THE AMALGAMATION STATEMENTS OF E.G. WHITE, AND THE KEY EXPRESSIONS INVOLVED.

By Derrick Gillespie (2013) *Expanded & Updated Jan. 2014

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. Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men. E.G. White, Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 1, 1870

This is one statement in the writings of E.G. White that has caused much distress for SDAs over the years (seeing that even certain early SDA pioneers interpreted the statement and expressed it in ways that are quite bothersome). It is crucial that we look honestly at what it really was intending to say, using the words and context clues of E.G. White herself (not the words of others), and it is time we see the blunders in the arguments of the critics who regularly use this statement against the SDA church. Lets break down the key expressions involved in the statement (in terms of context, background, word usage, etc.), and in so doing a lot will become clear.

1. BASE CRIME- This expression is often MISINTERPRETED by critics to mean the unnatural sin of bestiality, when in fact no such meaning is ever attached to the expression by E.G. White, but rather to normal sexual sins like adultery, masturbation, sexual intemperance which yields to instinctive sexual drives, and the like. Examples?

When Joseph was tempted to deviate from the path of right, to transgress the law of God, and prove untrue to his master, he firmly resisted, and gave evidence of the elevating power of the fear of God in his answer to his master's wife. After speaking of the great confidence of his master in him, by in trusting all that he had to him, he exclaims, "How then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God." He would not be persuaded to deviate from the path of righteousness, and trample upon God's law, by any inducements, or threats. And when he was accused, and a base crime [i.e. adultery in this case] was falsely laid to his charge, he did not sink in despair. In the consciousness of innocence and right, he still trusted in God. And God, who had hitherto supported him, did not forsake him. - Spiritual Gifts, Volume 3, 1864, pg. 144 COMMENTS: This was the only other time E.G. White use the compound expression base crime (apart from her use of it in the amalgamation of man and beast statements), and from the above it is plain it has no connotation of the unnatural sexual sin of bestiality. It is therefore falsehood and misrepresentation to say the term meant the unnatural sin of bestiality to E.G. White, as some 1

misguided critics proclaim without doing the proper research. Another thing to note is that by her saying adultery was a base crime she clearly indicated that there were several types of base crimes; otherwise she would not have said a base crime was what Joseph was tempted to commit. She also often makes reference to base passions as the instinctive sexual and lustful drives that are not controlled by the intellect (animalism she otherwise called it), but it is never with reference to anything unnatural as the act of bestiality. She often cautioned husbands and men against the indulgence of these base passions, and cautions women in their dressing that arouses these base [lustful] passions. Here are examples: The love of dress endangers the morals and makes woman the opposite of the Christian lady characterized by modesty and sobriety. Showy, extravagant dress too often encourages lust in the heart of the wearer and awakens base passions in the heart of the beholder. God sees that the ruin of the character is frequently preceded by the indulgence of pride and vanity in dress. He sees that the costly apparel stifles the desire to do good. - Testimonies, Vol. 4, pg. 645 Many marvel that the human race has so degenerated, physically, mentally, and morally. They do not understand that it is the violation of Gods constitution and laws and the violation of the laws of health that have produced this sad degeneracy. The transgression of Gods commandments has caused His prospering hand to be removed. Intemperance in eating and in drinking, and the indulgence of base passions, have benumbed the fine sensibilities, so that sacred things have been placed upon a level with common things. . . . Many have expected that God would keep them from sickness merely because they have asked Him to do so. But God did not regard their prayers, because their faith was not made perfect by works. God will not work a miracle to keep those from sickness who have no care for themselves, but are continually violating the laws of health, and make no effort to prevent disease. . . . God will not work in a miraculous manner to pre-serve the health of persons who are taking a sure course to make themselves sick, by their careless inattention to the laws of health.Review and Herald, Apr. 2, 1914. Men and women, you will one day learn what is lust, and the result of its gratification. Passion of just as base a quality may be found in the marriage relation as outside of it. The apostle Paul exhorts husbands to love their wives "even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it." "So ought men to love their wives as their bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church." It is not pure love that actuates a man to make his wife an instrument to minister to his lust: it is the animal passions, which clamor for indulgence.Love is a pure and holy principle; but lustful passion will not admit of restraint, and will not be dictated to or controlled by reason. It is blind to consequences; it will not reason from cause to effect. Many women are suffering from great debility and settled disease because the laws of their being have been disregarded; nature's laws have been trampled upon. The brain nerve power is squandered by men and women, being called into unnatural action to gratify base passions - Review and Herald, September 19, 1899 Even the very word crime, as used in the amalgamation of man and beast statement, has been/is misunderstood (both by certain past SDA pioneers, certain other SDA thinkers, and by critics of E.G. White as well). The word crime could include more than one offense rolled into one. Careless readers dont recognize that the very word crime was SOMETIMES used by E.G. White in the collective sense for a list of several offenses before the Flood; not that just one single crime or offense literally was 2

involved. In fact, she even used the subtitle Crime before the Flood in Spiritual Gifts, Volume 3, Chapter 6 (see pages 60-61) to relate to all the degenerative SINS (plural) that man sunk into before the Flood. That again is instructive about how not to assume anything about an expression, but see the context of usage (and the background to that usage) as employed by an author. This would prevent gross misinterpretations and unfair assumptions about what an author intended to communicate.

2. DEFACED THE IMAGE OF GOD- This again is another often MISINTERPRETED expression used by E.G. White in the amalgamation of man and beast statement, with the critics thinking it either involved or results from the unnatural sin of bestiality, but, as the following will CLEARLY demonstrate, to Mrs. White it simply meant a tarnishing or erasing of the CHARACTER of righteousness in man, as originally given by God. Examples of this meaning being made clear? Inserts in brackets [ ], and emphases are mine. Man, who has defaced the image of God in his soul by a corrupt life cannot, by mere human effort, effect a radical change in himself. He must accept the provisions of the gospel; he must be reconciled to God through obedience of his law and faith in Jesus Christ. His life from thenceforth must be governed by a new principle. Through repentance, faith and good works he may develop and perfect a righteous character, and claim through the merits of Christ the privileges of the sons of God. Signs of the Times, August 1, 1878, Paragraph 11 By his [Satans] subtility and untiring efforts he had controlled the appetite and excited and strengthened the passions to so fearful a degree that he had defaced and almost obliterated the image of God in man. His physical and moral dignity were in so great a degree destroyed that he bore but a faint resemblance in character and noble perfection of form to the dignified Adam in Eden. Confrontation, pg. 34 It was Satan's studied effort [in the antediluvian age] to pervert the marriage institution, to weaken its obligations and lessen its sacredness; for in no surer way could he deface the image of God in man and open the door to misery and vice.Jesus came to our world to rectify mistakes and to restore the moral image of God in man. Adventist Home, pg. 326 I am filled with horror as the condition of families professing present truth is opened before me. The profligacy [moral wretchedness] of youth and even children is almost incredible. Parents do not know that secret vice [i.e. masturbation] is destroying and defacing the image of God in their children. - Child Guidance, 449 In the government of children, love must be shown. Never should parents cause their children pain by harshness or unreasonable exactions. Harshness drives souls into Satan's net. Parents, as surely as you treat your children in a cold, unloving manner, just so surely will the image of God in the soul be defaced. Christians should act like Christ. Cherish and cultivate all that is pure and lovely in the heart of your child. Be kind. Review and Herald, January 29, 1901 We are not to place our children where they must associate with the depraved and degraded. Sometimes God in His providence may bring our youth into association with those who are impure and intemperate... They must keep themselves pure, refusing to do anything that would dishonor God, living 3

always with an eye single to His glory. They must watch for souls, laboring earnestly for those in whom the image of God has been defaced, seeking to reform, to elevate, and to ennoble them. - ibid, pg. 464

COMMENTSA wide survey of the writings of E.G. White shows that she used the expression defaced [or effaced] the image of God to simply mean the character of God in man becomes tarnished or erased. Furthermore, she used the expression in connection with very many things, such as [i] a generally corrupt life, [ii] an uncontrolled appetite, [iii] marital sins (such as being unequally yoked with the ungodly, and polygamy), [iv] masturbation, [v] unkind and harsh parenting, et al. All this proves that the critics are simply misguided to think the expression means the unnatural sin of bestiality is the only sin that deface the image of God in man or only bestiality is meant when the expression is used. ANY FORM OF DISOBEDIENCE TO ANY EXPRESSED WILL OF GOD DEFACES THE IMAGE OF GOD IN MAN!!

3. MAN AND BEAST- the expression man and beast is quite common in the writings of E.G. White, and she often uses it when she is describing two separate but related things about humans and animals simultaneously, and so she often groups the two separate but related things involving man and beast after a uniting phrase or word. Here are examples:

Noah had faithfully followed the instructions which he had received from God. The ark was finished in every part as the Lord had directed, and was stored with food for man and beast.At the end of seven days clouds began to gather. This was a new sight; for the people had never seen clouds. . . . Soon rain began to fall. Still the people tried to think that this was nothing very alarming. . . . For a time the ground drank up the rain; but soon the water began to rise, and day by day it rose higher and higher. Each morning as the people found the rain still falling they looked at one another in despair, and each night they repeated the words, "Raining still!" The people first beheld the destruction of the works of their own hands. Their splendid buildings, and the beautiful gardens and groves where they had placed their idols, were destroyed by lightning from heaven, and the ruins were scattered far and wide. . . . The terror of man and beast was beyond description. Above the roar of the tempest was heard the wailing of a people that had despised the authority of God. . . . In that terrible hour they saw that the transgression of God's law had caused their ruin. Conflict and Courage, pg. 40

Notwithstanding the solemn exhibition they had witnessed of God's power--of the unnatural occurrence of the beasts' leaving the forests and fields, and going into the ark, and the angel of God clothed with brightness, and terrible in majesty, descending from Heaven and closing the door; yet they hardened their hearts, and continued to revel and sport over the signal manifestations of divine power. But upon the eighth day the heavens gathered blackness. The muttering thunders, and vivid lightning flashes, began to terrify man and beast. The rain descended from the clouds above them. This was something they had never witnessed, and their hearts began to faint with fear. - Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 1, pg. 73 4

In the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, the dedication of the first-born was again commanded. While the children of Israel were in bondage to the Egyptians, the Lord directed Moses to go to Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and say, "Thus saith the Lord, Israel is My son, even My first-born: and I say unto thee, Let My son go, that he may serve Me: and if thou refuse to let him go, behold, I will slay thy son, even thy firstborn." Exodus 4:22, 23. Moses delivered his message; but the proud king's answer was, "Who is the Lord, that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go." Exodus 5:2. The Lord worked for His people by signs and wonders, sending terrible judgments upon Pharaoh. At length the destroying angel was bidden to slay the first-born of man and beast among the Egyptians. That the Israelites might be spared, they were directed to place upon their doorposts the blood of a slain lamb. Desire of Ages, pg. 51

COMMENTS: The foregoing statements could never mean that the first-born (singular), or the food (singular) or the terror (singular) of man and beast was one and the same LITERALLY, or because man and beast were literally united or the same biologically, but she grouped the two separate ideas together that related to both man and beast simultaneously, but as applicable in their own spheres. This reality clears up a lot of misconceptions about the amalgamation of man and beast statement, where she again was describing two separate things that are related about humans and man, i.e. their amalgamation in their own spheres, which God considered a crime AS PERPETRATED BY HUMANS!

4. IF THERE WAS ONE SIN ABOVE ANOTHER- This again is another misunderstood portion of the E.G. White statement, simply because it has the inherent nature of ambiguity. Critics have consistently felt it can only mean the worst sin (and must be an additional one) when compared to the other sins described by Mrs. White in the passage leading up to the amalgamation of man and beast statement. Thus they surmise it could only be bestiality which was so heinous or the worst sin above the others. But the expression does not necessitate this meaning, and can ALSO simply mean the primary sin or the main sin which caused the Flood; main because of the most far reaching effects it produced. Also, as illustrated before with the word crime, the word sin can relate to more than one offense (or compound offenses) rolled into one. For instance, in the Bible the very word sin or iniquity is often used in the collective sense for many offenses rolled into one!! A good example involves Sodom being destroyed for a variety of sins (as seen in Ezekiel 16:49, 50), yet God at times referred to their offenses as their "sin" or their "iniquity" (i.e. in the singular).

"Genesis 18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin [Hebrew, "chattah"] is very grievous" Compare Psalm 51:3 and especially Ezekiel 16:49 using the singular term "iniquity" (a synonym for "sin"), yet following that same pattern (i.e. "sin" or "iniquity" incorporating a list offenses). Sodom's sin or crime against God involved many offenses (not just the two main ones in Jude 1:7). "Ezekiel 16:49 Behold, this was the iniquity [i.e. "sin"] of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor 5

and needy. Eze 16:50 And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good." "Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire". Thus it is Biblically seen that the word sin can consider and include more than one offense.

5. AMALGAMATION- This key expression in the statement is often MISINTERPRETED by the misguided critics to always mean sexual relations, yet Mrs. White used the expression only a few times in all her published writings (and so is easy to track), and in this much disputed statement under discussion it simply means the divinely prohibited union of, or the intimate association between the godly and ungodly on one hand (whether martially, sexually, or just by close friendly association) and also the divinely prohibited biological crossbreeding of species of plants and animals among themselves. Examples of her using the amalgamation expressions or meanings in her writings now follow. Many profess to love God, yet they are serving mammon, and bowing at worldly shrines. The world is brought into the church, but not through repentance, contrition, and conversion, but because churchmembers become wedded to the world; and this unholy union is the explanation of the weakness and inefficiency of the church. It is made manifest when church-members follow the maxims of the world, that spiritual discernment is gone. Where this union is preserved, contention, criticism, faultfinding, strife, and decided hatred one of another comes in among those who should be servants of Jesus Christ. Those who profess to be followers of Christ, should be living agencies, co-operating with heavenly intelligences; but by union with the world, the character of God's people becomes tarnished, and through amalgamation with the corrupt, the fine gold becomes dim. - Review and Herald, August 23, 1892 par. 2 There is constant danger that the obedient and the disobedient in the world and in the nominal churches will become so amalgamated that the line of demarcation between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not will become confused and indistinct. - Manuscript Release, Vol. 18, No. 1305, pg. 26

NOW LETS SEE HOW THESE MEANINGS ARE INCORPORATED IN THE MUCH DEBATED STATEMENT: The descendants of Seth [the godly race] had separated themselves from the wicked descendants of Cain. They cherished the knowledge of God's will, while the ungodly *race of Cain [despite all at the time were blood brothers of one biological race before the Tower of Babel existed] had no respect for God and his sacred commandments. But when men multiplied upon the earth, the descendants of Seth saw that the daughters of the descendants of Cain were very beautiful, and they departed from God and displeased him by taking wives as they chose of the idolatrous race of Cain. The descendants of Seth were called the sons of God--the descendants of Cain, the sons of men. As the sons of God mingled with 6

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. Many cast aside the fear of God, and trampled upon his commandments. But there were a few that did righteousness, who feared and honored their Creator. Noah and his family were among the righteous few. The wickedness of man was so great, and increased to such a fearful extent, that God repented that he had made man upon the earth; for he saw that the wickedness of man was great, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. They formed images to worship, and taught their children to regard these pieces of workmanship made with their own hands, as gods, and to worship them. They did not choose to think of God, the creator of the heavens and the earth, and rendered no grateful thanks to him who had provided them all the things which they possessed. They even denied the existence of the God of Heaven, and gloried in, and worshiped, the works of their own hands. They corrupted themselves with those things which God had placed upon the earth for man's benefit. They prepared for themselves beautiful walks, overhung with fruit trees of every description. Under these majestic and lovely trees, with their wide-spread branches, which were green from the commencement of the year to its close, they placed their idols of worship. Whole groves, because of the shelter of their branches, were dedicated to their idol gods, and made attractive for the people to resort to for their idolatrous worship. Instead of doing justice to their neighbors, they carried out their own unlawful wishes. They had a plurality of wives, which was contrary to God's wise arrangement. In the beginning, God gave to Adam one wife--showing to all who should live upon the earth, his order and law in that respect. The transgression and fall of Adam and Eve brought sin and wretchedness upon the human race, and man followed his own carnal desires, and changed God's order. The more men multiplied wives to themselves, the more they increased in wickedness and unhappiness. If anyone chose to take the wives, or cattle, or anything belonging to his neighbor, he did not regard justice or right, but if he could prevail over his neighbor by reason of strength, or by putting him to death, he did so, and exulted in his deeds of violence. They loved to destroy the lives of animals. They used them for food, and this increased their ferocity and violence, and caused them to look upon the blood of human beings with astonishing indifference. 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. Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark. The confused species which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation, were destroyed by the flood. Since the flood, there has been amalgamation of man and beast, as may be seen in the almost endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men. Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 1, 1870, pgs. 66-68, 78

COMMENTSA careful review of circumstances under which E.G. White used the amalgamation statements showed that she always used it: a] in relation to humans in the context of Genesis 6:1-8 and 2 Corinthians 6:14 forbidding the union of the godly with the ungodly, and 7

b] in relation to animals/beasts and plants she always used it in the context of what Leviticus 19:19 reveals, with God forbidding the cross-breeding of species of plants and animals among themselves (i.e. producing hybrids), since he intended them to remain as pure species, as she explained below, using the very word amalgamation:

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? from whence then hath it tares?" The master answered, "An enemy hath done this" (Matt. 13:27, 28). All tares are sown by the evil one. Every noxious herb is of his sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation [cross breeding] he has corrupted the earth with tares.

In the book Spirit of Prophecy, Volume 1 (of 1870), she spoke about the amalgamation of man and beast, which, admittedly, on the face of it, can be easily misinterpreted to mean the union between beast and man sexually, and it certainly has been so interpreted by MANY (both within and without the SDA Church), yet when a number of things are borne in mind, the issues can be cleared up easily: 1. The statement can be simply explained to mean (in light of how she often grouped ideas about humans and animals) the the amalgamation of man and [of] beast, i.e. both the amalgamation/union of godly humans with ungodly humans, and the crossbreeding of animal species with each other (by humans pursuing the prohibited practice). There were clearly two separate but related things being described together in the same passage. 2. Nowhere does Mrs. White go on to describe half-humans and half-beasts, but simply continued to speak of animals and humans in a separate way (despite described together in the same passage); with mans amalgamation (with man) causing Gods image (or His holy character in man) to be defaced (i.e. a tarnishing and degeneration of righteous character), evidenced by widespread sinfulness and corruption resulting, and with confused species of animals (i.e. hybrids like ligers, tigons, zonkeys, etc.) resulting from mans sin of crossbreeding/amalgamating them to produce hybrids (evidently in opposition to Gods early expressed will against it, as later recorded in Leviticus 19:19). This ancient Pre-Flood reality (as documented by Mrs. White in her writings) was evidently not alien to Jewish thought, and this reality (of two separate amalgamations leading up to the Flood) can be seen also captured in the apocryphal writings of the Book of Jasher (in 4:16-19, see especially verse 18): "16 And all the sons of men departed from the ways of YAHWEH in those days as they multiplied upon the face of the earth with sons and daughters, and they taught one another their evil practices and they continued sinning against YAHWEH. 17 And every man made unto himself a god, and they robbed and plundered every man his neighbor as well as his relative, and they corrupted the earth, and the earth was filled with violence. 18 And their judges and rulers [i.e. the "elohim" or sons of God] went to the daughters of men and took their wives by force from their husbands according to their choice, *and the sons of men in those days took from the cattle of the earth, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and taught the mixture of animals of one species with the other, in order therewith to provoke YAHWEH; and 8

YAHWEH saw the whole earth and it was corrupt, for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon earth, all men and all animals. 19 And YAHWEH said, I will blot out man that I created from the face of the earth, yea from man to the birds of the air, together with cattle and beasts that are in the field for I repent that I made them." Notice especially Jasher 4:18 (as quoted in the foregoing), and notice the two (2) types of amalgamation/mingling described by the book of Jasher, especially noting the second type of amalgamation involving "the mixture of ANIMALS, of one specie with the other" (as prohibited in Leviticus 19:19), i.e. separate and apart from the human amalgamation of the godly and ungodly earlier described in the same verse. Some critics may think or charge that this apocryphal Book of Jasher was the source of Mrs. Whites amalgamation ideas, but I submit that the coincidence of it in another document can simply mean that the ancient Jews *also had a similar revelation but via oral traditions, and it has been passed down in their oral traditions and documented by non-Biblical authors. While the present Jewish Book of Jasher under consideration cannot be proven to be the one the Bible writers had referred to in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:18, who is to say that it doesnt have in it a mixture of truths and myths that the oral and written tradition of the Jews recorded and passed down to us? Wasnt Jude under inspiration (in Jude 1:14) able to reference ancient Jewish tradition/sayings that was nowhere recorded in the Old Testament Bible as we know it, yet that one aspect of ancient tradition that he referenced we now recognize as an inspired revelation (i.e. as selected from the other aspects of ancient Jewish tradition that may or may not have been true)? Incidentally, this reference from Jude also just happen to be coincidentally found in the apocryphal writings called the Book of Enoch, and yet Christians dont doubt the validity of Jude simply because of this coincidence, do we? Who can really disprove the notion, as Jasher 4:16-19 shows (in classic Jewish tradition), that before the Flood there was two separate amalgamations, i.e. one involving human marriage/amalgamation of the godly and ungodly (Gen. 6), and the other involving the mixture of animals of one species with the other; just as modern SDAs have been saying that this was what E.G. White was referring to all along? But back to my main point, and Mrs. Whites intended meaning in her amalgamation statements of 1864, and 1870.
ONE THING NORMALLY MISSED BY THE CRITICS IS HOW A SIMILAR EXPLANATION OF THE SAME SITUATION IN ANOTHER BOOK WRITTEN BY E.G. WHITE HERSELF, NAMELY "PATRIARCHS AND PROPHETS (1890), CLINCHES HER INTENDED MEANING ABOUT WHAT WAS THE MAIN SIN OR ULTIMATE SINFUL ACT OF MAN (PRODUCING THE WORST RESULTS) THAT CAUSED GOD TO SEND THE FLOOD. HERE IS THE ENLIGHTENING STATEMENT FROM E.G. WHITE HERSELF (TAKE NOTE OF THE TELLING PHRASES AND KEY THOUGHTS EXPRESSED):

For some time the two classes [i.e. the descendants of Seth and Cain] remained separate. The race of Cain, spreading from the place of their first settlement, dispersed over the plains and valleys where the children of Seth had dwelt; and the latter, in order to escape from their contaminating influence, withdrew to the mountains, and there made their home. So long as this separation continued, they maintained the worship of God in its purity. But in the lapse of time they ventured, little by little, to mingle with the inhabitants of the valleys. This association was productive of the worst results. "The sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair." The children of Seth, attracted by the beauty 9

of the daughters of Cain's descendants, displeased the Lord by intermarrying with them. Many of the worshipers of God were beguiled into sin by the allurements that were now constantly before them, and they lost their peculiar, holy character. Mingling with the depraved, they became like them in spirit and in deeds; the restrictions of the seventh commandment were disregarded, "and they took them wives of all which they chose." The children of Seth went in the way of Cain" (Jude 11); they fixed their minds upon worldly prosperity and enjoyment and neglected the commandments of the Lord. Men "did not like to retain God in their knowledge;" they "became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened." Romans 1:21. Therefore "God gave them over to a mind void of judgment." Verse 28, margin. Sin spread abroad in the earth like a deadly leprosy. E.G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, 1890, pg. 81

NOTICE HER USE OF SYNONYMS LIKE MINGLING, ASSOCIATION AND INTERMARRYING OF THE GODLY AND UNGODLY, INSTEAD OF USING THE WORD AMALGAMATION, AND NOTICE THAT IT WAS THIS THAT PRODUCED THE WORST RESULTS (i.e. SIN SPREADING ABROAD IN THE EARTH LIKE DEADLY LEPROSY), AND HENCE WAS THE PRIME REASON FOR THE FLOOD. NATURALLY IF EVEN THE GODLY BECAME DEPRAVED BECAUSE OF THE AMALGAMATION OF THE GODLY AND THE UNGODLY, THEN HARDLY WOULD THE GODLY CHARACTER OF GOD IN MAN REMAIN PRESERVED IN THE EARTH, AND HENCE WOULD BE DEFACED (ERASED) TOTALLY IF THINGS REMAINED UNCHECKED. NO WONDER THE FLOOD WAS NEEDED. THIS PASSAGE IN PATRIARCHS AND PROPHETS (PUBLISHED IN 1890) EXPLAINS MUCH, AND SHOULD NEVER BE FORGOTTEN!!

Never forget too that she maintained throughout her ministry that a prohibited amalgamation or some sort of prohibited union was the prime or main reason/sin for the Flood. She made this clear in Testimonies to the Church (written between 1882 and 1889) even before expressing it again in Patriarch and Prophets of 1890: Unhallowed marriages of the sons of God with the daughters of men, resulted in apostasy which ended in the destruction of the world by a flood.--Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, *(1882-1889), p. 93. 3. Mrs. White earlier (in 1870) made the controversial amalgamation statement after first explaining (on pages 66-68 of the 1870 book, Spirit of Prophecy, Vol. 1) how the races of Seth and Cain (i.e. the godly and the ungodly) intermarried. Here she used the word races in the spiritual sense; not biologically, since only one biological race existed at the time BEFORE Babel); a reality many who interpret her statements fail to appreciate. This union of the spiritually incompatible races resulted in gross wickedness and sinfulness everywhere (with a confusion of morals everywhere, even), and this resulted in God deciding to send the Flood to destroy both man and beast (indicating something about the beasts was also displeasing to God; obviously in the sense of what Leviticus 19:19 prohibits). In 1890 she very much explained the same theme in Patriarchs and Prophets (on page 81), but this time focused only on human amalgamation (she actually had started to delete and reword the earlier controversial amalgamation statement from in the late 1880s). [Note-*Part 2 of my presentation will discuss why this might have been done by her! Make sure to see Part 2!!] Despite dealing with both the amalgamation of man and [of] beast in her earlier statement, she had also made earlier reference to the godly and ungodly races of men amalgamating (even when there was not yet any biologically distinct races); remember Cain and Seth were blood brothers of the same biological race. The principle of the amalgamation of the godly and ungodly races of men i.e. incompatible races in the spiritual sense uniting, it can and does continue to happen/apply EVEN 10

TODAY (with its dangerous spiritual results), i.e. since the Flood as the initial statement from Mrs. White also made plain!! This is another part of the statement often misunderstood by many. The godly and ungodly OFTEN continued to amalgamate despite its past disastrous results for Gods people, and even Christians today are called a holy nation (i.e. spiritual Israel), and a peculiar people (a righteous race of sorts), who are prohibited from being unequally yoked with the spiritual Gentiles!! Heres a prime example of this reality since the Flood being described by Mrs. White herself: Satan well knew the results that would attend obedience, and during the earlier years of Solomon's reign,--years glorious because of the wisdom, the beneficence, and the uprightness of the king,--he sought to bring in influences that would insidiously undermine Solomon's loyalty to principle, and cause him to separate from God. And that the enemy was successful in this effort, we know from the record: Solomon made affinity with Pharaoh king of Egypt, and took Pharaoh's daughter, and brought her into the city of David. In forming an alliance with a *heathen nation, and sealing the compact by marriage with an *idolatrous princess, Solomon rashly disregarded the wise provisions that God had made for maintaining the purity of his peopleDuring the years of Solomon's apostasy, the spiritual decline of Israel was rapid. How could it have been otherwise, when their king united with satanic agencies? Through these agencies the enemy worked to confuse the minds of the people in regard to true and false worship. They became an easy prey. It came to be a common practise to intermarry with the *heathen. The Israelites rapidly lost their abhorrence of idolatry. Heathen customs were introduced. Idolatrous mothers brought their children up to observe heathen rites. The Hebrew faith was fast becoming a mixture of confused ideas. Commerce with other nations brought the Israelites into intimate contact with those who had no love for God, and their own love for him was greatly lessened. Their keen sense of the high and holy character of God was deadened. Refusing to follow in the path of obedience, they transferred their allegiance to Satan. The enemy rejoiced in his success in effacing the divine image from the minds of the people that God had chosen as his representatives. Through intermarriage with idolaters and constant association with them, Satan brought about that for which he had long been working,--a national apostasy. -- E.G. White, Review and Herald, February 1, 1906 Get the point? This is what she evidently meant by saying since the Flood there has been amalgamation of man and [of] beast (i.e. as in the context already explained, or AS MAY BE SEEN [1] IN CERTAIN RACES OF MEN and [2] in species of animals!! The part of the statement which states as may be seen is not talking about the resultsof amalgamation since the Flood, but rather about visible *EXAMPLES and *INSTANCES of the spiritual amalgamations in certain races of men on the one hand ----these examples, since the Flood, we visibly see played out with godly Israel and heathen nations, for instance--- and, of course, on the other hand, humans continue to practice the divinely prohibited hybridization of almost endless varieties of species of animals (plant species too) by either genetic manipulation and or by cross breeding. See again Leviticus 19:19 and consider that Judgment Day may just surprise many people (scientists chiefly) about this prohibited practice. Remember, disobeying any prohibition of God is simply called sin, and all sins deface the image of God in man. This is another matter most critics (and unfortunately some within Adventism itself) also totally miss in the context of Mrs. Whites writings. I must say before I close that the amalgamation statement was not made in a vacuum, and should not be divorced from the context in which it was made within her writings; neither should it be divorced 11

from the Biblical background in Genesis 6:1-8 and Leviticus 19:19. When looked at in its proper context (considering Mrs. Whites own word usage, et al), and with the Biblical background in mind, it is the case that all seeming difficulties with the AMALGAMATION OF MAN AND [of] BEAST statement does disappear!! It is the historical SDA background that creates the main challenges and difficulties when interpreting the E.G. White statement, and this historical context deserve attention too, if one is to deal with all the issues comprehensively and honestly. These I will be dealing with mainly in Part 2. *CRUCIAL POINT OF INFORMTION To close my Part 1 presentation on this issue I will freely admit that while my research shows me that some early SDA pioneers (like Uriah Smith, among a few others) did express that E.G. White meant that bestiality was involved in the amalgamation of man and beast statement, but that does not mean E.G. White personally endorsed their use of her writings in this context as difficult as it may be to be believed by some. In fact, nothing in her writings can be pointed to where she agreed with that interpretation (IT IS ALWAYS AN ASSUMTION BY THE CRITICS THAT SHE DID). Even when Uriah Smith presented --- in his 1868 book entitled, The Visions of Mrs. E.G. White- A Manifestation of Spiritual Gifts According to the Scriptures--- a 52-point defense of her overall ministry as a prophet (where, admittedly, he presented the bestiality interpretation, and felt negroes might have resulted from this union), and even while it is true that she did endorse his book defending her ministry overall, yet that does not mean she necessarily accepted every explanation he gave in his 52-point defense of her ministry. In just the same way she endorsed the general thrust of Uriah Smiths famous 1867 book Daniel and the Revelation (and even personally promoted the book as being worthy of wide circulation), even while she had points of differences with him in certain explanations in that book, so too she might (and evidently appeared to) have differed with his interpretation of her amalgamation of man and beast statements, even while ENDORSING THE GENERAL THRUST OF HIS 1868 BOOK DEFENDING HER MINISTRY OVERAL!! Mrs. White could freely endorse Uriah Smiths "Thoughts on Daniel and the Revelation" (as it concerns his overall treatment of apocalyptic and eschatological themes), yet she differed with his take on Jesus' nature as expressed in that book (both the 1865 and 1897 versions), as well as with his view on the "king of the north", his view of the "daily" (Hebrew, "tamid"), among other things. The same principle holds true with Uriah Smith's overall defense of E.G. White's ministry in his 1868 book, The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White, A Manifestation of Spiritual gifts According to the Scripture. E.G. White also later called for the SDA Church to reproduce the writings of the early pioneers, so that the future generation of SDAs could benefit from their insights overall, yet it is plain too that the early pioneers did have certain errors in their writings; errors that Mrs. White herself later instructed should be carefully studied and corrected. This says much. It is the case that some pioneers even quoted aspects of Mrs. Whites statements (taken out of context) to erroneously support false misconceptions they had. Thus we must never take for granted that Mrs. Whites endorsement of the pioneer writings overall meant she never saw any possibility of errors or misconceptions in some things contained within their literature. Any day the critics can quote E.G. White herself directly saying that man had sex with animals and Negros resulted (and the writings from her in and of themselves prove it), then I will accept their charge against her. But seeing that their charge is based on misinterpretation of her own writings (without a careful study of the authors own context clues and unique word usage), then their OPINIONS remain simply thattheir OPINIONS that are misguided. Enough said for now. [*Make sure to see Part 2. Crucial historical considerations will be discussed in greater detail!!!] 12