Why does the SDA see Ellen White as a prophetess?

[vooks]

Quote:
Originally Posted by vooks
You look like an intelligent man Bob, why are you embarrassing yourself?
1. EGW spoke of amalgamation of man and beast both BEFORE and AFTER the Flood
2. She spoke of this as being responsible for species not created by God
3. She spoke of this as a HISTORICAL fact.

True - so why are you embarrassing yourself by imagining that different races of humanity are different species??

Quote:
4. Even if you bought the retarded excuse that amalgamation is 'cross breeding' between sinners and the righteous,
I did not bring that up.

But that is what is happening in Genesis 6:1

Do we toss the bible out as well for that?

The point remains.



you fish for garbage in scripture??

You remind me of my signature line below.

Did you simply not have anything of substance to post?

If not -- why post??

You seem to be floundering.

You have heard of genetic engineering right?

Is this all new to you now??

New species created by genetic amalgamation - ... hmm you seem to struggle with the basics on that one. Welcome to the 21st century.


"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." Spiritual Gifts volume 3 page 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.Spiritual Gifts volume 3 page 75

Recall that we already know that we have only ONE species of man -- no matter how many races.


Genesis 6:1 is not talking about demons marrying women since as Christ points out - in Matt 22 Angels don't even have that function with themselves much less with other species.

So then it is just about being unequally yoked -- believer with non-believer.

Races of man that are the products of mixing with other races of man?
Is this really where you camp out???

After 1600 years it is likely that the descendants of Cain and those of Seth appeared to be separate races of the one species 'mankind'.

I don't understand why you are so baffled by the distinction between animal species on the one hand - and races of man on the other. Why do you ignore that distinction?

in Christ,

Bob

Bob,
Please think. Or t least try
1. Genetic engineering was nonexistent in 1850s when EGW spoke of amalgamation. So amalgamation is no genetic engineering. Unless according to SDA 'history' the science is far much older than we all think. Not a far fetched idea given SDA proclivity to the most absurd conspiracy theories.

2. EGW spoke of evidence of amalgamation being 'seen'. This means whatever amalgamation is, it was ongoing

3. She spoke of amalgamation producing SOME races of men. So to her, as far as you are concerned, she could see the pure/righteous races, the wicked races and and of course the mixed race product of amalgamation. Now, kindly share with us examples ,one of each of these three.

4. Jesus said there is neither marriage nor giving in marriage. Which part of that says angels can't have sex? When they visited Abraham, they sure looked like men, and they ate meat. When they visited Sodom, the men lusted after them. They certainly can walk in human bodies. Jacob in Genesis 32 wrestled with one

5. When you gather garbage and attempt to legitimize it by purporting to deduce 'evidence' of the same from scriptures, you fail woefully

 

[One Baptism]

...

4. Jesus said there is neither marriage nor giving in marriage. Which part of that says angels can't have sex? When they visited Abraham, they sure looked like men, and they ate meat. When they visited Sodom, the men lusted after them. They certainly can walk in human bodies. Jacob in Genesis 32 wrestled with one...

Brother vooks, I know you are presently engaged in speaking with brother BobRyan [though the previous linked material already given you, is more than sufficient*], but if you would not mind [let me know], and do not desire to again jump in where I am not welcome, but I would like to fully address 'Point 4' specifically [having found absolutely nothing of any merit whatsoever to further respond to in any of the other 'points' beyond what was already given in charity], in extreme Scriptural detail. It will not be in any way a short simplisitic answer, but a most prayerfully studied thorough and detailed one in which the error therein of your 'Point 4' shall be laid bare for all to see, in the hopes of repentance from it and a coming into harmony with the Scriptural account there to be evidenced.

Therefore, I would like to ask you, brother vooks, if you would not mind if I so addressed that 'Point 4' in this thread or sans that if you would not rather I do so here, I offer the second option, in charity [Revelation 3:19], where, without consent, I shall begin a new thread and detail it there and reference your statement and name therein?

Which of the two options do you prefer? Please choose, for if you do not, I will by default proceed to the second option proffered you.

*

... See for yourself - http://adventist-defense-league.blogspot.com/2007/09/did-egw-teach-amalgamation-of-man-with.html ...

PS. I will charitably give you until tomorrow to decide.

 

[vooks]

Brother vooks, I know you are presently engaged in speaking with brother BobRyan [though the previous linked material already given you, is more than sufficient*], but if you would not mind [let me know], and do not desire to again jump in where I am not welcome, but I would like to fully address 'Point 4' specifically [having found absolutely nothing of any merit whatsoever to further respond to in any of the other 'points' beyond what was already given in charity], in extreme Scriptural detail. It will not be in any way a short simplisitic answer, but a most prayerfully studied thorough and detailed one in which the error therein of your 'Point 4' shall be laid bare for all to see, in the hopes of repentance from it and a coming into harmony with the Scriptural account there to be evidenced.

Therefore, I would like to ask you, brother vooks, if you would not mind if I so addressed that 'Point 4' in this thread or sans that if you would not rather I do so here, I offer the second option, in charity [Revelation 3:19], where, without consent, I shall begin a new thread and detail it there and reference your statement and name therein?

Which of the two options do you prefer? Please choose, for if you do not, I will by default proceed to the second option proffered you.

*

PS. I will charitably give you until tomorrow to decide.

A new thread is smarter because if we engage in this one, it will be derailing it. In fact we are almost derailing it.

BUT.
I opened a thread to handle EGW amalgamation and sadly you have given it a wide berth without as much as confirming to have read it. I had invited you to pick points you differ with but you have shied away.

Are you a trustworthy debater? Are you objective or are you merely rooting for your sectarian position? If you can't engage me on amalgamation, why should I engage you on this?


Every SDA I have ever shared with that document comes out transformed. Their eyes are enlightened. They see the lies they have been fed. Not a single of them have EVER attempted a rebuttal. I had hoped you could attempt. And note, this is a scholarly article complete with references, and not to mention by an Adventist.

Here is the post
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=99286
Go through the article and refute anything in it. That is the only condition I place for debating with you

 

[BobRyan]

Bob,
Please think. Or t least try
1. Genetic engineering was nonexistent in 1850s when EGW spoke of amalgamation. So amalgamation is no genetic engineering. Unless according to SDA 'history' the science is far much older than we all think. Not a far fetched idea given SDA proclivity to the most absurd conspiracy theories.

Genetic engineering is the claim being made for events before the flood.

This is irrefutable.

Mixing of races is not the same thing as genetic engineering

This is irrefutable.

The creation of new species of animals was the claim for preflood mankind through some sort of amalgamation is specifically addressed in that text.

This is irrefutable.

The number of species on planet earth today far outnumbers the number of species that could have fit on the ark - so some form of mixing had to have occurred since the ark, regardless if man did it or not.

This is irrefutable.

"Races of men" are not "new species"

This is irrefutable.

There is no quote provided here that says "mixing animals with men in the 1800's gave rise to new species or new races"

This is irrefutable.

If you need this posted on your dedicated thread - I am glad to do it - as I agree that it does not address an actual doctrine in the SDA church.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[vooks]

Genetic engineering is the claim being made for events before the flood.

This is irrefutable.

Amalgamation existed BEFORE and AFTER the flood and was well alive I. The 1850s. That is irrefutable?:laugh:

Mixing of races is not the same thing as genetic engineering

This is irrefutable.

Name the sinner races and righteous and the ungodly product race of their union

The creation of new species of animals was the claim for preflood mankind through some sort of amalgamation is specifically addressed in that text.

This is irrefutable.

Amalgamation is BEFORE and AFTER the Flood

The number of species on planet earth today far outnumbers the number of species that could have fit on the ark - so some form of mixing had to have occurred since the ark, regardless if man did it or not.

This is irrefutable.

Name the races of men that she saw

"Races of men" are not "new species"

This is irrefutable.

Name the 'some races of men'

There is no quote provided here that says "mixing animals with men in the 1800's gave rise to new species or new races"

This is irrefutable.

The most racist remark ever from The mouth of her god. Little wonder she actively discouraged interracial marriages

If you need this posted on your dedicated thread - I am glad to do it - as I agree that it does not address an actual doctrine in the SDA church.

in Christ,

Bob

A grow up scared of reading

 

[BobRyan]

There is no quote provided here from Ellen White that says "mixing animals with men in the 1800's gave rise to new species or new races"

This is irrefutable.

The most racist remark ever

I find your logic "illusive" given that fact in my statement .

If you don't need facts to make false accusations -- well that is understandable.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Name the races of men that she saw

I think you mean "make something up" since there is no such list.

Fits the false-accusation model that you are using - but not much else.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

A
Name the sinner races and righteous and the ungodly product race of their union

So then "make up a list"???

the only two groups that we have before the flood are the decedents of Cain and the decedents of Seth. And the fact that at the end in Gen 6 the two groups began to intermarry.

hint: "Race" is not "species"

in Christ,

Bob

 

[vooks]

I think you mean "make something up" since there is no such list.

Fits the false-accusation model that you are using - but not much else.

in Christ,

Bob

The only model I can see is vehement denial of the obvious aka playing dumb. Anything including contradicting youse
F to maintain EGW inspiration

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."

Walk me through the highlighted

 

[BobRyan]

1. "Species of animal".
2. "Races are not species".
3. There are more races on the earth today than came off the boat.
4. There are more animal species today than came off the boat.

Irrefutable and has nothing at all to do with your own fiction about mixing animals with humans to get new "races of man" and not new species.

There is not one quote from Ellen White or the 28 Fundamental beliefs of Adventists arguing for new "species" of man. For such fiction we would need "Vooks" as our text.

In the light of the 21st century we would not be looking for new "races of man" but new "species of man" if the fiction you are trying to insert into the quote - were remotely true.

And this is incredibly obvious.

Irrefutable.

Now back to the subject of the thread.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[vooks]

1. "Species of animal".
2. "Races are not species".
3. There are more races on the earth today than came off the boat.
4. There are more animal species today than came off the boat.

Irrefutable and has nothing at all to do with your own fiction about mixing animals with humans to get new "races of man" and not new species.

There is not one quote from Ellen White or the 28 Fundamental beliefs of Adventists arguing for new "species" of man. For such fiction we would need "Vooks" as our text.

In the light of the 21st century we would not be looking for new "races of man" but new "species of man" if the fiction you are trying to insert into the quote - were remotely true.

And this is incredibly obvious.

Irrefutable.

Now back to the subject of the thread.

in Christ,

Bob

1. These words were written in the 19th century not 21sr century.
2. Evidence of amalgamation was in 'endless species' and CERTAIN RACES.
Can you name these 'certain races'? Do you belong to one of them?

Ps: the words 'races' and 'species' were quite common 150 years ago. You want a definition of either terms from the period? And you are yet to define 'amalgamation'

 

[BobRyan]

In the 19th century we have BOTH "species" (in the case of animals) and "races" (in the case of man) - mentioned.

But not once do we find "species of man" which is what would result if animal-DNA and human-DNA were being mixed.

For that fiction - we would have to use "Vooks" as our text.

No SDA that I know of is willing to switch to "Vooks" for their text.

As for your request to "make up a list of races" -- it is just that sort of "making stuff up" that is core to the false accusation model you use. Why out yourself that way?


Now back to the subject of the thread.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Philipians 3:6 (KJV)
Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.

Is KJV a corruption as well?
Paul says he was BLAMELESS as far as the Law is concerned. Do you dispute that, or was he lying? Can you DEFINE blameless for me?

Paul is giving us his CV. Let me list his credentials for you
1. He was circumcised on the eight day
2. He is an Israelite
3. He was a Benjamite
4. He was a 'pure' Hebrew
5. He belonged to the Pharisee sect
6. He persecuted the church
7. He was BLAMELESS as far as the law is concerned

You are not even blameless in the Laws you cherry pick yet you prescribe the same to a dying world?

He was blameless in the eyes of the Pharisees, but in the eyes of God no such person exists. :tonofbricks:

That is true - Paul argues that his limited view as a Pharisee before being converted to Christianity and seeing the full extent of the Law is that he needed no salvation, no savior, no repentance, no forgiveness.

Sort of Islamic in that regard.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[vooks]

In the 19th century we have BOTH "species" (in the case of animals) and "races" (in the case of man) - mentioned.

But not once do we find "species of man" which is what would result if animal-DNA and human-DNA were being mixed.

For that fiction - we would have to use "Vooks" as our text.

No SDA that I know of is willing to switch to "Vooks" for their text.

As for your request to "make up a list of races" -- it is just that sort of "making stuff up" that is core to the false accusation model you use. Why out yourself that way?


Now back to the subject of the thread.

in Christ,

Bob

"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."

Amalgamation of MAN and BEAST. Here is where SDAs thaw their brains
1. Associating animal mating with sin is unscriptural. Speciation is natural. And how did animals mating deface God's image?
2. Note she calls it the biggest sin before the flood. And they were destroyed. How can animals mating with animals be sin?
3. Even if amalgamation means man-man,she attributes ENTIRE races of men to this meaning CERTAIN races are product of godly and ungodly seed. You would never name these because you are too ashamed of your godess. Sinners and believers mating do not sire different races or even subspecies of men. What would you sire if your wife was a Satanist?

In short, that statement by any stretch of hallucination is both unscriptural and unscientific

 

[Yeshua1]

It is in a dormant state "our FRIEND Lazarus SLEEPs I go that I may wake HIM" John 11

The body "goes back to DUST as it WAS" Eccl 12.

You do realize that to the Apostles such as Peter and Paul, sleeping was a metaphor for how the physical body was doing, awaiting its glorification at Second coming, while the Spirit was in presence of the Lord jesus?

As proved by the fact that Jesus spirit went to hades for 3 days, and that God raised up Him as a physical being, and also that the saints werr coming back with him at Second coming, and John saw the Souls of the saints in heaven before throne of God , before His second coming!

You see soul sleep due to a false teaching from a false prophetess!

 

[BobRyan]

You do realize that to the Apostles such as Peter and Paul, sleeping was a metaphor for how the physical body was doing,

Until you read the actual Bible and find that not once do they claim that the earthly tent, the physical body "sleeps" in death.

Rather they argue that it decays and the scripture they were using said it "returns to dust AS IT WAS" -- not at all "sleep" but rather annihilation of the earthly tent.

The DORMANT state is that of the PERSON - the destroyed to DUST state is that of the body.

Matt 10:28 they "DESTROY the body but not the soul" the only thing that sleeps -- is the soul. The body is destroyed.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Amalgamation of MAN and BEAST. Here is where SDAs thaw their brains
1. Associating animal mating with sin is unscriptural. Speciation is natural. And how did animals mating deface God's image?

Once again reading "VOOKS" as your source - gets you into some odd story telling.

"ALL FLESH "

Gen 6

12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Whatever man was doing to the animal kingdom in creating new species was wrecking it.

Just as in Rev 11 at the end of time God comes to "DESTROY those who DESTROY the Earth"

Your problem is that you are so steeped in "Vooks text" and so distant from the actual source documents. You may just need to "get out more".

in Christ,

Bob

 

[One Baptism]

A new thread is smarter...

Done. Thank you for choosing option 2 and for the compliment brother. It is found posted here - http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2218232&postcount=1

 

[One Baptism]

This is actually a good question for an OP [in blue], and the introductory question in following is also good. Would you like to see from the Scripture, typology, prophecy, etc why?

I am willing to open the Bible with you brother Yeshua1 and answer you most candidly and seriously from there. If you are willingly, let me know.

We can begin by immediately eliminating Joseph Smith from the picture, by the Scriptures themselves, if you agree to study with me.

Yeshua1, did you see this response? Would you like to actually delve into the Scripture on these things in regards your OP topic and question? Hopefully we can move this back to that interesting topic! There is a lot to share from the Scriptures on Prophets/messengers of the LORD, their function, role, duties, signs, etc.

 

[vooks]

Once again reading "VOOKS" as your source - gets you into some odd story telling.

"ALL FLESH "

Gen 6

12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth.

Whatever man was doing to the animal kingdom in creating new species was wrecking it.

Just as in Rev 11 at the end of time God comes to "DESTROY those who DESTROY the Earth"

Your problem is that you are so steeped in "Vooks text" and so distant from the actual source documents. You may just need to "get out more".

in Christ,

Bob

Bob, do you believe genetic engineering was practiced by pre-Flood people, and was somewhat lost for thousands of years only to be rediscovered in 20th century?
Is amalgamation genetic engineering?