| Author | Message | ||
| Cindy |
Denise, Hi! :-)) This morning, even as I quickly wrote that, I was thinking that it might be interpreted that way. I mentioned them all because they were always presented that way, an easy way to remember these "testing truths"; all those "S" words... And, yes, I believe in the Second Coming of Jesus! I think it will be a literal, every-eye-shall-see-Him glorious event! I LONG for Him to come again even though I try to remember that the Kingdom of Heaven and eternity have begun for me now!! In fact, I also believe in "the sanctuary", "the spirit of prophecy", "the state of the dead", and "the sabbath"!!! :-)) Just not the way in the way the Adventist church interprets these! :-)) Grace always, Cindy | ||
| Billtwisse |
Dear Cindy: Right on! I agree 100% with everything that you have said. Many of us were gospel belivers while still in Adventism. Many others still within that system (as well as other deviant sects) are gospel believers. They just haven't seen the full implications of gospel truth as it applies to the whole counsel of God. The 'veil' still remains over their eyes, just as you described. Dear Denise: I want to express sincere thanks for your support in a recent post. The Lord has worked through you in a truly miraculous way! Your present dedication to Christ and the gospel is the Holy Spirit quickening your self that has been finally surrendered to God. You shared many details of your former life in a private conversation that we had: I can only praise God that he saves and takes care of all of his own. You were in his mind and plan from all eternity! During all of the terrible experiences that you have been through, you were as insulated from the devil's power to destroy as are the holy angels surrounding God's throne. Dear Valerie: I have taken your criticisms seriously. I have determined to study my posts more carefully from now on before making them public--to weed out difficult expressions and unfair generalizations. The style of my writing, however, is a manifestation of my unique self and the gifts--however different and unusual--that God has given to me. I cannot change my core passion and vision. I was not responding to you personally in some of my recent but inadequate attempts at sick humor. After reading your subsequent comments; I understand why you felt implicated, though, and for that I am truly sorry. I have often backed-off from a statement I have made in board discussions, when a contributor pointed out the clear errors in what I was proposing. It has happened on this F.A.F. forum a number of times. Are there Biblical references that suggest that we are not born with the ability to reason right from wrong? How do we then reason these references to seeing that many non-Christian people every day make choices based on what they believe is right or wrong? There are really no biblical references suggesting that this is true. I believe that non-Christians reason right from wrong as it relates to natural law. Conscience as related to natural law is affirmed in scripture (Rom. 2:14,15). What I oppose is the notion that all mankind is given a natural ability to believe the gospel. The gospel is above law (whether natural, revealed, or any other kind)--and is something that man in his fallen state could never dream of nor believe. It can be known only by special revelation and illumination by the Holy Spirit. When Paul says in the above passage that some will 'perhaps' be excused by their conscience on judgment day--in relation to natural law, he certainly does not refer to all persons. The fact that some persons 'have a conscience' may be the preliminary work of the Holy Spirit; who will ultimately lead them to salvation in God's appointed time. --Twisse | ||
| Valm |
Bill, Thank you for both the apology and clarification. With regards to online communication, it is inept in the fact that body language is not in existence as well as tone and inflection of the voice. One can only read the printing for what it says. I too am sorry if I am too stern with your style. I carry alot of emotional reactivity to certain tones or "voices" in writing. On this natural ability, today I found myself reading my NIV and Message Bible at the traffic lights and at lunch ect. ( I am a visiting nurse and spend ALOT of time in the car, put on 140 miles today) And I was re reading the first four chapters of Romans and ran across Roman 2:14, 15 and said AHA! I don't like my AHA reactions as I hope to not find proof of my intuitive beliefs but would like to just read the story. However, when I read further into Romans 3: 9-18 it almost contradicts what is written in Romans 2. I have to sit on that for a while. Right now it seems that we all have a degree of moral reasoning and conscience, but just can't live up to the standards we know to be true. Now with regards to your statement:What I oppose is the notion that all mankind is given a natural ability to believe the gospel. The gospel is above law (whether natural, revealed, or any other kind)--and is something that man in his fallen state could never dream of nor believe. It can be known only by special revelation and illumination by the Holy Spirit. I do not know what I think or believe about that. I agree on some level that we are not born with this knowledge, however, I am concerned about thinking that some are given this revelation and some or not. The only way I could accept that some are given and some or not is if this also means that for those who are not given this revelation they will still be welcomed into the kingdom of heaven. Otherwise this concept would hint that some are predestined for heaven and some are not, and that is not consistent (in my mind) with an all loving God. So my next question, is there Biblical reference to the point you have made: being that the Gospel is only brought to man's conscience through special revelation. And is this congruent with the assumption (mine)that all people have equal opportunity for salvation? Please know that I am really interested. This is not a matter of Biblical sparring. Valerie | ||
| Denisegilmore |
Dear Cindy, A sigh of relief came to me upon reading your response! For a minute I was really worried about you but now I understand why you listed those "pillars" as such. Thank you. I too, look forward and long for that Glorious Day when He shall appear to us and this mortality will put on immortality! As per the usual with me, I'm always reflecting and imagining on how that day will be, but I know that there is no way our human minds can even begin to imagine it to be. Praise the Lord, He is our Comfort, our Rock, our Redeemer and our Hope! God's Blessings to you always, your sister in Jesus Christ, our Salvation! DtB | ||
| Denisegilmore |
Dear Bill, Thank you for your kind words. Also know too that I look forward to another conversation soon with you. That was refreshing for me. I'm pasting just part of a sentence in your post to me because I know it to be so TRUE and because of this knowing, I look back and see where the Lord was always there and sometimes I just didn't acknowledge it or would attribute it to coincidence. Here is part of your sentence: >>you were as insulated from the devil's power to destroy as are the holy angels surrounding God's throne<< When looking back upon my life, I can now see so very clearly how powerful the Lord was protecting me, even when I didn't acknowledge this fact. Although there were times that it could only have been God Himself that kept me from death and I did infact KNOW this inside. This too, is documented in two separate hospitals. They can only acknowlege the fact of me being alive to God. I might add to that, this doctor who was an athiest came to believe because of one incidence of me living when it was sure I was to die. He even came to my abode at that time (two weeks later), to ask me "my secret." He was as serious as serious could be and me having not even the knowledge that I was dying in a hospital just two weeks prior to that. I could only simply point upwards and say "God." That was my answer to him. The story came back to me, because I was or used to be in the medical field and knew many doctors, that he had turned into a believer of Christ Jesus. Isn't that just amazing! Especially since I had no idea that all this happened. But as I've said, it is documented in the hospital as a "miracle." Infact, God kept me alive on many occasions, even after one event wherein I was clinically dead. Documented too. God was always there for me and the fact of that today (meaning that past couple of years), is what keeps me trusting Him. He is Faithful. Yet, I was not always nor am I now always faithful to Him. To this I must admit. Because of His great love, I have considered writing a book and not only considered writing this book but by accidental coinsidences (not accidents I'm sure), I've had 6 people and just this week a 7th person, tell me that I should write a book. What say ye in matters like this? I'm not the one who deserves the credit but God Almighty performed in my life, miracles (dunamis). Blessings on your head Bill, from our Lord and Savior, our Sure Salvation, Jesus Christ our God. DtB | ||
| Billtwisse |
Dear Denise: Many blessings on your head also! Those that come only from our gracious God and perfect Saviour: the Lord Jesus Christ. As far as the book is concerned, go for it! Tell the world the miracles that the Lord has performed in your soul and body. Use the effort as an opportunity to magnify Jesus Christ and the gospel of grace. It doesn't matter how long it takes to achieve it. By the power of God working in and through us, all of we Christians can accomplish more in our lives than we think we can. The flesh would tell us that our spirits cannot soar high and do great things for God. But it is only echoing the devil's lies and discouragement. I would add that my advice is coming from someone who truly abhors false and unfounded optimism. Believe me, none of us are always faithful to God! Now or ever--until we enter glory. I look forward to talking with you again as my schedule permits. Over the next few months, I should be able to make it over to Redlands a number of times. Dear Valerie: I'm thankful to God that we are able to dialog again without some of the hindrances that were there before. I will respond to your questions as soon as possible. I have to sign off for now. In the gospel, --Twisse | ||
| Andrew_adams |
Friends, can I ask a new question? This is not taught by the church but it is in the BOOKS OF THE PROPHET. What does the word AMALGAMATION mean in the 1800's? I know what it means today, I want to know what people in the 1800's say about this word. Today the church will not deal with this comment that EGW made. All they will say is that she was not talking about men with beast, they say she was talking about God's people with the fallen race. What they will not talk about is the fact that EGW says that; Spiritual Gifts. Volume 3, page 64, paragraph 1 Chapter Title: Crime before 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. My next question is, how do animals deface the image of God? Well there is more but I will wait for some answers. AA | ||
| Denisegilmore |
Hello Andrew, Ellen White did teach almagamation and in my opinion of what that word means, it meant humans mating with animals. Infact, I will try to find where Uriah Smith came in and infact named the species that came from this so called amalgamation. If I remember it correctly, it was of some sort of negro tribe and idians but let me look it up in my files and be sure of this. If anyone out there has this information, please, for the sake of the truth to the meaning of almagamation, according to egw, post it. So, be sure to not take my word on this at this time until I can find that data for you. God Bless you Andrew, DtB, your sister in Christ Jesus | ||
| Denisegilmore |
Okay, here you go: From the website of truth or fables: >>E. G. White has written two statements on amalgamation that has caused much embarrassment through the years in the Seventh-day Adventist Church because they are not Biblical or biologically true. Several Adventist apologists have written books and articles in a vain attempt to explain Ellen's nonsense. "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, Vol. 3, p. 64, 1864. "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 endless varieties of species of animals and certain races of men."- Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p.75, 1864. Ellen G. White is saying in first quote: 1. Amalgamation was the sin above all other sins that caused the flood and the destruction of the race. 2. The amalgamation of man and beast defaced the image of God and caused confusion everywhere. In the second quote Ellen is saying: 1. Every species that God created were preserved in the ark. 2. The confused species that were the result of amalgamation were not allowed on the ark and were destroyed by the flood. 3. Since the flood there have been amalgamation of man and beast and may be seen today in species of animals and certain races of men. We are asked to believe that there are part human and part beast creatures about us today as there was before the flood. Why was this "precious light from the throne" left out of E. G. White's later published books such as Patriarchs and Prophets? Her son, Willie C. White gives us the answer: "Regarding the two paragraphs which are to be found in Spiritual Gifts and also in the Spirit of Prophecy regarding amalgamation and the reason 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. In all questions of this kind, you may set it down as a certainty that Sister White was responsible for leaving out or adding to matters of this sort in the later editions of our books."-Selected Messages, Book 3, p. 452. Does a prophet have a right to add and delete God's "precious rays of light from the throne? Uriah Smith Comes to Ellen's Defense in 1868 Ellen's first amalgamation statement was published in 1864; it created such questions as to whether the Negro race was human. Four years later in 1868 Uriah Smith wrote to defend Ellen's visions covering fifty-two objections in his book "The Visions Of Mrs. E. G. White. OBJECTION 39. - THE NEGRO RACE NOT HUMAN. "The visions teach, says the objector, that the negro race is not human. We deny it. They do not so teach. Mark the language: " 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." This view was given for the purpose of illustrating the deep corruption and crime into which the race fell, even within a few years after the flood that signal manifestation of God's wrath against human wickedness. There was amalgamation; and the effect is still visible in certain races of men." Mark, those excepting the animals upon whom the effects of this work are visible, are called by the vision, "men." Now we have ever supposed that anybody that was called a man, was considered a human being. The vision speaks of all these classes as races of men; yet in the face of this plain declaration, they foolishly assert that the visions teach that some men are not human beings! But does any one deny the general statement contained in the extract given above? They do not. If they did, they could easily be silenced by a reference to such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country, &c. Moreover, naturalists affirm that the line of demarkation between the human and animal races is lost in confusion. It is impossible, as they affirm, to tell just where the human ends and the animal begins. Can we suppose that this was so ordained of God in the beginning? Rather has not sin marred the boundaries of these two kingdoms? But, says the objector, Paul says that " God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth," and then they add, " Which shall we believe, Paul or E. G. White ?" You need not disbelieve E. G. White, in order to believe Paul; for there is no contradiction between them. Paul's language will apply to all classes of men who have any of the original Adamic blood in their veins; and that there are any who have not this, is not taught by the visions, nor claimed by any one. But for this text to weigh anything in favor of the objector, he must take the ground that God made every particle of blood that exists, in any human being. Is this so? Then God made all the scrofulous, leprous, or syphilitic blood that courses in the worst transgressor's veins! From any view which leads, to such a blasphemous conclusion, we prefer to be excused. But what has the ancient sin of amalgamation to do with any race or people at the present time? Are they in any way responsible, or to be held accountable for it ? Not at all. Has any one a right to try to use it to their prejudice? By no means. The fact is mentioned simply to show how soon men relapsed into wickedness, and to what a degree. But we are to take all races and peoples as we find them. And those who manifest sufficient powers of mind to show that they are moral and accountable beings, are of course to be esteemed as objects of regard and philanthropic effort. We are bound to labor, so far as in our power, for the improvement of their mental, moral and physical condition. Whatever race of men we may take, Bushmen, Hottentots, Patagonians, or any class of people, however low they may apparently be in the scale of humanity, their mental capabilities are in every instance the basis on which we are to work, and by which we determine whether they are subjects of moral government or not. Then what about all this ado over the charge, which is itself false, that the visions teach that the negro is not a human being? What does it amount to? It is simply an effort to create prejudice in the minds of the people, unworthy any one who makes any pretensions to being a Christian, or even a gentleman."-Uriah Smith, THE VISIONS OF MRS. E. G. WHITE, A MANIFESTATION Of SPIRITUAL GIFTS ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES, pp.102-105, 1868. Uriah Smith's Argument There was offspring living in Ellen and Smith's day that was the result of amalgamation. 2. Some of "the confused species" that Ellen failed to name Smith jumped right in and named them. He named the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of Hottentots also from Africa, Digger Indians from America and Patagonians from South America. 3. Smith believed as did the evolutionist that, "Moreover, naturalists affirm that the line of demarkation between human and animal races is lost in confusion." It is impossible as they affirm, to tell, just where the human ends and the animal begin. Can we suppose that this was so ordained of God in the beginning? Smith did not know that human blood and animal blood do not merge into one blood. 4. That these black people should be treated as human because they had human blood in them from Adam. 5. These people were of low mentality because of the sin of amalgamation and thy are not responsible for that sin. Keep in mind that Ellen approved of Smith's defense. If we use Smith's argument that the confused species that were the result of amalgamation were Negro or Black people, then we are faced with another problem. Moses married or amalgamated with an Ethiopian woman. (KJV). -"Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite."-Num 12:1 (NIV). Would God have choose Moses to lead Israel if he had committed the greatest sin known to man and the one sin that called for the destruction of the race by the flood and his offspring were defacing the image of God? James and Ellen Sells Smith's Book. James White read Smith's book and warmly recommended it in the August 25, 1868, Review and Herald: "The Association has just published a pamphlet entitled, "The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White, A Manifestation of Spiritual gifts According to the Scripture." It is written by the editor of the Review. While reading the manuscript, I felt very grateful to God that our people could have this able defense of those views they so much love and prize which others despise and oppose. This book is designed for very wide circulation. James White. - Spectrum, June 12, 1982, p.14. "James and Ellen White took 2,000 copies of Smith's book with them to campmeetings that year."- Spectrum, June 12, 1982, p.14. If Uriah Smith was in error in explaining Ellen's vision why did Ellen not correct him. She had 47 years to correct him before she died in 1915. "And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so."- Gen 1:24 (NIV) "All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another." -1 Cor 15:39 (NIV) The Bible says that animals would reproduce after their kind. Where is the evidence that a sexual union of man and beast (bestiality) could produce offspring? Science has never produced such evidence. The flesh of man and animals are different as well as their blood. Certainly if such creatures were alive as claimed by White and Smith this would be easily to prove and they could be vindicated. If this human/beast creature could be found then the evolutionists would claim their theory of evolution, as being correct for the missing link would be found. Ellen G. White and U. Smith have sided with the evolutionist. Ellen could only see this man/beast creature in her supposed vision and Smith could only see it wearing Ellen's glasses and the evolutionist wish they see it in fossils. There should be many bones from the living and the dead creature/animals for them to verify if this were true. Francis D. Nichol: In 1951, sixty-seven years after Ellen wrote her first amalgamation statement Nichol wrote a 703 page book defending Ellen G. White, titled "Ellen G. White And Her Critics." Nichol claimed what Ellen meant was the amalgamation of man with man is what defaced the image of God. Not man with beast. The descendants of Cain mating with the descendants of Seth that caused the defacing of God's image. p.309. Nichol goes on to tell us that it was Satan that caused the change in the animals to sin. -"Ellen G. White And Her Critics," p. 319. How can the descendents of Cain and the descendents of Seth deface the image of God by marring and having offspring? Both groups were created in the image of God and both groups were sinners the same as people living today. How can animals mating outside of their species produce offspring? Some animals mate within their species and produce sterile offspring such as a horse and a donkey producing a sterile mule. How can this deface the image of God when animals are not created in God's image? Can animals sin and be guilty of the base crime of amalgamation? This is what the Adventists apologists would have us to believe from their animal to animal theory of amalgamation. In any case there is a lot of donkey mentality going on defending Ellen's false visions as attempting to change her words to get her to say what she did not believe. Uriah Smith certainly knew better what Ellen meant than later apologists. George McCready Price: Wrote in the April 1931 issue of The Ministry, that he would like to make a slight alteration in Ellen G. White's statements. "Since the flood there has been an amalgamation of man and (of) beast, as may be seen in almost endless varieties of species of animal, and in certain races of men." "The Problem of Hybridization" The Ministry April 1931, p. 13. D. E. Robinson for many years Ellen G. White's personal secretary took issue with Price: In a paper titled "Amalgamation Versus Evolution" said that Price's insertion of the word "of" into Ellen White's statements did violence to the "obvious meaning " that the author herself intended." Spectrum June 12, 1982, p.14. Dr. Harold Clark a biologist tells the truth: "Clark called attention to his work with Ellen White's son, W. C. White and D. E. Robinson, her secretary. Neither of these men ever doubted that Ellen White meant the crossing of man and beast by the phrase "amalgamation of man and beast." Spectrum June 12, 1982, p.11. Geoscience Research Institute I am inclosing a letter from Clyde Webster Jr. Ph. D. Senior Research Scientist at Loma Linda to Rex DeGoyler now deceased dated April 15, 1991. You will see from Mr. Webster's letter that he believes in amalgamation as taught by Mrs. White and ignores science and the Bible to prop up his prophet. Geoscience Research Institute Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California 923SO Affiliated with: Loma Linda University and Andrews University April 15, 1991 Mr. Rex DeGolyer 19 Sunshine Lane Avon Park, FL 33825 Dear Mr. DeGolyer: I am sorry that you were not at the afternoon meetings where this topic was discussed in some detail. Concerning the amalgamation of man with beast I believe this was how the Image of God was confused, and as Sr. White points out, was the ultimate cause of the flood. It would have been impossible to ascertain whether this living form was man or beast thereby confusing the Image of God in which man was originally created. I personally believe that the evidence seen today for such amalgamation is what science calls the "ape-man". such species as the austrailio Pithicus, a. Africanus, a. Robustus, and others would fit into this category. Neanderthal man on the other hand would not be classified as an ape-man, but rather a degenerate homo Sapiens sapiens. Not being sure of what you were seeking for as an answer, I trust that these few comments have met your needs. Sincerely, Clyde L. Webster Jr., Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist cc: Pastor Emil Moldrik TOP OF PAGE SUBJECTS HOME Copyright © 1998 Robert K. Sanders E. G. White has written two statements on amalgamation that has caused much embarrassment through the years in the Seventh-day Adventist Church because they are not Biblical or biologically true. Several Adventist apologists have written books and articles in a vain attempt to explain Ellen's nonsense. "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, Vol. 3, p. 64, 1864. "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 endless varieties of species of animals and certain races of men."- Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p.75, 1864. Ellen G. White is saying in first quote: 1. Amalgamation was the sin above all other sins that caused the flood and the destruction of the race. 2. The amalgamation of man and beast defaced the image of God and caused confusion everywhere. In the second quote Ellen is saying: 1. Every species that God created were preserved in the ark. 2. The confused species that were the result of amalgamation were not allowed on the ark and were destroyed by the flood. 3. Since the flood there have been amalgamation of man and beast and may be seen today in species of animals and certain races of men. We are asked to believe that there are part human and part beast creatures about us today as there was before the flood. Why was this "precious light from the throne" left out of E. G. White's later published books such as Patriarchs and Prophets? Her son, Willie C. White gives us the answer: "Regarding the two paragraphs which are to be found in Spiritual Gifts and also in the Spirit of Prophecy regarding amalgamation and the reason 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. In all questions of this kind, you may set it down as a certainty that Sister White was responsible for leaving out or adding to matters of this sort in the later editions of our books."-Selected Messages, Book 3, p. 452. Does a prophet have a right to add and delete God's "precious rays of light from the throne? Uriah Smith Comes to Ellen's Defense in 1868 Ellen's first amalgamation statement was published in 1864; it created such questions as to whether the Negro race was human. Four years later in 1868 Uriah Smith wrote to defend Ellen's visions covering fifty-two objections in his book "The Visions Of Mrs. E. G. White. OBJECTION 39. - THE NEGRO RACE NOT HUMAN. "The visions teach, says the objector, that the negro race is not human. We deny it. They do not so teach. Mark the language: " 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." This view was given for the purpose of illustrating the deep corruption and crime into which the race fell, even within a few years after the flood that signal manifestation of God's wrath against human wickedness. There was amalgamation; and the effect is still visible in certain races of men." Mark, those excepting the animals upon whom the effects of this work are visible, are called by the vision, "men." Now we have ever supposed that anybody that was called a man, was considered a human being. The vision speaks of all these classes as races of men; yet in the face of this plain declaration, they foolishly assert that the visions teach that some men are not human beings! But does any one deny the general statement contained in the extract given above? They do not. If they did, they could easily be silenced by a reference to such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country, &c. Moreover, naturalists affirm that the line of demarkation between the human and animal races is lost in confusion. It is impossible, as they affirm, to tell just where the human ends and the animal begins. Can we suppose that this was so ordained of God in the beginning? Rather has not sin marred the boundaries of these two kingdoms? But, says the objector, Paul says that " God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth," and then they add, " Which shall we believe, Paul or E. G. White ?" You need not disbelieve E. G. White, in order to believe Paul; for there is no contradiction between them. Paul's language will apply to all classes of men who have any of the original Adamic blood in their veins; and that there are any who have not this, is not taught by the visions, nor claimed by any one. But for this text to weigh anything in favor of the objector, he must take the ground that God made every particle of blood that exists, in any human being. Is this so? Then God made all the scrofulous, leprous, or syphilitic blood that courses in the worst transgressor's veins! From any view which leads, to such a blasphemous conclusion, we prefer to be excused. But what has the ancient sin of amalgamation to do with any race or people at the present time? Are they in any way responsible, or to be held accountable for it ? Not at all. Has any one a right to try to use it to their prejudice? By no means. The fact is mentioned simply to show how soon men relapsed into wickedness, and to what a degree. But we are to take all races and peoples as we find them. And those who manifest sufficient powers of mind to show that they are moral and accountable beings, are of course to be esteemed as objects of regard and philanthropic effort. We are bound to labor, so far as in our power, for the improvement of their mental, moral and physical condition. Whatever race of men we may take, Bushmen, Hottentots, Patagonians, or any class of people, however low they may apparently be in the scale of humanity, their mental capabilities are in every instance the basis on which we are to work, and by which we determine whether they are subjects of moral government or not. Then what about all this ado over the charge, which is itself false, that the visions teach that the negro is not a human being? What does it amount to? It is simply an effort to create prejudice in the minds of the people, unworthy any one who makes any pretensions to being a Christian, or even a gentleman."-Uriah Smith, THE VISIONS OF MRS. E. G. WHITE, A MANIFESTATION Of SPIRITUAL GIFTS ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES, pp.102-105, 1868. Uriah Smith's Argument There was offspring living in Ellen and Smith's day that was the result of amalgamation. 2. Some of "the confused species" that Ellen failed to name Smith jumped right in and named them. He named the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of Hottentots also from Africa, Digger Indians from America and Patagonians from South America. 3. Smith believed as did the evolutionist that, "Moreover, naturalists affirm that the line of demarkation between human and animal races is lost in confusion." It is impossible as they affirm, to tell, just where the human ends and the animal begin. Can we suppose that this was so ordained of God in the beginning? Smith did not know that human blood and animal blood do not merge into one blood. 4. That these black people should be treated as human because they had human blood in them from Adam. 5. These people were of low mentality because of the sin of amalgamation and thy are not responsible for that sin. Keep in mind that Ellen approved of Smith's defense. If we use Smith's argument that the confused species that were the result of amalgamation were Negro or Black people, then we are faced with another problem. Moses married or amalgamated with an Ethiopian woman. (KJV). -"Miriam and Aaron began to talk against Moses because of his Cushite wife, for he had married a Cushite."-Num 12:1 (NIV). Would God have choose Moses to lead Israel if he had committed the greatest sin known to man and the one sin that called for the destruction of the race by the flood and his offspring were defacing the image of God? James and Ellen Sells Smith's Book. James White read Smith's book and warmly recommended it in the August 25, 1868, Review and Herald: "The Association has just published a pamphlet entitled, "The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White, A Manifestation of Spiritual gifts According to the Scripture." It is written by the editor of the Review. While reading the manuscript, I felt very grateful to God that our people could have this able defense of those views they so much love and prize which others despise and oppose. This book is designed for very wide circulation. James White. - Spectrum, June 12, 1982, p.14. "James and Ellen White took 2,000 copies of Smith's book with them to campmeetings that year."- Spectrum, June 12, 1982, p.14. If Uriah Smith was in error in explaining Ellen's vision why did Ellen not correct him. She had 47 years to correct him before she died in 1915. "And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so."- Gen 1:24 (NIV) "All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another." -1 Cor 15:39 (NIV) The Bible says that animals would reproduce after their kind. Where is the evidence that a sexual union of man and beast (bestiality) could produce offspring? Science has never produced such evidence. The flesh of man and animals are different as well as their blood. Certainly if such creatures were alive as claimed by White and Smith this would be easily to prove and they could be vindicated. If this human/beast creature could be found then the evolutionists would claim their theory of evolution, as being correct for the missing link would be found. Ellen G. White and U. Smith have sided with the evolutionist. Ellen could only see this man/beast creature in her supposed vision and Smith could only see it wearing Ellen's glasses and the evolutionist wish they see it in fossils. There should be many bones from the living and the dead creature/animals for them to verify if this were true. Francis D. Nichol: In 1951, sixty-seven years after Ellen wrote her first amalgamation statement Nichol wrote a 703 page book defending Ellen G. White, titled "Ellen G. White And Her Critics." Nichol claimed what Ellen meant was the amalgamation of man with man is what defaced the image of God. Not man with beast. The descendants of Cain mating with the descendants of Seth that caused the defacing of God's image. p.309. Nichol goes on to tell us that it was Satan that caused the change in the animals to sin. -"Ellen G. White And Her Critics," p. 319. How can the descendents of Cain and the descendents of Seth deface the image of God by marring and having offspring? Both groups were created in the image of God and both groups were sinners the same as people living today. How can animals mating outside of their species produce offspring? Some animals mate within their species and produce sterile offspring such as a horse and a donkey producing a sterile mule. How can this deface the image of God when animals are not created in God's image? Can animals sin and be guilty of the base crime of amalgamation? This is what the Adventists apologists would have us to believe from their animal to animal theory of amalgamation. In any case there is a lot of donkey mentality going on defending Ellen's false visions as attempting to change her words to get her to say what she did not believe. Uriah Smith certainly knew better what Ellen meant than later apologists. George McCready Price: Wrote in the April 1931 issue of The Ministry, that he would like to make a slight alteration in Ellen G. White's statements. "Since the flood there has been an amalgamation of man and (of) beast, as may be seen in almost endless varieties of species of animal, and in certain races of men." "The Problem of Hybridization" The Ministry April 1931, p. 13. D. E. Robinson for many years Ellen G. White's personal secretary took issue with Price: In a paper titled "Amalgamation Versus Evolution" said that Price's insertion of the word "of" into Ellen White's statements did violence to the "obvious meaning " that the author herself intended." Spectrum June 12, 1982, p.14. Dr. Harold Clark a biologist tells the truth: "Clark called attention to his work with Ellen White's son, W. C. White and D. E. Robinson, her secretary. Neither of these men ever doubted that Ellen White meant the crossing of man and beast by the phrase "amalgamation of man and beast." Spectrum June 12, 1982, p.11. Geoscience Research Institute I am inclosing a letter from Clyde Webster Jr. Ph. D. Senior Research Scientist at Loma Linda to Rex DeGoyler now deceased dated April 15, 1991. You will see from Mr. Webster's letter that he believes in amalgamation as taught by Mrs. White and ignores science and the Bible to prop up his prophet. Geoscience Research Institute Loma Linda University, Loma Linda, California 923SO Affiliated with: Loma Linda University and Andrews University April 15, 1991 Mr. Rex DeGolyer 19 Sunshine Lane Avon Park, FL 33825 Dear Mr. DeGolyer: I am sorry that you were not at the afternoon meetings where this topic was discussed in some detail. Concerning the amalgamation of man with beast I believe this was how the Image of God was confused, and as Sr. White points out, was the ultimate cause of the flood. It would have been impossible to ascertain whether this living form was man or beast thereby confusing the Image of God in which man was originally created. I personally believe that the evidence seen today for such amalgamation is what science calls the "ape-man". such species as the austrailio Pithicus, a. Africanus, a. Robustus, and others would fit into this category. Neanderthal man on the other hand would not be classified as an ape-man, but rather a degenerate homo Sapiens sapiens. Not being sure of what you were seeking for as an answer, I trust that these few comments have met your needs. Sincerely, Clyde L. Webster Jr., Ph.D. Senior Research Scientist cc: Pastor Emil Moldrik TOP OF PAGE SUBJECTS HOME Copyright © 1998 Robert K. Sanders<< God Bless all, DtB | ||
| Denisegilmore |
Sorry about it posting twice in the same post! whoops. :) Grace and Peace in our Lord Jesus, DtB | ||
| Denisegilmore |
another on amalgamation: From the Ellen G. White Website:: >>Amalgamation A Denominational Embarrassment Esta pagina in EspaÒol -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Many Adventists agree that these statements are the most shocking ever penned by Ellen White: 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, Vol. 3, p. 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, Vol. 3, p. 75 A Summary of Mrs. White's main points about Amalgamation It was "a sin" serious enough to require "the destruction" of the human race. It was a vile, "base crime". This vile sin "defaced the image of God." It occurred both before and after "the flood." Its effects can be seen "in certain races of men." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Analysis What was she talking about? There is no doubt that Ellen White understood her own statements to be describing the sexual union between man and beast. This was a myth that apparently circulated among the uneducated in the 19th century. The myth has no scientific basis. Science has long ago proven that it is impossible for humans and animals to produce offspring. This leads to the question: If she did not receive the amalgamation statement from God, where did she get it? One likely source is the book of Jasher. Many of Mrs. White's statements about the pre-flood era appear astonishingly similar to statements in the book of Jasher, a fictional account of earth's early history published in 1840. In that book we find that the pre-flood humans... ...taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other...(Jasher 4:18) Which race is a product of amalgamation? Mrs. White said the results of amalgamation could be seen "in certain races of men." We have been waiting 140 years for Adventist officials to tell us which human race is the result of amalgamation of man and beast. Stinging criticism of Ellen White in the 1860's forced church leaders to attempt to defend their prophet. In 1868, four years after the amalgamation statements first appeared in print, Adventist leader Uriah Smith (who at that time still professed belief in Ellen White as a prophet) published his defense of Ellen White. In that book he conjectured that the union of man with beast had created races such as the "wild Bushmen of Africa". (See The Visions of Mrs. E.G. White, p. 103. By the way, you will not find this book in any SDA bookstores today!) Smith's views reflect the popular notion of the day that crosses between men and animals created a nebulous zone of half-man, half-beasts, including such creatures as gorillas, chimpanzees, wild bushmen of Africa, and Hottentots. James White "carefully" reviewed Smith's book prior to its publication, and then recommended it in glowing terms to the readers of the church's official magazine, the Review and Herald: The Association has just published a pamphlet entitled, "The Visions of Mrs. E.G. White, A Manifestation of Spiritual Gifts According to the Scriptures." It is written by the editor of the Review. While carefully reading the manuscript, I felt grateful to God that our people could have this able defense of those views they so much love and prize, which others despise and oppose. (Review, Aug. 15, 1868) Smith did not publish this book without careful review from the prophet's husband, James White. It is inconceivable that the statements about the Bushmen of Africa passed by James White without notice. His endorsement of the book indicates his approval of the explanation. In fact, because it established Mrs. White's claims, James and Ellen took 2,000 copies of Smith's book with them to peddle at camp meetings that year! By promoting and selling Smith's book the Whites placed their stamp of approval on his explanation of the amalgamation statement. While Smith may have limited the amalgamation to the Bushmen, some SDA's have gone further. Sadly, as an SDA for 33 years, I know for a fact that behind closed doors in private conversations some white American SDA's believe this "inspired" statement applies to the entire black race. SDA Scholars take Mental Gymnastics to astounding new heights While the "Bushmen of Africa" explanation was good enough for the Whites and Smith, it eventually fell out of favor with SDA leaders. It became increasingly difficult to explain these statements to an increasingly educated and racially tolerant denomination. Despite the controversy, both the critics and supporters of Ellen White agreed that Mrs. White was talking about the union of man with beast. However, by 1947 an Adventist biologist named Dr. Frank Marsh convinced an SDA panel to interpret Mrs. White's statement to mean the interbreeding among species, not interbreeding between man and beast. Dr. Marsh argued convincingly that the union of man and beast is impossible. Despite the fact that James White, Uriah Smith, W.C. White (her son), and D.D. Robinson (her secretary) all indicate that Mrs. White believed her statement to refer to the interbreeding of man with beasts, the mounting scientific evidence made it impossible for Adventists to continue to defend her statement based upon its intended meaning. Thus, they developed a new meaning for the statement, a meaning which was unknown to Ellen White, and a meaning which is extremely difficult to extract from the text of the amalgamation quotes themselves. One recent Adventist scholar, F.D. Nichols, in his defense of Mrs.White, informs us that the word "amalgamation" was used commonly in the 19th century to refer to intermarriage between the black and white races. He also notes that Ellen White used the word "amalgamation" to refer to the intermarriage between those of different faiths. Nichols argues that Mrs. White's statement was referring to amalgamation between "man and "man", namely, the interbreeding between humans of different races or different religions. Intermarriage between the races? This explanation raises more questions than answers: How could intermarriage between races deface the image of God in man? How could one human (made in the image of God) married to another human (made in the image of God) deface the image of God? If intermarriage between races is a "sin" and a "base crime", then why is it never described as such in the Bible? Many Biblical scholars believe Moses' wife Zipporah was a different race. Were the children of Moses an amalgamated species? If so, why did God offer to make the children of Moses into a great nation? Why didn't God destroy them for committing a base crime? Intermarriage between godly and ungodly? This interpretation seems to contradict the context of the statement. Gordon Shigley writes in Spectrum magazine: It was difficult to read the statements within their context without seeing a series of sins, of which the last sin--the "one sin above another"--was obviously the climax. It was not likely that Ellen White was talking about intermarriage since she already had described that sin in an earlier paragraph. ...it is impossible to make the amalgamation of beast with beast or man with man the one sin greater than idolatry, adultery, polygamy, theft, or murder. (Spectrum, "Amalgamation of Man and Beast: What Did Ellen White Mean?", vol. 12, no. 4, p. 11) Again, this interpretation raises far more questions than it answers: Is intermarriage between the godly and ungodly a "sin" or a "base crime?" Interestingly, Mrs. White describes the intermarriage between the sons of Cain and Seth just four pages eariler on page 60 of Spiritual Gifts! She says the intermarriage "displeased God", but she does not call it a base crime! Neither does the Bible! Samson married a Philistine woman over the objections of his parents and the Bible says: But his father and his mother knew not that it was of the Lord... Judges 14:4 If marrying an ungodly woman was a "base crime" worthy of the destruction of the human race, why would the Bible say that Samson's marriage to a Philistine was "of the Lord?" How could intermarriage between people of different faiths now "be seen" in "certain races of men?" Which races show evidence of intermarriage between believers and unbelievers? White Estate Plays Word Games: What does Amalgamation mean? While the current defenders of Mrs. White at the White Estate cannot seem to provide a definitive explanation as to what Mrs. White was talking about, they assure us on their web site that whatever it was that Mrs. White was talking about, it was not the union between man and beast: No dictionary has ever used "amalgamation" to describe the cohabitation of man with beast. ... Mrs. White never hinted of subhuman beings or any kind of hybrid animal-human relationship. ... The burden of proof rests on those who affirm that Mrs. White gave a new and alien meaning to the term. While dictionaries do not explicitly describe amalgamation as the union of man and beast, they certainly allow for that definition. The word "amalgamation" is widely used in the English language to describe a mixture of two different elements. The word is commonly used to describe: Combining different businesses, groups, organizations. Combinations of music, art or food. Combinations of different technology and equipment. It has even been used by science fiction buffs to describe the offspring of the union between human and alien beings! The use of the word is endless. It is used in thousands of ways to describe the combination of any two elements that are different. The word comes from "amalgam" which has two primary meanings: 1 : an alloy of mercury with another metal that is solid or liquid at room temperature according to the proportion of mercury present and is used especially in making tooth cements 2 : a mixture of different elements (Merriam-Webster Dictionary © 1999 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated) How was the word used in the 1800's? Webster's 1828 dictionary: Amalgamation - The mixing or blending of different things. (Webster's 1828 Dictionary) Webster's 1913 dictionary: A*mal`ga*ma"tion (#), n. [Cf. F. amalgamation.] The mixing or blending of different elements, races, societies, etc.; also, the result of such combination or blending; a homogeneous union. (Webster's 1913 Dictionary) A "new and alien meaning"? The White Estate claims that we are under a "burden" to prove that Mrs. White was talking about the union of man and beast because that specific definition never appears in a dictionary. They write: "The burden of proof rests on those who affirm that Mrs. White gave a new and alien meaning to the term." Is that true? Are we under the burden to prove the word can be used in that manner? Well, let us examine some of Mrs. White's other uses of the word to determine whether or not they appear in the dictionary: Every noxious herb is of his [Satan's] sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares. Selected Messages, Vol. 2, p. 288 ...by union with the world, the character of God's people becomes tarnished, and through amalgamation with the corrupt, the fine gold becomes dim. Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, August 23, 1892 After reading these quotes the following questions should be posed to the White Estate: No dictionary specifically describes Satan mixing evil properties into herbs to produce tares as amalgamation. Therefore, is Mrs. White giving a "new and alien meaning to the word" in Selected Messages, Vol. 2, p. 288? No dictionary specifically describes the union of Christians with the world as a process of amalgamation. Therefore, is Mrs. White giving a "new and alien meaning to the word" in the Aug. 23, 1892, issue of the Review? The truth is that all of Mrs. White's usages of the word amalgamation clearly fit within the dictionary's definition of the word. The word is used in thousands of ways to describe the union of any two things that are different. How could a dictionary possibly list every potential use of the word amalgamation? It would take thousands of pages for just a single word! Just because a particular usage of a word does not appear in the dictionary does not prove that the usage is incorrect! For Mrs. White to use the word to describe the union of man and beast is not "new and alien," nor is it without precedent. In fact, the word is used today by science fiction and UFO followers to describe the union of humans with aliens! "Base Crime" proves White Estate and Nichols wrong Mrs. White describes amalgamation as a base crime. Why? What is a base crime? What does the dictionary say? First, let us look at Webster's 1828 dictionary: Base - Mean; vile; worthless; that is, low in value or estimation; used of things. (Webster's 1828 Dictionary) Webster's 1913 dictionary: Base - Morally low. Hence: Low-minded; unworthy; without dignity of sentiment; ignoble; mean; illiberal; menial; as, a base fellow; base motives; base occupations. A cruel act of a base and a cowardish mind.(Webster's 1913 Dictionary) Here are the synonyms to the word "base" from Webster's 1999 dictionary: Synonyms: BASE, LOW, VILE mean deserving of contempt because of the absence of higher values. BASE stresses the ignoble and may suggest cruelty, treachery, greed, or grossness [base motives]. LOW may connote crafty cunning, vulgarity, or immorality and regularly implies an outraging of one's sense of decency or propriety [refused to listen to such low talk]. VILE, the strongest of these words, tends to suggest disgusting depravity or filth [a vile remark]. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary © 1999 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated) A base crime is an act of vile immorality. Mrs. White uses the phrase base crime only one other time in her writings. She used the phrase to describe Potiphar's wife's vile adulterous attempt upon the youthful Joseph. (Signs of the Times, Jan. 8, 1880) If we are to believe the White Estate and Nichols that the amalgamation was "human with human, and beast with beast," then how could these relationships be described as base crimes? Since when are sexual relations between married human partners base crimes? Doesn't God honor marriage, whether or not both partners are of the same race or religion? How could union between different species of animals be a base crime? Animals have no such moral capacity to commit a base crime! If the union of human with human is not a base crime, and if the union of animal with animal is not a base crime, then what is a base crime? The Bible is very clear that sexual relations between humans and animals is a vile, base crime. It is condemned in the Bible as an abomination (Leviticus 18:23, 20:16) worthy of the death penalty. The fact that Mrs. White describes amalgamation as a base crime is irrefutable evidence she was describing bestiality, not intermarriage between humans with racial or religious differences. Genetic amalgamation? A recent defense of Mrs. White's statement has arisen with the advent of genetic engineering. Some have suggested the ancients performed genetic manipulations in the laboratory. This sounds plausible to those who do not understand the difficulties of genetic engineering. Genetic engineering is a very complex process that science is only now beginning to grasp. It requires the use of super-computers and highly advanced technology. There is no evidence that the people before the flood had this technology--although it is not impossible. But Mrs. White says this amalgamation also happened after the flood! There is absolutely no evidence that the advanced technology needed to accomplish this ever existed in any society after the flood. Is Amalgamation the greatest reason for the flood? If Ellen White is correct, that the "one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race" was amalgamation, why was that sin never mentioned in Genesis? Moses mentions the sins of corruption and violence (Gen. 6:11-13), but never amalgamation. One would think that if amalgamation was the "one sin above another" that caused the flood, Moses would have at least mentioned it! How could such a grievous sin pass by Moses without mention? Why were these "inspired" statements removed when the book was republished as Patriarchs and Prophets? If the amalgamation statements were true, why not leave them in the book? Why remove them? If this sin caused the flood, don't you think people should be warned about it so that they don't repeat it? If the "bushmen of Africa" are the result of union between man and animals, don't people have a right to know about it? Shouldn't we be telling our scientists so that they can begin studying the bushmen? What precedence is there to deleting the writings of a prophet? None of the Biblical prophets had to go back and alter their writings to remove statements. Why should Mrs. White? We are not the first to ask these questions. People have been asking those questions for over 150 years. The removal of parts of her writings created such a controversy that the White Estate decided it was important for them to provide an explanation for the ommissions. Her son W.C. White writes: 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. In all questions of this kind, you may set it down as a certainty that sister White was responsible for leaving out or adding to matters of this sort in the later editions of our books. Sister White not only had good judgment based upon a clear and comprehensive understanding of conditions and of the natural consequences of publishing what she wrote, but she had many times direct instruction from the angel of the Lord regarding what should be omitted and what should be added in new editions. (W.C. White, Selected Messages, Vol. 3, p. 452) There you have it straight from the prophet's son: Did Mrs. White remove the statements because they created a controversy? Did she remove them because they were wrong? Did she remove them because the brethren faced a predicament trying to explain them to new converts? Did she remove them because they made her appear uneducated? No, it appears she removed them because an angel instructed her to do so. That leads us to our final question: Why didn't the angel instruct her to omit the lines before they were published? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © 1998 Into All the World Wide Web<< | ||
| Violet |
As I was finishing White Washed by Syndey Cleveland I ran across the section where it talks about her out of body experiance and when she was in "vision" that she smelled roses and saw a soft silvery light (life sketches pg 310.2). Sydney contributed it to spritualism. So you know me I had to find out for myself. So I went to Women.com web site on the part where the spiritulist hang out. I simply asked if smelling roses was common when communing with spirits. They told me it was, but they were good one and not bad one, probably a dead child or something. You know what that means. No good angel is connected with a dead child if you want to check it out your self go to; http://messages.women.com/messages/MCat16/MBoard44/MSub160//showpost.pl?Board=Sub160&Number=5682&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5 pretty wild huh? I wonder what the old church ladies would say? | ||
| Denisegilmore |
Dear Violet, That is very wild! Wow, thank you for that information and I'm going to have to check out that site too. :) There was alot of the mystical realm, taught not only in the 1800s but to this day. We are warned of such teachings. Hear Paul as he writes to Timothy: "The Spirit clearly says that in latter times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron." Again hear John in 1 John 4:1-3 "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world." Acts 16:16 "Once when we were going to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who had a spirit by which she predicted the future. She earned a great deal of money for her owners by fortune-telling. This girl followed Paul and the rest of us, shouting, "These men are servants of the Most High God, who are telling you the way to be saved." She kept this up for many days. Finally Paul became so troubled that he turned around and said to the spirit, "In the name of Jesus Christ I command you to come out of her! At that moment the spirit left her." Notice in the above account how even those who on the outside are looking like they are Praising and Raising up our Lord, can be evil spirits too. For in their hearts they are not actually believing that Jesus Christ is Lord and the Son of God. This is why, we are told to test the spirits. Because not everyone who TALKS about (instead of believing in the fact that He is Lord and the Son of the Only God) Jesus or God is or has a right spirit. Some of these, can really deceive us and we need to be aware of such things. Deception comes. Remember, that even satan will come as an angel of light to those who are unwilling to test the spirits. We need all to pray and watch. Be not deceived by those who TALK Jesus Christ only but also test their spirits to see of what spirit they really are. Do they from their heart BELIEVE that He is the Son of God, that He is our Lord and that He lived, died and resurrected so that we may have eternal life? Deuteronomy 18:14 "The nations you will dispossess listen to those who practice sorcery or divination. But as for you, the Lord your God has not permitted you to do so." Ezekiel 13:9-12 "My hand will be against the prophets who see false visions and utter lying divinations. They will not belong to the council of my people or be listed in the records of the house of Israel, nor will they enter the land of Israel. Then you will know that I am the Sovereign Lord. Because they lead my people astray, saying, "Peace," when there is no peace, and because, when a flimsy wall is built, they cover it with WHITEWASH, therefore tell those who cover it with WHITEWASH that it is going to fall. Rain will come in torrents, and I will send hailstones hurtling down, and violent winds will burst forth. When the wall collapses, will people not ask you, "Where is the WHITEWASH you covered it with?" God Bless all, DtB, your sister in Christ Jesus P.S. Test ALL spirits! That includes Ellen Gould White. | ||
| Andrew_adams |
Thank you oh so much, this is more than I could ever expect. My conclusion, EGW was way off base. Get it, base crime, off base. Bad joke, even worse bad statement by a so called prophet. May be we should talk about the "FOOD FOR WORMS" statement. We know she was wrong, but I ask; what angel had that information? Thanks again for all your information, it was well worth the time to read it. AA | ||
| Denisegilmore |
Hello Andrew, It's good to ask questions, one never knows just how much of an answer he can get eh? :) That information was retrieved from this website: http://www.ellenwhite.org There is so much that we didn't know and that most, as pew sitters in the SDA Church doesn't know. Unless of course they have access to the internet, are open minded to truth about egw and seek. Believe me that I'm printing all I can. Unfortunately, so many of my adventists friends, do NOT want to know. I keep praying because unless the Holy Spirit works in them, they will never be open to hear TRUTH. Pray for your friends, family or anyone else you know Andrew. Perhaps God, in His Mercy and His timing will remove the veil from over their eyes and unplug their ears. In the meantime, all I can do, besides pray for them, is show them, talk to them and I keep talking to them. Somehow though, this week is one of realizing that one person that I'm currently having weekly Bible studies with, is someone I'm going to have to stop the studies with soon. Still, I will pray for this person though. Prayer is powerful! Remember that Andrew, especially in your times of frustration, anger, saddness and any other negative emotion. Also, remember to thank God for removing the veil over your eyes and Praise His Holy Name! Peace and Grace in our Lord Jesus, DtB, your sister in Christ | ||
| Denisegilmore |
Andrew, you asked...:) From http://www.truthorfables.com >>Food for Worms Vision "If what a prophet proclaims in the name of the LORD does not take place or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. That prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him." Deu 18:22 (NIV) "I was shown the company present at the Conference, Said the angel: "Some food for worms, some subjects of the seven last plagues, some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus." Ellen G. White, 1Testimonies, p. 131-132. May 27,1856 Did Ellen G. White's food for worms vision, come to pass as she foretold it would? It is not easy at times to document the outcome of Mrs. Whiteís vision as she often wrote the outcome years after the fact relying on her memory. Being human she may have been tempted to embellish them. But the vision given May 27,1856 at a conference in Battle Creek, Michigan can be tested for its accuracy. This vision took place 142 years ago here in 1998. The Angel told Ellen: First: Said the Angel: "Some food for worms," Second: "some subject to the seven last plagues" Third: "some will be alive and remain upon the earth to be translated at the coming of Jesus." What has been fulfilled? First: All have been food for worms, not just some. Second: None have been subject to the seven last plagues, as they have not yet begun. Third: None are alive and remaining on the earth to be translated. Answer: Vision is 100% failure! Was the Angel or Ellen G. White Mistaken?<< God Bless you always, DtB | ||
| Denisegilmore |
Dear Violet, I went to Women.com but unfortunately they want my first and last name and address and all that to be a part of that. I'm not interested in being a member but was just hoping to read what it is that they are believing and teaching. Thank you though and God Bless you richly, DtB, your sister in our Only Hope, Jesus Christ | ||
| Lydell |
Violet, I hope you won't fall into a trap of getting too legalistic (not saying that you are now!) about the view that anytime someone smells a sweet smell it is satanic. For instance, I have had the experience of suddenly smelling a sweet smell of annointing oil during ministry time at our church. The thing was that the bottle hadn't been opened that day. Had never heard of something like that happening before, so it was very unexpected. And I heard a speaker tell a story of a incident when he was ministering at a church once that was interesting. He went into the church to speak not having been there before, not knowing what the church was like and smelled the smell of rotten eggs when he went in. It apparently was the Holy Spirit's way of cluing him in that there was a serious problem there. After a pretty heavy time of ministry in the church, of a time of lots of reconciliation happening, basically just of the Holy Spirit doing His work, the guy noticed as he was leaving the congregation that the smell of roses had replaced the smell of rotten eggs. A missionary a couple of weeks ago told me about a village in, I believe it was China, where there was only one Christian woman living. Her house was on the side of a hill and visible to the whole village. She had been asking God what she could do to minister the gospel to her village. Along with the ideas of small promptings to do this and that to meet the needs of people for help, she felt impressed to get up at 2 every morning to pray for the people of her village. Over time the people of the village began noticing that there was a light coming from her house during that time every morning and asked her what in the world she was doing every morning, "cleaning your house?" No, she told them that she got up to pray to her God for them, and that she never lit a lantern (no electricity there) to do it. It got their attention, and they began to really listen to the things she had been trying to tell them before. The whole village is now Christian. My point is that satan has a counterfeit, we know that is true from the example of EGW! But a counterfeit is only made of something valuable. So let's not reject the reality of what the true Spirit of God can do. And He can do most interesting things when it suits His purpose! We should never rely only on some manifestation as proof that it was God at work, most certainly! The teachings of the person must always agree with the word. Which is definitely not what was happening with Ellen! | ||
| Billtwisse |
Responses to Valerie: A few days ago I agreed to respond to these questions and observations from Valerie. Her comments are in blue: I agree on some level that we are not born with this knowledge [the gospel], however, I am concerned about thinking that some are given this revelation and some or not. The only way I could accept that some are given and some or not is if this also means that for those who are not given this revelation they will still be welcomed into the kingdom of heaven. Mark 4:11,12 He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'" Romans 9:18,21 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? My comment: The Lord spoke in parables, not to make his message easier to understand (a common misconception), but to hide the truth from those who were not given the kingdom. Otherwise, the opposite of what God wants might occur: they might turn and be forgiven! These are hard sayings. In order to make sense of one part of God's revelation, the whole redemptive-historical message of the Bible must be understood and accepted. The Bible is not a systematic theology; it is a historical message about God's salvation and how he has acted to make it a reality. Which brings us to the next issue: Otherwise this concept would hint that some are predestined for heaven and some are not, and that is not consistent (in my mind) with an all loving God. We know that God is love; the redemptive-historical message of scripture defines for us how that love operates. 1. The love of God, in a lesser sense, may be perceived as a general benevolence for all of his creation: he made all creatures--so he does some measure of good to all. However, the greater and primary meaning of the love of God is not general--but distinctive. 2. He determined to bestow his special love by creating a group of elect angels to joyfully enter his service. These beings were created in pure holiness with no disposition or possibility of sin. Therefore they have no need of redemption--they are witnesses to but do not experience the highest manifestation of God's love. Yet there is no complaining about this 'second class' status from them! 3. He set his highest love upon a group of creatures who were not to be created in true holiness--but in rebellion. I'm not talking about Eden here (that is a different discussion) but the iniquity that we are all conceived in. It is for these rebels who were to be changed into his best friends that God determined to suffer and die--the ultimate in shameful deaths. However, it is not our right to expect God to have no distinctive love in this regard. We need to consider if our desires might be selfish in wanting God to perform a general miracle of salvation for the entire human race. This would go against the revelatory principle of special love to a special people destined from eternity (Rom. 8:28-30). We have all been there in wanting all persons to be saved, however, was this emotion good and right in God's eyes? Did we have the feeling as passionately for a Hitler as we did for a loved one? So my next question, is there Biblical reference to the point you have made: being that the Gospel is only brought to man's conscience through special revelation. And is this congruent with the assumption (mine)that all people have equal opportunity for salvation? Rom. 10:14-17 is one scripture applicable here; faith comes by hearing and hearing is given when the word of Christ is proclaimed. This does not speak well for the concept of equal opportunity. Why was Paul forbidden by the Holy Spirit to 'go north' and sent to Macedonia instead? I don't need an answer, it is something to think about. I could say much more; I have to sign off for now. In Christ, --Twisse | ||
| Valm |
Bill, I will consider and reread these texts. I wil be frank though, I can not imagine that God would pick and choose who to bestow his love upon. I would not dare think of it with my children. How could I, they are my children. Is not God our heavenly Father? How could any of us go boldly to the throne of grace if this were true? Again to be frank, if I remotely believed in the message you are giving, I could not love God or serve him. I just couldn't. This is not a matter of selfishness for those I love, it is a matter of could I serve a God who would do such a thing; allow a person to be created and not allow them eternal life? I suppose it is not my rite to judge God but I just can not help it. I would feel to serve such a God would be like being in a loveless marraige to be "kept". More later. Bill thank you for your honestly. Valerie |
