Many take upon themselves the sacred vows as thoughtlessly as they would enter into a business transaction; true love is not the motive for the alliance. MYP 456.1

RSS

Site Sponsors

 

Adventist Single?
Meet other Single
Adventists here:
Join Free


USA members:

Support AO by
using this link:
Amazon.com

 

© 2018   Created by Clark P.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service