Comment on Mrs. White: “Don’t send your children to…” by Sean Pitman.
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.–Selected Messages, book 2, p. 288.
In this light, the light of Satan as the “enemy” who has corrupted God’s creation through “ingenious methods of amalgamation”, consider one of Mrs. White’s comments regarding the “amalgamation” of man and of beast:
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.–Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 64.
Consider this comment in light of Mrs. White’s commentary on what did corrupt the antediluvian worshipers of God – intermarriage and close association with non-believers (the sons and daughters of Cain).
The result of the breaking down of the marriage institution, and particularly the intermarriage between the children of God and the heathen, was to “deface the image of God in man.” – according to Mrs. White. Further, “Unhallowed marriages of the sons of God with the daughters of men” carried mankind irresistibly forward in increasing iniquity “which ended in the destruction of the world by a flood.” Substituting the word “amalgamation” for “marriage” in the above quotations, note the striking parallel to the following statements in the disputed passage: “The base crime of amalgamation . . . defaced the image of God”; and, “God purposed to destroy by a flood that powerful, long-lived race that had corrupted their ways before Him.”
In none of the parallel passages quoted, or in any others that might be cited, does Mrs. White speak of the cohabitation of man with beast as being a feature of the gross and dismal picture of antediluvian wickedness that precipitated the Flood. On the contrary, it would appear that she speaks of intermarriage of the race of Cain and the race of Seth, with its inevitable train of idolatry, polygamy, and kindred evils, as the cause of the Flood. And all this harmonizes with the earlier quoted statement that contains the passage in question.
As the sons of God mingled with the sons of men, they became corrupt, and by intermarriage with them, lost, through the influence of their wives, their peculiar, holy character, and united with the sons of Cain in their idolatry.–Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, pp. 60, 61.
This introduction to the chapter “Crime Before the Flood” is followed by a recital of the idolatry that grew rampant, the denial of God, the theft, the polygamy, the murder of men, and the destruction of animal life. Then comes immediately the disputed passage, as though summarizing:
“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.”
One apparent stumbling block in the way of accepting this interpretation of the passage as an intermarriage of races of men and a crossing or other attempts at aberrantly mixing different species of animals is the construction of the statement: “amalgamation of man and beast which defaced the image of God.” How could the crossing of species of animals do this?
But look more closely at what she says. Two results follow from the “amalgamation of  man and  beast”: It (1) “defaced the image of God,” and (2) “caused confusion everywhere.” We have seen how the marriage, the amalgamation, of the races of men produced the first of the results. Why could we not properly consider that the amalgamation of the races, or species, of animals produced the second, that is, “caused confusion everywhere”?
So, while the amalgamation passages in the writings of Mrs. White are admittedly confusing and could have been more clearly written, there simply is no obvious requirement to interpret these passages as being significantly unique to the many other statements she made regarding the reason for the destruction of the antediluvian world or God’s current warnings against mixing believers with unbelievers in unholy association, such as marriage, to deface the image of God upon the heart. The same thing is true of her statements regarding the corruption of animal and plant life in nature – right in light with Jesus’ own statements attributing at least some of these aberrant features to Satan’s own designs and evil creativity…
For further discussion see:
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Mrs. White: “Don’t send your children to…”
For further clarification:
I’m not saying that David Read is wrong. I’m just saying that his theories aren’t based on very solid evidence as far as I am able to tell. As such, they don’t seem to me to be all that much more reliable that just-so stories or conjecture (similar to the just-so story telling used to back up popular evolutionary theories). However interesting, they simply don’t have all that much predictive value. While certainly within the realm of possibility, the likelihood that these stories are true cannot be determined with any significant degree of accuracy nor can they be clearly tested in a falsifiable manner.
Even the SoP statements he uses aren’t very clear as to what, exactly, Mrs. White was actually saying with regard to what she meant in different contexts by the word “amalgamation”. We can surmise all day long, but even David admits that his conclusions are dependent upon a great deal of conjecture. For me, this isn’t very useful as anything to base much on beyond whimsical stories about what might have happened on the level of a novel or some other such fanciful story that is very loosely based on real life.
In short, I think there is far better scientific evidence upon which to base our faith than these just-so stories and large leaps of imagination…
Hope this helps.
There are degrees of â€œclass-bendingâ€ I suppose. Simply giving a creature with features usually associated with different groups of animals the name â€œmonotremeâ€ does not change this. Looking only at fossils makes this job all the much more difficult and subjective. I may be â€œobtuseâ€ in my reticence to declare an obvious blurring of boundaries between most animals in the fossil record vs. living animals, but so be it. I think it contrary to the cause I stand for to be too overzealous with theories that you yourself describe as being â€œhighly speculative.â€
A faithful reading of the text requires that one read in context â€“ something you are not doing. The Bible is its own interpreter. You are placing an interpretation onto the text which is contrary to the clear context in which it was written and contrary to how the biblical writers themselves interpreted all mankind as being of â€œone bloodâ€.
You may believe that this is preposterous because you are seeing the world from a modern naturalistic perspective but the issue is was it preposterous to the mind of the person writing this passage? If you think it was you have not been paying attention to much ancient or indeed more recent literature. What precisely were the centaurs and medusa in greek mythology? What of the animal human hybrids that we have captured in stone from the egyptian empire that were likely part of Moses heritage? Have you not read Miltons Paradise Lost a book with many parallels to the great controversy; what was the provenance of the guardian of the pit into which the Devil was cast after the war in Heaven? How did the devil look upon the first woman?
What are you talking about? The notion of human-animal hybrids and even hybrids between humans and â€œthe godsâ€ is certainly part of mythology, but it is clearly not part of the thinking of the Biblical authors. Also, Miltonâ€™s Paradise Lost, while certainly having many parallels, is not supported in many details by the writings of Mrs. White who very clearly explained the whole concept of â€œsons of God vs. daughters of menâ€. Did you not read the above-listed commentary in this regard?
Recent Comments by Sean Pitman
After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…
Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?
Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.
Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).
Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.