Life on other planets

[ClubV12]

"...and in certain races of men." I wonder, if in that passage she is addressing the multitude of various races on the planet where originally there were only a few, or even one. Consider the animals, not EVERY kind of cat in the world went into the ark, just the unadulterated pure breeds (of each specie).

Could inter racial marriage be a factor here? Is that what she is referring to?

[Klapas]

What races? Australian Aboriginal? Indian? Chinese? Pigmi?African?Eskimo?Italian?Greek?Arab?

Certainly not the Aryan race? I think we would all like to know, since most of us have had some experience with racism. Would nice to know if those skinheads that tried to beat up my late dad were doing Gods work, cleansing the world of subhuman beasts.

[ClubV12]

Races, not "skin heads" or "racists", try to keep up.

Yes ALL the various races and all the possible mixing of the same.

Maybe the aryan race is one example! WHOA!! You looking at me?

Nobody said anything about being sub-human when it comes to mixed race. Bear in mind, Levitcus talks about NOT mixing plants and clothing fabrics as well. God's plan was to keep ALL THINGS in a pure state.

[Klapas]

If you honestly believe the spin John has just tried to sell, there is a certain bridge in Sydney that is selling cheep.

[ClubV12]

"'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." Lev 19:19

That special dog breed you got, the one bred over generations to get it "just right"? Sorry, thats an abomination (so is your cat, and the corn you ate last night, the list is long, don't look at your neighbor). :)

[Klapas]

I hope your not wearing pollycotton underwear.

[ClubV12]

NOW your getting it!!! All cotton, thanks for asking.

[Klapas]

I like you

[Klapas]

I'd better get back to building a house for the woman whose desire shall be to thy husband.

Otherwise there will be enmity between the and the.

[John317]

(quoting): "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, Vol. 3, p.75).

Quote:

Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men. {1SP 78.2}

Those quotes say exactly the same thing. In fact, they are in the same words.

The statement shows that Ellen White is talking about amalgamation which shows up in many species of animals and in certain races of men.

Notice she never suggest that this shows up in any species that is part animal and part human.

There's no suggstion that she's talking about the amalgamation being BETWEEN the animals and humans.

Exactly what races of men she refers to, she does not say. Speculation is useless.

Ellen White's point is that AFTER the flood, amalgamation has taken place, and that this amalgamation also took place BEFORE the flood. God did not take all of the various kinds of animals in existence at the time of the Flood into the ark. The only ones preserved were those that God had originally created. For instance, he didn't take every kind of dog or cat or bird or monkey into the ark.

All humans, however, are to be taught the gospel of Jesus Christ because all humans are in the image of God, whether they are products of amalgamation between races or not. God loves them all, and Ellen White never suggests anything different from this. In fact, she taught clearly that God loves every human who've ever been born.

These facts put the nail in the coffin of your argument that Ellen White believed many humans are part animal.

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: Klapas

.... This poor guy lived during Ellens lifetime. I wonder if he was a product of the "amalgamation"? I bet some of her followers visited poor Ota at the Bronx Zoo.

Where does Ellen White state that there was amalgamation between man and the animals?

This is "spin" in your part, yet you claim that SDAs spin. She said there has been "amalgamation of man and beast." That is not the same thing as "amalgamation between man and best."

"Amalgamation of man and beast" is the same as "amalgamation of man and of beast."

Originally Posted By: Ellen G. White

Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men. {1SP 78.2}

It helps to read what she actually said, not what you think she said or meant. As with the Bible or any other text, it's also necessary to read everything said on a particular topic.

Your spin would have us believe that Ellen White believed an endless variety of animals are part human. Of course that's ridiculous. But that's no less ridiculous than the spin that would charge her with the absurd belief that some races of men are part animal.

If she had such a belief, she would surely have expressed it outside of 1SP 78.2 at some time throughout her long life. Yet you won't find it, for the simple reason that she never held such a foolish belief. It is something invented by people who are desperately searching for reason to attack a good Christian lady who spent her life serving Jesus.

Actually John317 you can take her quote either way. It depends on what your bias is going into the reading of the passage. Thus, Klapas can actually read it his way and be correct as you, John317 can read it your way and also be correct.

Thus, we have a case where both can be correct at the same time or either one is correct and the other is not, and visa versa.

Thus, unless Ellen White herself clarifies her remark we actually cannot know which of the alternatives is actually correct.

[John317]

"'Keep my decrees. "'Do not mate different kinds of animals. "'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. "'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material." Lev 19:19

That special dog breed you got, the one bred over generations to get it "just right"? Sorry, thats an abomination...

Check out, if possible, the Jamieson, Fausset & Brown's Commentary.

[John317]

If you honestly believe the spin ....

Where exactly is the "spin"? All you've done here is draw a conclusion, but what is your reasoning for believing I have "spun" anything? Show us your reasoning, not merely your conclusion.

The spin lies in the attempt to show that Ellen White believed there is an endless variety of animals which are part human.

[John317]

Actually John317 you can take her quote either way.

OK, take the quotes presented and show your reasoning in arriving at the conclusion that she says there are humans who are part beast and many animals which are part human.

Quote:

"Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p.75).

Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men. {1SP 78.2}

You can only arrive at that conclusion if you ignore the following 5 important facts in the case:

1) As she wrote it, the statement in 1 SP 78 would mean she also says that there is an almost endless variety of animal species which are part human.

2) Ellen White never wrote anything outside of this statement which would lead anyone to conclude that she believed some humans are part animal or that there are beasts which are part human. If anyone rejects this, let them give quotes and references.

3) Ellen White taught that all humans are in the image of God, and Christ died to save them. Christ did not die for the beasts. This would be impossible if some humans were the product of amalgamation between man and beast. Such products would not be in the image of God.

4) It is not possible for sexual relations between man and beast to produce progeny because the DNA of the beasts and the DNA of humans isn't compatable.

5) The language she uses can be understood in a way so that it harmonizes with the previous 4 points, i.e., that the amalgamation has been between humans and between animals, not between humans and animals.

Can you show how you can arrive at the conclusion she was teaching amalgamation BETWEEN humans and animals while at the same time considering the above 5 points?

[BobRyan]

I'm flattered.

For the record. I'm driving the wife, daughter and thesorus nuts with my constant requests for help with the right words to use so I don't look so dumb. Nobody likes a dumb dislexic who can't spell to save his life. (thank God for spell check).

I may be dislexic but I have a fantastic memory, especially stuff that interests me.

Now can we get back to the topic?

[John317]

Club, do you have the Comprehensive Research Edition of Ellen White's Writings?

It contains a great article by F. D. Nichols about Ellen White's statement on "amalgamation."

I will post some of the more pertinent sections of that article here:

Quote:

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.

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.

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.

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:

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, vol. 3, p. 64.

Chapter 7 is entitled “The Flood,” and contains this statement:

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.

These are Mrs. White’s only statements on the subject of the amalgamation of man and beast.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Continued

[John317]

Continued

Quote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

We believe 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.

Continued

[John317]

Continued

Quote:

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, vol. 3, p. 64), and observe these characteristics of amalgamation:

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”:

(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.

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.

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.”

Continued

[ClubV12]

John you make a strong case for the interpretation of the amalgamation statement. That man and animal are not mixed together, then or now.

There is great fear, among some bioethics folks today, that science stands on the threshold of being able to create a man/animal hybrid. If man, today, could do it, I can't rule out the possibility that the antideluvians could have also done it. IF God had allowed AND they were so inclined.

Perhaps,,, if there was one reason above another to destroy the earth with a flood it was because there were about to create such a being, had time been allowed to continue! Once again mankind stands on the threshold of being able to do that, again, today. As it was in Noah's time....

It's rare even among Adventists to find anyone that takes Leviticus seriously as it concerns the "hybrids" of various types and kinds. Most do not even seem to be aware of the existence of this counsel in Leviticus at all. Is it something we can just "blow off" as a non-critical issue? Or is it a serious warning and were so asleep we don't even see it?

I do have the comprehensive index and WILL BE studying this issue in depth in the next few days!!!

[miz3]

Originally Posted By: miz3

Actually John317 you can take her quote either way.

OK, take the quotes presented and show your reasoning in arriving at the conclusion that she says there are humans who are part beast and many animals which are part human.

Quote:

"Every species of animal which God had created were preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." (Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p.75).

Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men. {1SP 78.2}

You can only arrive at that conclusion if you ignore the following 5 important facts in the case:

1) As she wrote it, the statement in 1 SP 78 would mean she also says that there is an almost endless variety of animal species which are part human.

2) Ellen White never wrote anything outside of this statement which would lead anyone to conclude that she believed some humans are part animal or that there are beasts which are part human. If anyone rejects this, let them give quotes and references.

3) Ellen White taught that all humans are in the image of God, and Christ died to save them. Christ did not die for the beasts. This would be impossible if some humans were the product of amalgamation between man and beast. Such products would not be in the image of God.

4) It is not possible for sexual relations between man and beast to produce progeny because the DNA of the beasts and the DNA of humans isn't compatable.

5) The language she uses can be understood in a way so that it harmonizes with the previous 4 points, i.e., that the amalgamation has been between humans and between animals, not between humans and animals.

Can you show how you can arrive at the conclusion she was teaching amalgamation BETWEEN humans and animals while at the same time considering the above 5 points?

I did not advocate that there are part human/part animal entities existent at anytime.

All I was saying is that Ellen White left the thing so open ended that it appears Ellen White believed their were creatures that were part human/part animal. She made the statement, John317 and she made in such an ambiguous way that one could take it in any of the ways I stated which included the "amalgamation of humans with beasts" producing a part human/part animal entity.

You have defend that such a conclusion is not what she meant. You have not even come close to doing that. The burden is on you. We don't know exactly what she meant. Thus, the issue is not whether such an "amalgamation actually did exist" but whether Ellen White believed that such "amalgamations did exist".

You thus need to prove that she did not believe such things. It is about what Ellen White believed not what I or any other person believes or what we surmise she meant.

She said what she said and the way she said it could be taken a number of different ways. Ellen White herself never cleared up what she actually meant. So we are forced to believe that she may very well have meant that some combination of human DNA and animal DNA combined to make an amalgamated product.

Thus, John317 you either have missed the whole point or are intentionally trying to deflect the issue in hopes of taking the onus off Ellen White and putting the onus on the posters.

That makes for good debating points but does nothing to find the Truth of what Ellen White meant.

THE ONUS IS ON ELLEN WHITE and those who believe she is an inspired prophet to show that she what she actually meant and you, John317, have not even come close to doing that.

Please prove what Ellen White actually meant. Not your opinions but what Ellen White actually meant.

[Klapas]

Even if you are right, there is only one race of humans. The human race. Just because my friend Lee has no folds over his eye lids, jet black hair and doesn't ever need to shave often, doesn't meen he is of a different race. His great,great, great, great, great, great..... grandfather and great great.......grandmother left Bable for another part of the world. There they had children who also had fat eyelids and everything else that you associate with Asians

Same thing happened to my friend Running Bear with his forefathers and mothers.

We are all one race. So when she says other races, she is wrong unless she's talking about those pesky aliens that we can't agree on.

[John317]

Continued

Quote:

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:

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.

Further on in Patriarchs and Prophets Mrs. White declares:

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:

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, p. 499.

5

Then take this passage from another of Mrs. White’s writings:

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, vol. 5, p. 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.”

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.

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, vol. 3, pp. 60, 61.

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.”

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?

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.

Continued

[ClubV12]

Of course what you ask is impossible miz3, you want incontrovertable "proof" and that very often in life cannot be provided. Which is why good and learned men still have differences of opinion.

John makes an excellent case for his view and backs it up with commentary from scholars who have studied the issue in depth. Like the definition of the "daily", thats all were going to get. Learned opinions and reasoned logic, let every man be convicted in his own heart.

At this point, I'm going with John317's take on it, his defense on his view is worthy of careful consideration.

What I find most troubling about this is how serious God looks upon the mixing of races and animals, extending that out, how serious is it to be mixing plant life and even clothing!! THATS the real shocker and eye opener for me.

[BobRyan]

Quote:

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

There are two huge issues that the "story telling" banditos (who merely come here to try out "play book accusations" to see how well they fly in real life ) often miss on this topic.6

1. Genesis 6 and 3SG60-63 as noted above - point specifically to the "unequally yoked" issue of believer married to non-believer as key to the downfall of pre-flood man. A mixing of saints with the wicked.

2. But in these last days we have an even more bizarre situation. Human and animal chimeras genetically created by man.

Both are a problem - but the second example is a problem of unprecedented extreme. We are talking about advancement in science directed toward the destruction and degradation of the species.

in Christ,

Bob

[ClubV12]

Whoa,,, Bob,,,, this thing is getting deeper by the second!!!

The marriage of believers with unbelievers puts it on a whole new level. Unsanctified marriages within the church is a HUGE problem. Never mind what the "heathen" are up to, let the dead bury their dead. But this type of intermarriage within the church may well be THE most serious problem "we" as a people face.

....and I thought hybrid corn was an issue, man did I miss the boat!