Selected Messages Book 3, page 452, paragraph 3
Chapter Title: Appendix C (W.C. White)
REGARDING THE TWO PARAGRAPHS WHICH ARE TO BE FOUND IN SPIRITUAL GIFTS AND ALSO IN THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY REGARDING AMALGAMATION AND THE REASON WHY THEY WERE LEFT OUT OF THE LATER BOOKS, AND THE QUESTION AS TO WHO TOOK THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LEAVING THEM OUT, I CAN SPEAK WITH PERFECT CLEARNESS AND ASSURANCE. THEY WERE LEFT OUT BY ELLEN G. WHITE. NO ONE CONNECTED WITH HER WORK HAD ANY AUTHORITY OVER SUCH A QUESTION, AND I NEVER HEARD OF ANYONE OFFERING TO HER COUNSEL REGARDING THIS MATTER.

S.D.A. Bible Commentary Vol. 1, page 1086, paragraph 2
Chapter Title: Genesis
18. Amalgamation Brought Noxious Plants.--Not one noxious plant was placed in the Lord's great garden, but after Adam and Eve sinned, poisonous herbs sprang up. In the parable of the sower the question was asked the Master, "Didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? how then hath it tares?" The Master answered, "An enemy hath done this." All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares (MS 65, 1899 [published in F. D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics ]).

The Spirit of Prophecy Volume One, page 69, paragraph 1
Chapter Title: The Flood
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. He would not suffer them to live out the days of their natural life, which would be hundreds of years. It was only a few generations back when Adam had access to that tree which was to prolong life. After his disobedience he was not suffered to eat of the tree of life and perpetuate a life of sin. In order for man to possess an endless life he must continue to eat of the fruit of the tree of life. Deprived of that tree, his life would gradually wear out.

The Spirit of Prophecy Volume One, page 78, paragraph 2
Chapter Title: The Flood
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.

F.D. Nichol examines closely the "amalgamation" statements by E.G. White in the following link:

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/amalg.html

Clearly the ability to clone species of plants, animals and humans is a sign of the time. "As it was in the days of Noah." Although it looks as though we have a little ways to go yet before we are duplicating the accomplishments of the antediluvians.

But just as there are good and bad applications of anything, depending on how it is used, so there must be good and bad ways of cloning. Neither the Bible nor Ellen White said cloning technology or amalgamations are wrong in and of itself, rather inspiration condemns the misuse of it.

More good than bad has been done by altering certain plant and animal species. God instructed mankind to, "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." Gen 1:28.

The hebrew word Kabash, translated "subdue" in Genesis 1:28 means:

1. to subject, subdue, force, keep under, bring into bondage
a. (Qal)
1. to bring into bondage, make subservient
2. to subdue, force, violate
3. to subdue, dominate, tread down
b. (Niphal) to be subdued
c. (Piel) to subdue
d. (Hiphil) to bring into bondage

The hebrew word Radah, translated "dominion" in Genesis 1:28 means:

1. to rule, have dominion, dominate, tread down
a. (Qal) to have dominion, rule, subjugate
b. (Hiphil) to cause to dominate
2. to scrape out
a. (Qal) to scrape, scrape out

Reference: http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=ge+1:28&it=kjv&ot=bhs&nt=na&sr=1 [note: click on "Side-by-side]

[ December 31, 2002, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Mike Lowe ]

Seems I read somewhere that one reason E.G.W. decided to leave out the part about amalgamation was because some understood it to mean animals were crossed with humans. Maybe the evil anteluvians in league with Satan were able to do that via science we have lost. But crossing humans with animals now will not result in a fetus or even fertilization. Nor will the crossing of any widely separated animal kinds near the Genus level. "Each shall reproduce after it's kind" is a very consistent law of nature God set in motion at the Creation. If you allow that one species can change into another, you join with the evolutionists, which E.G.W certainly did not want to do, or even appear to. But variations within the Genesis "kind" are possible, which is why we have all different kinds of cats from tiger to housecat. But Satan, and perhaps wicked scientists before the flood, tampered with genes to make some very radical changes within a species. They were able to take creatures God created and alter them into the carnivores, with carnivore guts, teeth, and instincts. It's really amazing how much an animal brain is like a specifically programmed computer chip. The animal "obeys" it's programming with the same reliability as a computer. I believe Satan, or evil scientists, developed some of God's creatures into T-Rex. If you don't believe in evolution, as I don't, something like that might be how they came to be. I don't believe God would create a man-eating dinosaur. Also, the cave men could have been the result of tampering with human genes to cause a branching off from the nobel Homo Sapiens, in an effort to degrade God's work. They lived at the same time as normal humans, not prior. Most likely Ellen White meant Amalgamation of beast and then the amalgamation of humans. They almalgamated (mutated) beasts to make horrible beasts, and then mutated humans to degrade them in Cavemen types. Amalgamation was probably her word for the current word, "mutation." Nowadays wicked nations and their scientists devise nuclear warheads run by computers, but maybe in the 2000 years before the flood, those superior humans tried to conquer rival groups via the terribly mutated animals they could use against eachother, all under Satan's mastermind. Now, it seems Satan abandoned that and turned to mutating the tiniest creatures into death-dealing agents, in the many bacteria and viruses that keep getting worse and worse. I'm not saying I know a lot, but I'm just trying to reason things out with respect to basic science as well as the Bible story, with emphasis on the Bible.

Linda wrote:

"I find it incredible that an Adventist minister thinks that human cloning is permissible when even secular scientists are pushing for its ban in the US as it has been banned in several other countries!"

Avalee wrote:

"Again I have to just sit and shake my head....and say again...you have to be joking...I am sorry you say you are not. God help us all."

Please, please, please. Can we discuss this topic without condemnation?

Restin, the following F.D. Nichol link answers the questions about E.G. White's use of the word amalgamation:

http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/amalg.html

SOP quote provided by Mike Lowe:

quote:

---

The Spirit of Prophecy Volume One, page 78, paragraph 2
Chapter Title: The Flood
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.

---

Is this quote actually saying that there has actually been amalgamation of man and beast since The Great Flood?

I didn't realize this also happened after The Flood! I also didn't know that there was a SOP quote that said this!

When did this happen, and inn what way was the amalgamation of man and beast accomplished after The Flood?

While I was posting the above post, I received a timely email from the AdventistNews Network on this very topic, so I dedided to paste it here while reading it:

quote:

---

"Cloning" Report Raises Ethical Questions
Loma Linda, California, United States .... [Mark Kellner/ANN]

The announcement that a human being has been "cloned" by a group of scientists--a claim for which no evidence has yet been seen--rekindles
interest in, and speculation about, how far science can and should go to alleviate human suffering. Considering its long-standing involvement in health care and cutting edge techniques, such as infant heart transplants, professionals and lay members of the Seventh-day Adventist Church might well ask if there are instances where cloning is permissible, or is all cloning always wrong?

According to Dr. Gerald Winslow, dean of the Faculty of Religion and professor of ethics at Loma Linda University, "attempting to clone a human being at this point in human history would be irresponsible, and the main point [is] it would be highly dangerous. We don't know what the likely risks are for any baby that would or might be produced in this way."

Such uncertainty about the results--would a "cloned" human experience immediate or unforeseen illness or impairment, for example, and would society treat such persons as less desirable or expendable--raise moral issues Christians will need to confront, Winslow said.

"What gets altered in all of this is the set of questions that we bring to the topic of the essence of human existence. The basic question that arises in the minds of a lot of Christians is whether we've overstepped the boundaries," Winslow told ANN in a telephone interview.
"It's fairly evident that we won't be able to look up a passage of scripture, so we will have to do something that Christians have always had to do, and that is search for underlying Biblical principles," he said.

He added, "Part of the Adventist commitment in ethics is to say this is a responsibility that each member has as a matter of personal accountability before God. We're given instruction and the power of the Holy Spirit and we're asked to be thoughtful. I think it's a good opportunity for Christians to think about basic principles."

The Adventist Church, in a 1998 statement drafted in part by Winslow and Loma Linda University School of Medicine microbiology and biochemistry professor Dr. Anthony J. Zuccarelli, said that while cloning to produce a human being was morally unacceptable, the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer, which creates genetic material that can be used to prevent or repair damage from disease, can be allowed.

"It is a Christian responsibility to prevent suffering and to preserve the quality of human life (Acts 10:38; Luke 9:2)," the Adventist statement said. "If it is possible to prevent genetic disease through the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer, the use of this technology may be in keeping with the goal of preventing avoidable suffering."

The 1998 statement, available online in English at
http://www.adventist.org/beliefs/main_stat38.html,notes that "the rapid pace of progress in this field will require periodic review of these principles in light of new developments."

Loma Linda University Medical Center, established by the Adventist Church in 1905, is internationally renowned for its medical research
and treatments in areas such as heart transplant surgery and non-invasive proton beam therapy for prostate and breast cancer.

---

I will need to read this again and digest it myself.

I agree that cloning humans at this point is premature. Not enough research and experiments with animals have been conducted. However, once the precedures are perfected with animals, I personally don't see why it would be considered unethical or unwise to clone human beings.

Here is an extract from teh F.D. Nichol link I posted above:

Mrs. White says that "since the flood" there "has been amalgamation of man and beast," and adds that the results may be seen in (1) "almost endless varieties of species of animals," and in (2) "certain races of men." There are several important conclusions that follow from this passage:

1. Mrs. White speaks of two clearly distinguished groups that testify to this amalgamation. There are (1) "species of animals" and (2) "races of men." There is no suggestion that there were species part man and part animal. But how could there be amalgamation of man with animal and the result be anything else than hybrid man-animal species? She does not even hint of subhuman monsters or caricatures of man. On the contrary, as just noted, she speaks unequivocally of "species of animals" and "races of men." She does not single out or name any particular race as bearing the evidence of this amalgamation.

2. Mrs. White speaks of the "almost endless varieties of species of animals" that have resulted from amalgamation. Now it has been suggested that Mrs. White in the matter of amalgamation reflected the thinking of those who believed the fiction of man-animal crosses. If we rightly understand that fiction, as it has been wafted through the centuries by the winds of credulity, a few large, mythical creatures of antiquity were supposed to have resulted from a union of man with animals. And these creatures were always supposed to reveal both human and animal features. But there is nothing in the ancient fiction that supported the idea that "almost endless varieties of species of animals" were the result of an unnatural cross of man with animals. Mrs. White is here certainly not expressing an ancient, mythical view. Not even the credulous pagans, wholly devoid of biological knowledge, would have thought of entertaining such an idea. How much more reasonable to interpret the passage to mean that these "almost endless varieties of species of animals" resulted from an amalgamation of previously existing forms of animal life!

3. Mrs. White calls upon the reader to look about him for proof of what she is saying. In other words, whatever this amalgamation has been, its fruitage is evident today. "As may be seen," she says, "in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men." But can anything be "seen" in our day that would provide support for the ancient myth of beast-men? Certainly there is nothing in the savage races of some remote heathen lands that even suggests a cross between man and animals. And if the most degraded race of men does not suggest such a cross, much less do any species of animals suggest it. But the results of the amalgamation of which Mrs. White speaks "may be seen" by the reader.

Her reference to the amalgamation of man and beast after the Flood is talking about the almost endless varities of species that exist now which did not go into the Ark. Obviously she isn't talking about the high tech kind of cross speciation the antedulivians used to create dinosaurs.

In other words, only a few kinds of canine, for example, went on the Ark. But since the Flood man has cross bred canines, and other species of animals, so that there are numerous new kinds of species that did not originally enter the Ark.

[ January 01, 2003, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Mike Lowe ]