I agree with MM's comment, except the term "amalgamation" is usually more limited in scope than what our issue is concerning. That is, I agree with MM's comment, and believe it applies in a broader scope than "amalgamation" would suggest.

quote:

---

Now what happened after the fall we can only speculate on, but God must have either modified the animals or allowed Satan to do so. I expect that it was the former, I just can't believe God would allow Satan to make that drastic of a change.

---

I can't conceive of God modifying animals in any negative way. This seems completely wrong to me. I'll explain two reason why.

First of all, the Great Controversy is about demonstrating the differences of two ways of doing things; God's way, and the way of sin. If God makes modifications to impact what happens when His way is rejects, that's not fair. Satan and sin has to be allowed to show what he/it does. If God does things in Satan's name, that would not be cricked (OTOH, Satan does do many things in God's name, but Satan is a liar, so that's OK, so to speak).

Secondly, such an action would be contrary to God's character. The Spirit of Prophecy was careful to clarify God's character viz a viz the plant kingdom. I can't imagine God was act differently in the animal kingdom than in the plant kingdom.

My previous post was on God modifying an animal of the animal kingtdom.

The following two verses deal with a change in the plant kingdom:

quote:

---

Gen 3:17 And to Adam He said, Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree, of which I commanded you, saying, You shall not eat of it! The ground is cursed for your sake. In pain shall you eat of it all the days of your life.

Gen 3:18 It shall also bring forth thorns and thistles to you, and you shall eat the herb of the field.

---

God said that thistles and thorns would spring up out of the ground, therefore, didn't God do that Himself?

Then I guess we could say that the devil cooperates with God when it is in his best interest to do so.

So the thought here is that Satan and sinful man caused all the negative changes? What do you call a negative change? Lets take canines, were there canines before the fall? Were they changed through amalgamation into carnivores? Or is it not possible that God realized that in this sinful world that certain animals would need something to hold their population in check therefore He changed the canine plant eater into the wolf that we know today? As far as the different breeds of dogs we can document, to some extent, that man bred them from wild dogs, wolves, coyotes etc to what we know today but that did not change them into a different specie. They still have the traits of a wild canine to some degree, they are carnivores, (or Purina-vores), they have the pack mentality, they mark their territory etc. Because something kills something else does not make the act evil, otherwise we would all be evil, as would God.

Just asking questions, for which I have no answers.

Redfog

Intellectual honesty must be the hallmark of the child of God. It is impossible for animals and humans to have any sort of amalgamation It does not matter who said it. God created his world the way He wanted it to operate. It does not matter that David decided that the earth is fixed this is not the way it was made. The earth has never been fixed so David was in error on that point. Every plant on earth was created by God. Poppies have always had the stuff of heroin in them. The coca plant has always had the stuff of cocaine. When will we stop attributing to the devil the power of creation?

Quoted earlier

quote:

---

3 SG 75
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. {3SG 75.2}

---

This is something one would have expected to read in the writings of race scientists from the 20-30ies, the kind of statements that led to the nazis deliberate effort to purge europe of these "lesser races of men". If you doubt this, ask yourself the question, which "race" of man is less a man than you are?

Secoundly, who is to say which traits in nature around us are to be called evil? Is a peanut evil when killing a person? Is a nettle evil when giving you an itch for touching it? Is your house cat evil when it eats a mouse? Is the mouse evil when it eats the cheese you left on the kitchen table over the night? Is a mold evil when affecting your bread? Remember that without any molds anything that died in the forest would just remain where it fell till someone removed or ate it or a forest fire consumed it. Doesnt the concept of evil require intent? If what you are saying requires a presin world where nothing from the least bacteria to humans died, you are not talking about any minor or simple changes in nature, you are talking about a recreation or possibly about unleached darwinian evolution.
Its just not a minor thing that last years gras must die for this springs flowers to have room to set seeds and grow up.

/Thomas

We are treading on some of the most controversial passages, ( Amalgamation of man and beast) in the writings of Mrs. White. Here is a link to the explanation as presented by the White Estate: http://www.whiteestate.org/issues/faq-unus.html#unusual-section-c1

Redfog

God brought one pair of each of the original unclean animals and seven pairs of each of the original clean onto the ark. The “confused species” that He did not create were destroyed. Given the size of the ark it makes sense to me that there were not very many original species of animals.

Also, Adam named all of the original species in a portion of one day before Eve was created. Again, given the time allowed to name them it makes sense to me that there were not very many original species of animals. There wasn't enough time to name more than a few animals in the time Adam was allowed to name them.

The “almost endless varieties of species” that now exist are the result of amalgamation and/or years and years of cross breeding either naturally or manmade. They were not part of the far smaller number of species that God originally created and then preserved in the ark.

Death was never part of God's plan, thus, none of the animals He created were especially equipped to kill other animals or to tear their flesh or to digest flesh for food. All animals, including "carnivores", could survive on a vegetarian diet, flesh is not necessasry. This is true today, and was even more true just after the Fall of man (before the Flood). The "curse" did not immediately change the world, it took time to change, and did not really happen until after the Flood.

When God cursed the serpent, when He changed it to crawl on its belly, instead of fly through the air, He was making a point. He wasn't being mean or cruel to serpents. It, like the rainbow, was to be a perpetual sign that sin is devastating. The role of serpents, cursed to crawl on their bellies, is a privilege. They remind us to abide in Jesus.

3SG 75
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. {3SG 75.2}

BTW, this quote is not implying that Sister White was a “racist”. She did not mean to imply that blacks or dark skinned people are the result of apes and men amalgamating. To conclude such a thing based on this quote is absurd. Please read the link Redfog posted.