Second Resurrection = Second Death?

[phkrause]

Well I watched this smear campaign video of yours, against EGW, waiting for that quote, but never heard it?? Next time don't waste my time watching something that doesn't even back up your ascersion(sp)!!

[Gustave]

Well I watched this smear campaign video of yours, against EGW, waiting for that quote, but never heard it?? Next time don't waste my time watching something that doesn't even back up your ascersion(sp)!!

Read the SDA Apologist's who wrote for E.G.W.'s defense in & around the time hack...

...The following.

Ellen White

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.

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

I'm thinking U. Smith and a host of other people who rubbed shoulders with Ellen White knew her better than you can claim to. It was THOSE people who stated Ellen was right about Apes breeding black females - they used the Naturalists to prove she was right.

It's not smearing PK, it's just the facts.

[Felix Florimon]

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

I'm thinking U. Smith and a host of other people who rubbed shoulders with Ellen White knew her better than you can claim to. It was THOSE people who stated Ellen was right about Apes breeding black females - they used the Naturalists to prove she was right.

It's not smearing PK, it's just the facts.

[Felix Florimon]

- HOW INTERESTING that she reporting seeing children - with wings - in the New Earth. (So, we are going to become a new species?)

[Gustave]

Gustave:

Your "facts" are linked to a horrendous lack of understanding of what EGW was really writing about.

[Felix Florimon]

Felix, Ellen wrote about two separate kingdoms becoming 'Amalgamated'...

...The definition leaves no doubt as to what she was affirming.

...Nor does the apologetics offered by those friends of Ellen who defended her.

Amalgamated

To combine into a unified or integrated whole; unite.

....The facts are that Ellen did say this and the very people who defended Ellen in official SDA print...

...Appealed to the famous Naturalists of the time period and prior who affirmed.

...That Orangutans and other great Apes bred African human females.

...And that "confusion" AKA "confused fruit" was the byproduct of such sexual unions.

This would be a strange thing for Ellen White's religious contemporaries to use as an apologetic....

...If Ellen only was speaking out against "beastiality".

...Which can't be observed unless the actual act is witnessed.

Look, I agree that beastiality has been around since people and animals have existed...

...But Ellen excluded this from "some races".

...By affirming amalgamation was taking place in CERTAIN RACES of MEN.

EGW spent much more time reading and writing about the Bible than you and I. Therefore, when she used the world "amalgamation" which as you correctly have posted means: "To combine into a unified or integrated whole; unite", this "combination" into an unified or integrated whole or unite, just has the same meaning that Adam used when he said: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). This kind of thinking was also validated by Jesus Christ who mentioned the exact same words in Matthew 19:5. This term "amalgamation" should be seen in an spiritual context and it was also used by the Apostle Paul: "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh” (1 Corinthians 6:15-16). According to the Apostle Paul, to have sexual intercourse with a prostitute is to become one with her in body and the world amalgamation would also fit this type of description. The problem is that when people who don't understand the biblical language used by Jesus, Paul and EGW, they don't see sexual intimacy as becoming one body or "amalgamating" using the language used by EGW. These people just wish to see interbreeding between humans and lower animals. This ability to interbreed between humans and lower animals has already been evaluated by the field of embryology and it has been discredited after it was found to be false.

You said it right when you pointed out that EGW mentioned that amalgamation between man and beast (sexual relationships) has been taking place in some races of men. This is because if one includes the black race in the topic of amalgamation, there are not too many races left out and the white race is one of them. No one could exclude any race from unimaginable kind of sexual perversions that the human race is able to fall into. Within the historical context when EGW wrote those words, in today's language it could be translated as: "within some ethnic groups around this world."

Again, within the biblical context of Adam, Jesus and Paul sexual intimacy is having two creatures becoming one body or amalgamating into one body. It does not mean a new hybrid animal species even if people guided by Satan (they cannot be led by the Spirit of God) use such word as amalgamation to teach the opposite. Now, if for some reason they call themselves believers in God and in creation, and they persist in defending lies and untruthfulness, our Lord Jesus Christ has already stated: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21).

FF

[Gustave]

EGW spent much more time reading and writing about the Bible than you and I. Therefore, when she used the world "amalgamation" which as you correctly have posted means: "To combine into a unified or integrated whole; unite", this "combination" into an unified or integrated whole or unite, just has the same meaning that Adam used when he said: "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh" (Genesis 2:24). This kind of thinking was also validated by Jesus Christ who mentioned the exact same words in Matthew 19:5. This term "amalgamation" should be seen in an spiritual context and it was also used by the Apostle Paul: "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh” (1 Corinthians 6:15-16). According to the Apostle Paul, to have sexual intercourse with a prostitute is to become one with her in body and the world amalgamation would also fit this type of description.

[Felix Florimon]

Let's take a step back here and look at what she said within this context....

...Let's look at it and see if your idea is reasonable.

Ellen White

If there were one sin worse than another before Noah's flood it was the "base crime of amalgamation of man and beast." It "defaced the image of God" in mankind, and caused "confusion" everywhere. [3SG 64, 1864] One of the purposes of the flood was to destroy these confused species which were not a part of the original creation by God. [1SP 78; 1870]

Felix, do you believe that after Noah's Flood some new "species" of man were created?

..."By the means" described above by Ellen White?

What species of amalgamated man & beast do you believe that God destroyed by the Flood?

...How did THAT species come to exist, come to be, etc.?

...And how could it be that THAT species again existed after God destroyed it?

Ellen White stated that there was confused species in both the Animal and Human kingdoms....

...Perhaps you could give me an example what you believe to be one confused animal species?

...Then we could apply that to species homosapien.

If you look up "confusion" in Strong's the following is what you get.

H8397

1) confusion (violation of nature or divine order) - Sexual perversion is also mentioned.

You are just trying to put a different definition to the phrases "amalgamation of man and beasts" and "confused species" used by EGW. "Amalgamation of man and beasts" within the biblical context mentioned by Adam, Jesus and Paul just means to become one body, one flesh by having a sexual union. It does not mean a new hybrid species created. Within the field of embryology, there has been multiple experiments trying to fertilize ovum from different types of female apes with human sperms and human ovum with sperms from different kinds of male apes without any kind of verifiable success. This is due to their difference in the number of chromosomes (46 in humans & 48 in chimpanzees) plus other factors.

Even though you quote a truthful definition by using a definition given by the Strong dictionary, the real definition you are trying to give by the context of your post of "confused species" is a wrong definition; confused does not mean a new hybrid species; it means lacking logical order or sense; chaotic; jumbled; confused species of animal would be a species of animal that would feel a sexual attraction in order to have sexual relationships with humans as well as with members of their own species; however, it would not mean a hybrid species between humans and beasts because by creation, there is some basic difference in their genes that would make a hybrid species between humans and beasts a biologic impossibility.

FF

[Gustave]

You are just trying to put a different definition to the phrases "amalgamation of man and beasts" and "confused species" used by EGW.

[Felix Florimon]

I'm using Ellen's & her own Apologists definition...

...I've appealed to Ellen's own words & those who defended her statements.

That's a red herring Felix as THAT isn't what Ellen was speaking about...

...Scripture does not speak of Ape / Human hybrids, Ellen White speaks of it.

...Similar to how she speaks of other things alien to Scripture.

Of course there has been no success - we know this now, at this point in our history...

...Unfortunately at Ellen's time & prior many didn't know this.

...As the Naturalists I quoted absolutely demonstrate.

I fully realize that the Scripture does not mean hybridized ape / human...

...What I'm telling you is that is exactly what Ellen White meant.

...Did you not read what U. Smith said in his apologetic of Ellen?

You are trying very hard to make a logical conclusion from an illogical premise. It is illogical to think that because any individual makes a wrong conclusion by reading EGW's assertion and quotes EGW to defend such wrong conclusion that then EGW means just what that individuals or individuals believe when they just began with an awful bad interpretation. The meaning of EGW statements should be understood by the real grammatical definition of the words she uses plus her own expressed commitment of being "a lesser light" guiding us to "a greater light." We should never use a deformed grammatical definition of her words by those who see her either as a truthful or as a false prophet in order to say that she meant a misunderstanding of those individuals who use such misunderstanding as a means to defend a personal prejudice by just twisting the real grammatical definition of her words.

FF

[Gustave]

You are trying very hard to make a logical conclusion from an illogical premise.

[Gustave]

For anyone interested I would suggest researching "The Great Chain of Being"...

...When Ellen wrote of human / Ape hybridization.

...The SDA Church was a "subscriber" to "The Great Chain of Being".

Consider the following poem as found in the Seventh-day Adventist "Bible School" Publication.

"Control my spirit, guide my wandering heart; Though but an atom 'mid immensity, Still I am something, fashioned by Thy hand; I hold a middle rank 'twixt heaven and earth, On the last verge of mortal being stand, Close to the realms where angels have their birth, Just on the boundary of the spirit land! The chain of being is complete in me; In me is matter's last gradation lost, And the next step is spirit—Deity! I can'command the lightening, and am dust; A monarch, and a slave; a worm, a god!"

http://docs.adventistarchives.org/docs/BTS/BTS19130301-V11-10__C.pdf#search=%22 chain of being %22&view=fit

Now, at the following link observe the founder of the Race Betterment Foundation....

...Eugenics at it's very best.

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/static/images/200.html

For further study.

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/index2.html?tag=200

[Gustave]

Joemo

I did NOT mean to send anyone back to reading Ellen White. My feeling about her is that IF she WAS indeed given visions by the LORD, her writings were very much INFLUENCED over the years, by the culture and science of her day, and by the beliefs of the early church elders, who often pressured her to come up with more words from God.

I am very much "sola Scriptura".

That being said, I read even the English versions with a filter, realizing that the Catholics made changes, starting with Constantine.

I mention Matthew 28:19, because there is some good scholarly work strongly suggesting that the translation which Constantine authorized and paid for (The Byzantine) includes some changes.

The only surviving pre-Constantine Greek manuscripts all have the last portion of Matthew MISSING - with verse 28:19. There is ONE pre-Constantine Aramaic manuscript. In THAT manuscript, Matthew 28:19 reads "baptizing them in my name" - NOT "in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

Other passages confirm that the disciples did exactly that - they baptized in His name - in the name of Jesus Christ. See: Acts 2:38, Acts 8;16, Acts 10:48, Acts 19:5, Romans 6:3, I Cor 15:29 (Baptized for the dead one=Christ), and Gal. 3:27.

There was a great argument going on in 300AD about about the origin(or not)of Christ. Was He begotten, or created or had He always existed as an aspect or manifestation of God. Arius held that He was created by the Father. I do NOT agree with that. I believe that He was begotten "in the express image of" the Father. He was an exact copy (image) of the Father. An "image of" is a COPY of the original.

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

Blessings

To say it another way if "a copy" of the original is destroyed...

...You would still have "THE" original.

...Which is exactly what Ellen and the other Arian SDA founders maintained.

...I.E. Christ could have sinned, fallen & subsequently been eternally annihilated by Big God ( the original ).

You have pretty much summarized what I have been saying all along.

[8thdaypriest]

jackson,

I put words like "I feel" and "I believe" because I do not want to come across like I'm saying my opinion is absolute truth. I don't want to be so bold.

In the Trinity thread I put links to the three pages of a letter sent to Froom by Herbert C. Lacey. Lacey is remembering fondly how his phrase "third person of the Godhead" was included in the Desire of Ages, by Marion Davis.

So that would be one example.

I know that Mrs. White said herself, that the pre-advent judgment, the Sabbath, and the State of the Dead were NOT given to her directly by God. Those doctrines were studied out by others and she simply endorsed those teachings. I have read how she began teaching the "health message" after visiting a sanitorium run by a Dr. Jackson. Vegetarianism, water treatments, etc. were all things she learned there. That doesn't make them bad. I'm just trying to point out that most of her teachings were things that the LORD endorsed, not things directly given to her by the LORD.

Now - the little booklet, "An Appeal to Mothers" also included things that she learned from Jackson at his sanitorium. In that booklet she wrote that "swollen heads and deformed limbs" had resulted from "self abuse."

Sorry Jackson - that's just not possible.

And she wrote that females were "the weaker" vessels, and were more likely to be harmed by the practice of "self abuse."

[8thdaypriest]

I would like to hear arguments - from Scripture - which say that "the rest of the dead" are "the wicked" from the 6000 years between Adam's sin and the Second Coming.

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

[Felix Florimon]

Originally Posted By: Felix

You are trying very hard to make a logical conclusion from an illogical premise.

The Baptists in and around that time understood Ellen to have affirmed....

...That apes bred negresses and that union produced mongrels, creating confusion.

...The Baptists started to lambast the SDA Church for saying that via Ellen White.

The SDA Church starts an Apologetic effort that spans several years...

...And uses the affirmations ( direct statements ) of Naturalists which taught Apes bred Negresses.

I come along more than a century later and show you these things....

...And you say I have an illogical premise?

Originally Posted By: Felix

It is illogical to think that because any individual makes a wrong conclusion by reading EGW's assertion and quotes EGW to defend such wrong conclusion that then EGW means just what that individuals or individuals believe when they just began with an awful bad interpretation.

1) Ellen made those statements.

2) Both her fellow SDA's as well as people outside the SDA church understood her the same way.

3) When other churches started to condemn Ellen' on the subject the SDA's appealed to Naturalists.

"The naturalists" taught that apes had been breeding Negro females which gave birth to:

...The Hottentots and other tribes of people in Africa.

...Tribes which blurred the line between the human and animal Kingdom.

Originally Posted By: Felix

The meaning of EGW statements should be understood by the real grammatical definition of the words she uses plus her own expressed commitment of being "a lesser light" guiding us to "a greater light." We should never use a deformed grammatical definition of her words by those who see her either as a truthful or as a false prophet in order to say that she meant a misunderstanding of those individuals who use such misunderstanding as a means to defend a personal prejudice by just twisting the real grammatical definition of her words.

Then Ellen should have corrected the General Conference of SDA, the Baptists, Methodists & Lutherans that she didn't mean what they all understood she meant.

The only statements she made was regarding amalgamation of men and beasts in the biblical context of becoming one by sexual union. This is in the same sense that the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians that they should abstain from adultery because when two individuals commit adultery, they are becoming one or amalgamating with each other. Confused species are not hybrid species. EGW never defined confused species as hybrid species. That definition came from people having a wrong definition of such term. SDA's never gave a definition of confused species as hybrid species. On the contrary, the Advent Review dated July 31, 1866, that you quoted as a "proof" of your claims, says just the opposite. It simply states that those who were wrongly using the amalgamation and confused species were wrong to use such declaration in order to declare that some tribes of negroes should not be considered humans. The only way anyone could come with the idea that EGW meant that amalgamation of man of beast generated a hybrid species and that such species are the same as "confused species" is by having a great deal of personal confusion regarding what EGW wrote about and how the Review and Herald tried to correct the wrong distorted way that some of her contemporaries wished to perceive her writings.

FF

[phkrause]

The only statements she made was regarding amalgamation of men and beasts in the biblical context of becoming one by sexual union. This is in the same sense that the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians that they should abstain from adultery because when two individuals commit adultery, they are becoming one or amalgamating with each other. Confused species are not hybrid species. EGW never defined confused species as hybrid species. That definition came from people having a wrong definition of such term. SDA's never gave a definition of confused species as hybrid species. On the contrary, the Advent Review dated July 31, 1866, that you quoted as a "proof" of your claims, says just the opposite. It simply states that those who were wrongly using the amalgamation and confused species were wrong to use such declaration in order to declare that some tribes of negroes should not be considered humans. The only way anyone could come with the idea that EGW meant that amalgamation of man of beast generated a hybrid species and that such species are the same as "confused species" is by having a great deal of personal confusion regarding what EGW wrote about and how the Review and Herald tried to correct the wrong distorted way that some of her contemporaries wished to perceive her writings.

FF

Exactly

[8thdaypriest]

I would like to hear arguments - from Scripture - which say that "the rest of the dead" are "the wicked" from the 6000 years between Adam's sin and the Second Coming.

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

Still waiting on this. . . .

I think this thread got all clogged with the debate on the statements of EGW. I'm going to start a new thread just on my request.

And thanks Jackson. Nice to know the "health message" was for real. I think that "An Appeal to Mothers" just slipped in. That one is debated on another thread also.

[Gustave]

The only statements she made was regarding amalgamation of men and beasts in the biblical context of becoming one by sexual union.

[Felix Florimon]

Then what "races" are immune to the lusts of beastial "sexual union" Felix?

...If what you are saying is true - you should be able to I.D. those races.

[BobRyan]

I would like to hear arguments - from Scripture - which say that "the rest of the dead" are "the wicked" from the 6000 years between Adam's sin and the Second Coming.

www.prophecyviewpoint.com

[Gustave]

Your question is a loaded one. It is a question designed for those who like to have other people to believe in a racist kind of ideology; this type of ideology is that only some races have the ability of being much less sinful than others. Jesus never thought in such kinds or terms. Anyone thinking in those terms is out of boundaries regarding how the Spirit of Jesus would like us to think regarding our fellow human brothers and sisters