Comment on Mrs. White: “Don’t send your children to…” by Sean Pitman.
The context and the consistency of other passages is much clearer regarding the origin and ancestry of the â€œNephilimâ€ compared to Mrs. Whiteâ€™s particular meaning when she uses the word â€œamalgamationâ€. The consistency just isnâ€™t there in the second case since she uses this particular word to apparently mean different things in different contexts when all the rest of her statements regarding the origin of human ethnic groups are very consistent â€“ all are of â€œone bloodâ€ as brothers and sisters before God.
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.