As our topic here is "amalgamation," I would like to address the racial differences in terms of amalgamation. Mrs. White tells us that results of amalgamation can be seen in certain races of men. What does this mean? Would this mean that it constitutes the sin of "amalgamation" for blacks and whites to marry?

It is interesting that of all the races which Ellen White might have addressed, the only two which she says should not marry are blacks with whites.

Despite this, I'm still not convinced that the marriage of a white with a black would constitute "amalgamation." If it did, though, it would make sense why Mrs. White said the results could be seen in certain races of men. There are entire races on this planet today which were likely something of a mix between black and white. Black and white are about as opposite as can be found in human species. They differ far more than merely in their pigments. But would such a marriage really be "amalgamation?"

I wonder.

Personally, I've always thought that humans with apes, chimps, or gorillas had more to do with "amalgamation" than humans with humans.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

NJK,
I'm assuming when you talk about the first proposal you are talking about the post-flood use of the term amalgamation. You are right, the pre-flood theory of amalgamation has a great deal of explanatory power. The post flood usage of the word has caused much controversy:

"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."

My understanding is that in this context the expression, 'certain races of men' does not refer to specific races of men whose genetic material is peculiarly amalgamated (or mingled with animal DNA as before the flood) - but to the diversification of humans, as well as that of animals. The production of this variety was partially a result of the mingling (or 'amalgamating') of genetic material, not through sexual reproduction (or genetic engineering by a conscious agent, as in the pre-flood case)- but through horizontal genetic transfer (a process just now coming to scientific light). This is a phenomenon that probably would not have happened in a pre-fall world. It is a consequence of sin, but not a peculiarly sinful thing in and of itself. Ellen White doesn't use the word sin in reference to this post-flood amalgamation, nor does she state that any conscious agent was responsible for it directly.

It has been proven that bacteria and other microbes can swap DNA. There is a very good probability that higher organisms have historically done likewise. Natural selection and genetic mutation are insufficient to explain the rapid post-flood diversification of species.

"Certainly there can be no little doubt that most, if not all, genomes include a number of foreign genes..."
Delwiche, Charles F. "Griffins and Chimeras: Evolution and Horizontal Gene Transfer," BioScience Jan. 2000

Scientists in the Human Genome project found 113 gene sequences that were identical to those found in bacteria. These appear to be the result of direct transfer from bacteria to humans.

"Mutation accumulation does not lead to new species or even to new organs or new tissues... Rather the important transmitted variation that leads to evolutionary novelty
come from the acquisition of genomes."
Margulis, Lynn and Dorian Sagan. 'Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origin of Species' Basic Books 2002

Finally, you are right. Science is just now catching up to all of the implications found in Ellen Whites various uses of the expression 'amalgamation.' We still don't know fully how the antedeluvians could have achieved the level of genetic engineering they did. We still don't fully understand the process of genetic acquisition and transference within higher species. However, we now know that these are plausible scientific explanations for these hitherto unexplained issues.

I don't know about it having been a "self-fulfilling" prophecy. Was it a "self-fulfilling" prophecy that the Jews pronounced upon themselves at Christ's death? How well did, say, Hitler know about that "prophecy?" I think most people who have taken human beings and forced them into slavery are more ignorant of the Bible than anything else.

Not every curse is a "self-fulfilling" one. When God cursed the ground for man's sake, it was an actual curse. When God put a mark on Cain, it was an actual mark. Cain did not go out and mark himself because God had suggested the idea!

It is interesting to note that marking people is God's domain, and not ours. He marked Cain, but He also instructed us not to mark ourselves. Tattoos, for example, are against God's law.

Likewise, God created many different kinds of animals. But it was not for us to do. We are supposed to help maintain the various kinds as God made them, as opposed to crossbreeding at will to get new species.

This is the crux of the matter with amalgamation. People were taking upon themselves to do that which God alone had authority to do. (Of course, people would be far less capable than God anyhow, and our meddling only would tend to corrupt and pervert that which God had designed and made.)

Regarding the large animals before the flood, if I read Mrs. White correctly, some animals which God had made He chose not to preserve through the flood. This was because the animals were so large that they would be unmanageable by mankind, as men were weakening greatly following the flood. Certainly, the amalgamated animals were destroyed as well. But it appears that after the flood, men figured out how to meddle with them again.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Of course, Green Cochoa, I did not say, nor imply, that every Bible/Biblical curse is a self-fulfilling prophecy, just, in subjective part, this one. Indeed pointedly in the subjective belief that it was a racial, vs. descendants, curse, and that it applied to solely upon black people. My anthropology knowledge is quasi-non-existent, however I presume that much more than just racially “Black” people are Cainan’s descendants, especially by the time of the 1600's+ when this curse was said to be applicable (for, of course the free labor that it provided to profit seeking (Protestant) Capitalists, thus why, e.g., the French and Americans plunged head long into this practice). In a similar way, that is the same “moronic” and prejudicial “racial” rationale that is used against Muslims in general, which however is pointedly directed as Arab Muslims who actually only represent ca. 25% of all of the world’s Muslims.

Your cited SOP reason for the leaving behind of large animals indeed makes perfect Biblical sense. (However it all relatedly leads to the often skirted/avoided Classical Foreknowledge Theological question/issue, as discussed here and ff of: didn’t God see this coming?? If so then why did He created them in the first place. There is no freewill issue involved pointedly with these animals as they were forcefully made to suffer for Mans’ fall (Rom 8:19-21). No need to answer this, at least here, just something to relatedly keep in mind here.)

Indeed voktar, that is the proposal that I didn’t understand. Thanks for the quasi-layman explanation. I am however surprised that it is so highly involved, as even seen in/despite those explanation.

In regards to the “sin” issue here, perhaps it is in the result of the image of God (Gen 1:26a, 27) being physically altered and perverted in Man. Also the granted “rule” of man over animals (Gen 1:26b) was thus also being perverted. As this is went categorically against God’s Will and thus His (Natural) Law (cf. Matt 7:21, 23), He had to act to end it and prevent these grossly altered forms from “filling up” the earth. (Gen 1:28). So all of this may contribute to the Spiritual/Religious sin understanding here. And God is always primarily concerned with guiding His professed people to, in faith, see the religious sinful aspect of something, even long before they latter come to scientifically see and understand the Natural Law violation involved. (E.g, Healthful Living). [I see Green Cochoa (Post #134981) makes a similar point on this issue.]



It is indeed consistent of God not to give the details of things that humans can do/find out for themselves. Imagine the opportunity for evil that this would fairly, correspondingly, open up to Satan if God did this. And so EGW was merely shown that this occurred and the Spiritual/GC implications, but not given the ‘scientific formula’ so to speak.*

Also in regards to this light given to EGW, my foundational theological tenet is that ‘God does not do anything without a positive reason’ and so I see here that there is a key GC reason why God gave this pointed revelation to EGW and that may be to speak to our similar, genetic-manipulation capable (e.g, cloning) world. SDA Scientist should double up on understand the scientific nefariousness of this amalgamation issue before it is “too late”, as, e.g., with the AIDS outbreak and crisis. Indeed God saw that this amalgamation practised deserved/necessitated total eradication.

*(I, as related in this post (Search for Patent), have also experienced the same dilemma, as God has repeatedly shown me that a now patented, quite intricate, but quite potent Physics/Engineering Concept/Invention will work, but has not given me the specific details. Indeed I have now run it by several professional engineers and none of them have been able to refute that it will not work as presented on paper and basic Physics/Engineering Science. A couple from an aircraft engine powerplant manufacturer who admitted it should work have refused to help me for the “moronic” reasons that the related technology needed to make the concept work were too far advanced -(‘beyond their technological horizon’). As this is factually not true, as all of those supporting concepts are already discovered and in use, this is just more ‘Capitalistic shortsightedness’ when you indeed carefully analyse it.) An SDA engineer spuriously objected by saying that ‘it would materially break down to much, as if optimal and properly reinforced materials could not be used. And the list of spurious excuses goes on. Similarly, I always found it odd that God did not tell Noah how to build the Ark (e.g., to ‘construct it like the hull of a ship, that it might float upon the water’ PP 92.3) He just told him to build a boat and gave him the dimensions, general layout and material to use (Gen 6:13-16). Noah was apparently left to use his knowledge and skills to, in enjoining faith, concretely rightly put all of this together and ‘make this work’. The novice “naval engineers and architects” of his day must have had a field day trying to find reasons why it would not work. (The Building of the Sanctuary and its furniture/articles is another example of this Divine modus operandi. All this to, as I see it, tangibly corroborate that God does give such summary/conclusory light, especially when it comes to temporal matters, but not the working details.

Just a factual accuracy correction for that statement: It is actually the descendants of Ishmael who later became the Muslim people that I pointedly had in mind as this indirectly “reserved” people through a descendants curse, however as Esau married a daughter of his uncle Ishmael (Gen 36:3) and so probably contributed greatly to the Arab people who would later come under the Religious Muslim banner.

Assuming this is true, isn't it interesting that pre-flood, closer to more perfect genetics, horizontal genetic transfer happened more easily (one assumes) than post-flood with less perfect genetics? Scientists today struggle to get transfer of information between genus let alone at higher levels. There seems to be lots of genetic mechanisms which prohibit such a transfer. However, pre-flood, it could be done with the assumption the genetic mechanisms were even more fully in place?

By the way, why do you think dinosaurs were "bad" and there were none after the flood? I don't think they nor any others were singled out to be destroyed in the flood as all land animals were destroyed in the flood. What is a "dinosaur" anyway? I've seen many evil looking creatures which I would not want to meet in a dark alley, nor in the open. I've read reptiles never stop growing, so is an alligator a dinosaur?

I'm confused where you thought Cain or Cainan was black.

And are you saying Cainan resembled Cain because their English names look similar and their Hebrew names have some of the same letters though different meanings?

There is nothing in the Bible to indicate the colors. I'm drawing some logical conclusions to deduce what is not explicitly mentioned. (And I misspelled Canaan as Cainan, sorry.)

Key points in that deduction process are the following (in reverse chronological order):

1) The "race" of mankind arguably most subjected to slavery throughout all time is the blacks. (Ask most any "African American" their opinion on this and I'm sure they would agree.)

2) Canaan and his descendents were cursed by Noah with servanthood, though he was innocent of his father's crime.

3) Canaan may have been so named on account of his appearing much like Cain. (It is likely that being obscure Hebrew words, modern scholars have no idea of the exact meanings of these names.)

4) Unless both blacks and whites were somehow represented in the ark, there has been an amazing divergence in the biology of mankind in a few short millennia. Where else can we source both?

5) God marked Cain. Mrs. White speaks of the "race of Cain." Clearly, the descendents of Cain differed from those of Seth, not only in spiritual things, but also in appearance. The Bible speaks of the "sons of God" (Seth's lineage) looking upon the "daughters of men" (Cain's race) and seeing that they were "fair."

6) It would be just like God to symbolize the sin of Cain with an appropriate color. Sin is dark.

I just looked up the meaning of Canaan. BlueLetterBible has the following definition for the root/origin of the word.


Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Seems subjective and biased to me. Ask any American Indian if they've been taken advantage of and I'm sure they would agree.
Ask any American Indian if they've been taken advantage of and I'm sure they would agree.
Ask any Mexican if they've been taken advantage of and I'm sure they would agree.
Ask any woman if they've been taken advantage of and I'm sure they would agree.
Ask any white male if they've been taken advantage of and I'm sure they would agree.

I don't think asking a group is a way to determine if they are "arguably most subjected to slavery throughout all time."
Says nothing about being black nor resembling cain. And are you saying he cursed Canaan because he was black?! What about looking at the spirit of Ham and seeing how it had been trained in his son and prophesying what would happen?That is what I'm calling into question. Repeating it doesn't support it.
What about orientals, mexicans, indians, etc., etc.? What makes you think Noah and family were only one or the other? What makes you think there isn't a wide divergence in the genome since the ark of man and beast? What do you think of the idea that scientists traced all mankind to seven (or a few) Eves?She also speaks of the race before the flood regarding all man, a race of sinners, a race of rebels, a race of humanity, a race of beings, not a race of righteous men (Lot), a race of slaves (Israelites), race of Adam, race of Jews. None of that means "clearly" they differed in appearance. It only speaks of Cain having a mark. She compares daughters of men to this day and says Think the ungodly of today look better? Are you saying Black people represent sin and are somehow looked down upon by God? And this because of choices of his father and mother. Are you saying God made him black at that time or just because he was, he picked on him?[/quote]
Yep, he was humbled by Noah. Or the result of his father or lack of proper training.