Amalgamation: Ellen G. White Statements
Regarding Conditions at the Time of the Flood
By Francis D. Nichol
(Adapted from his book Ellen G. White and Her Critics, pp. 306-322)
In the summer of 1864 the "Steam Press of the Seventh-day Adventist
Publishing Association" at Battle Creek, Michigan, published a
three-hundred-page Ellen G. White volume entitled "Important Facts of
Faith in Connection With the History of Holy Men of Old." This was the
third of a four-volume series carrying the general title of Spiritual Gifts.
In this work the narrative of the early history of the world is
presented, commencing with "The Creation" and carrying down to the
giving of the law to Israel, these matters, as the author states in her
Preface, having been opened to her in vision.
In Chapter 6, entitled "Crime Before the Flood," Mrs. White in
describing the deplorable conditions which led to the catastrophic
destruction of the world, speaks of the amalgamation of man and beast.
In the next chapter there is another similar reference. Occasionally
inquiry is made as to just what Mrs. White did write in this connection
and what her statements meant, and why they are not found in her later
works, now current. Some have linked the amalgamation statements with
the memory of ancient myths regarding strange creatures produced by
unholy alliance between human beings and beasts, and have asked if the
E. G. White statements do not give support to these fables. It is also
intimated that they tend toward evolution.
The only passages in Mrs. White's writings that are of interest in this
connection are found in Spiritual Gifts, volume 3, already mentioned and
republished in Spirit of Prophecy, volume 1, in 1870. The first, in
chapter 6, "Crime Before the Flood," is this:
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.
Chapter 7 is entitled "The Flood," and contains this statement:
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.--Page 75.
These are Mrs. White's only statements on the subject of the
amalgamation of man and beast.
Just what Mrs. White meant by these passages has been the occasion of
some speculation through the years, and two explanations have been set
forth. Some have held that she taught not only that men and beasts have
cohabited but also that progeny resulted. However, those who hold this
view have contended that this does not support the doctrine of
evolution. The evolution theory depends for its life on the idea that
small, simple living structures can gradually evolve into ever higher
forms of life, finally bringing forth man.
That more or less closely related forms of life may cross and produce
hybrids is not questioned by creationists today. That, in the long ago,
when virility was greater, and conditions possibly in some respects
different, more diverse forms of life might have crossed--such as man
and some higher forms of animals--can be set forth only as an
assumption. But this assumption has marshaled against it the whole
weight of scientific belief today. Of course, scientists have been
wrong, at times, in reasoning that all the past must be understood in
terms of the processes we now see going on.
We might leave the matter as being beyond the range of investigation or
proof. The Bible itself contains some such statements, as all students
of the Scriptures well know.
But there is another explanation of these amalgamation passages which is
well supported and we believe more satisfying and which avoids any
conflict with the observable data of science.
What Does the Word "Amalgamation" Mean?
First, what is the general meaning of the word "amalgamation"? Is it
ever used to describe the depraved act of cohabitation of man with
beast? No dictionaries we have had access to, not even the exhaustive
Oxford English Dictionary, indicate that the term has ever been used to
describe this act. There is another standard English word that may
properly be used to describe such cohabitation. The primary usage of the
word "amalgamation" through long years has been to describe the fusion
of certain metals, and by extension, to denote the fusing of races of
men. In the mid-nineteenth century the word was commonly employed in the
United States to describe the intermarriage of the white and the Negro
race.[1]
The long-established meaning of the key word "amalgamation" as the
blending of races should weigh heavily in determining the interpretation
of the questioned passages.
Second, the whole tenor of Mrs. White's writings provides strong
testimony against the claim that she is here seeking solemnly to present
as fact some ancient stories about abnormal man-beast progeny. Her
writings are not tainted with fanciful fables of the long ago. Rather,
they have a strongly matter-of-fact quality to them. If she had been a
dreamer and visionary, how frequently might she have regaled her readers
with myths and weird stories of antiquity.
What Does the Key Phrase Mean?
The crux of the "amalgamation" passages is this: "amalgamation of man
and beast." That statement could be construed to mean amalgamation of
man with beast, or amalgamation of man and of beast. In a construction
like this the preposition "of" is not necessarily repeated, though it
may be clearly implied. We might speak of the scattering of man and
beast over the earth, but we do not therefore mean that previously man
and beast were fused in one mass at one geographical spot. We simply
mean the scattering of man over the earth and the scattering of beasts
over the earth, though the original location of the two groups might
have been on opposite sides of the earth. In other words, the scattering
of man and of beast.
Then why may we not rightly understand this particular grammatical
construction in the same way when speaking of amalgamation? If we may
speak of a scattering of man and beast without at all implying that
scattering started from a single spot, why may we not speak of the
amalgamation of man and beast without at all implying that man and beast
came together in one place in fusion?
We believe that the meaning of the key phrase in question is found by
understanding it to read: "amalgamation of man and [of] beast." Thus the
passage would be speaking of the amalgamation of different races of
mankind and the amalgamation of different races of animals. The
grammatical construction and common usage permit us to understand "of"
as being implied.
The Results of Amalgamation
But does simply the amalgamation of different races of men and the
amalgamation of different species of animals suffice to measure up to
the description of the evil character of amalgamation and the results
that followed from it; namely, destruction by a flood? Let us look first
at the amalgamation of races of men. Note again the text of the first
quotation cited (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, p. 64), and observe these
characteristics of amalgamation:
1. It was the "one sin above another which called for the
destruction of the race by the Flood."
2. It "defaced the image of God, and caused confusion everywhere."
3. "That powerful, long-lived race . . . had corrupted their ways
before him."
Two distinct groups of human beings are presented at the opening of the
chapter in Spiritual Gifts, volume 3, entitled "Crime Before the Flood":
(1) "The descendants of Seth," and (2) "The descendants of Cain." The
two groups were distinct in two marked ways: (1) The first group "felt
the curse but lightly." (2) The second group, "who turned from God and
trampled upon his authority, felt the effects of the curse more heavily,
especially in stature and nobleness of form." "The descendants of Seth
were called the sons of God--the descendants of Cain, the sons of men."
Here two races are presented which differ both in moral and physical
characteristics.
Then follow immediately these words: "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."--Pages
60, 61. Next comes a description of their evil course of idolatry,
particularly their prostituting to sinful ends the gold and silver and
other material possessions that were theirs. Mrs. White then observes:
"They corrupted themselves with those things which God had placed upon
the earth for man's benefit."--Page 63. From a discussion of idolatry
she turns to polygamy and makes this statement: "The more men multiplied
wives to themselves, the more they increased in wickedness and
unhappiness."--Page 63.
Even in this brief chapter we find sufficient to support the position
that the judgment of a flood upon men was because of the amalgamation of
races of men. Two races are presented. The amalgamation of the two
results in corruption and idolatry, and polygamy only increases the
corruption and wickedness. The disputed passage says that God brought
the Flood because men "had corrupted their ways before him."
The Divine Image Defaced
Let us now note parallel passages in Mrs. White's writings. In
Patriarchs and Prophets, where she writes much more at length on the
subject, she speaks thus of the descendants of Seth and Cain:
For some time the two classes 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 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;" they fixed their minds upon
worldly prosperity and enjoyment, and neglected the commandments of the
Lord."--Pages 81, 82.
Here Mrs. White paints a picture of cumulative wickedness, climaxing in
the Flood, and stemming largely from the amalgamation of the "race of
Cain" and the "children of Seth." We are using the word "amalgamation"
in its proper dictionary meaning, and according to the common usage of
the time in which Mrs. White wrote--the intermarriage of different races.
Further on in Patriarchs and Prophets Mrs. White declares:
Polygamy was practiced at an early date. It was one of the sins
that brought the wrath of God upon the antediluvian world. Yet after the
flood it again became wide-spread. It was Satan's studied effort 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.--Page 338.
In a comment on the history of Israel, she observes:
It came to be a common practice to intermarry with the heathen. . .
. The enemy rejoiced in his success in effacing the divine image from
the minds of the people that God had chosen as His
representatives.--Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 499.
Then take this passage from another of Mrs. White's writings:
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, p. 93.
Parallel Passages Summarized
Let us summarize: 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." 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 we have 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 in the opening paragraph of the chapter 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.
As already stated, 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."[2]
One apparent stumbling block in the way of accepting this interpretation
of the passage as an intermarriage of races of men and a crossing of
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 let us look more closely at what she says. Two results follow from
the "amalgamation of [1] man and [2] 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"? When two related things are described in one
sentence, it does not follow that we must understand that all the
results listed flow from each of the two.
Second Passage Examined
This brings us to a consideration of the second of the two passages
relating to amalgamation:
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.
This passage is separated from the first by only a few pages. The
intervening pages give the account of the Flood.
Here she speaks of "every species of animal which God had created," in
contrast with "the confused species which God did not create." "Confused
species" of what? The construction permits only one answer: Species of
animal. But an amalgamation of man with beast would produce, not a
species of animal, but a hybrid man-beast species, whatever that might
be. Mrs. White is here most certainly speaking of "confused species" of
animals. And she says simply that such "confused species" "were the
result of amalgamation."
Let us summarize, now, by placing in parallel columns the substance of
two statements by Mrs. White:
Amalgamation of Man Amalgamation of Beast
The intermarriage, the amalgamation, The amalgamation of "species of
of races of men defaced the image of animals" resulted in "confused
God. species."
We believe these parallel passages fully warrant the conclusion, already
reached, that when Mrs. White said, "amalgamation of man and beast," she
meant (1) the amalgamation of races of men, and (2) the amalgamation of
species of animals. The first "defaced the image of God," the second
"caused confusion everywhere."
Three Important Conclusions
Mrs. White says that "since the flood" there "has been amalgamation of
man and beast," and adds that the results may be seen in (1) "almost
endless varieties of species of animals," and in (2) "certain races of
men." There are several important conclusions that follow from this passage:
1. Mrs. White speaks of two clearly distinguished groups that testify to
this amalgamation. There are (1) "species of animals" and (2) "races of
men." There is no suggestion that there were species part man and part
animal. But how could there be amalgamation of man with animal and the
result be anything else than hybrid man-animal species? She does not
even hint of subhuman monsters or caricatures of man. On the contrary,
as just noted, she speaks unequivocally of "species of animals" and
"races of men." She does not single out or name any particular race as
bearing the evidence of this amalgamation.
2. Mrs. White speaks of the "almost endless varieties of species of
animals" that have resulted from amalgamation. Now it has been suggested
that Mrs. White in the matter of amalgamation reflected the thinking of
those who believed the fiction of man-animal crosses. If we rightly
understand that fiction, as it has been wafted through the centuries by
the winds of credulity, a few large, mythical creatures of antiquity
were supposed to have resulted from a union of man with animals. And
these creatures were always supposed to reveal both human and animal
features. But there is nothing in the ancient fiction that supported the
idea that "almost endless varieties of species of animals" were the
result of an unnatural cross of man with animals. Mrs. White is here
certainly not expressing an ancient, mythical view. Not even the
credulous pagans, wholly devoid of biological knowledge, would have
thought of entertaining such an idea. How much more reasonable to
interpret the passage to mean that these "almost endless varieties of
species of animals" resulted from an amalgamation of previously existing
forms of animal life!
3. Mrs. White calls upon the reader to look about him for proof of what
she is saying. In other words, whatever this amalgamation has been, its
fruitage is evident today. "As may be seen," she says, "in the almost
endless varieties of species of animals, and in certain races of men."
But can anything be "seen" in our day that would provide support for the
ancient myth of beast-men? Certainly there is nothing in the savage
races of some remote heathen lands that even suggests a cross between
man and animals.[3] And if the most degraded race of men does not
suggest such a cross, much less do any species of animals suggest it.
But the results of the amalgamation of which Mrs. White speaks "may be
seen" by the reader.
Darwinism and Creationism
At the time she wrote her amalgamation statement in 1864, Darwin's
influence was only beginning to be felt in the world. Until he published
his Origin of Species (Nov. 24, 1859), most scientists, and religionists
generally, had held firmly to the view that the species are "fixed,"
that is, they cannot be crossed. Darwin theorized that all creation is
in flux, with no ultimate bounds on any form of life. He reasoned that
natural law, expressing itself through natural selection and survival of
the fittest, causes simple forms to become increasingly complex and to
rise constantly in the scale of life, until man finally appears. His
theory and the doctrine of the fixity of species could not live
together. One devoured the other. To Darwin and those who agreed with
him, it seemed that the chief obstacle to acceptance of his theory was
the doctrine of species fixity. And to orthodox Christians belief in
species fixity seemed absolutely essential to belief in Genesis.
Thus when the battle began between the Darwinites and the believers in
Genesis the fighting was chiefly over this question of the fixity of
species. Creationists generally considered the term "species" as
equivalent to the "kinds," in Genesis, to each of which was given the
divine order to "bring forth . . . after his kind." Gen.1:24. Such an
equating of "species" and "kind" we now know to be unwarranted.
The outcome of such an uneven fight is known to all. Evolutionists had
little trouble in proving that there are "endless varieties of species
of animals," if we might borrow Mrs. White's words in her amalgamation
statement. And whenever creationists have sought to make their stand on
the point of fixity of species, as that term is generally understood,
they have been put to rout.
Present-day creationists who have any knowledge of genetics, which
treats of the laws governing "heredity and variations among related
organisms," fare much better than did their fighting fathers. Genetics
shows how endless varieties may develop within certain limits--the
limits of the potential variations within the original strain--but no
farther. In other words, the simple fact of variations in species does
not, in itself, provide any proof for evolution. That much is certain.
Thus we may believe in "endless varieties of species" after Ararat
without believing in evolution. Mrs. White wrote in 1864 that these
"almost endless varieties" "may be seen," though creationists at that
time, and for about a half century more, saw no such thing; they saw
only fixity of species. Yet Mrs. White had no leanings toward Darwin's
theory. From the outset she spoke vigorously against evolution!
Was It Sin?
Mrs. White describes the "amalgamation of man and beast" as a "sin" and
a "base crime," but why should the amalgamation of various species of
animals be thus described?
Note first that Mrs. White, in the chapter "Crime Before the Flood," is
using the word "crime" as loosely synonymous with "sin." The key word
before us, therefore, is "sin." And what is sin? It is transgression of
the law of God. This is often restricted in theological thinking to
violations of the Ten Commandments, the moral law. That Mrs. White
frequently uses the word "sin" in a much larger sense, as including any
violation of so-called natural laws, is evident from an examination of
her writings. The reason she does this is that she declares that these
so-called laws of nature are as truly an expression of the mind and will
of God as are the Ten Commandments. For example: "It is just as much sin
to violate the laws of our being as to break one of the ten
commandments, for we cannot do either without breaking God's
law."--Testimonies for the Church,vol. 2, p. 70.
Now let us turn to the Bible record of the condition of the whole
created world, man and beast, before the Flood:
"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face
of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls
of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them." Gen. 6:7.
Why should the Lord repent that He had "made them," the beasts and birds
and creeping things, as well as man? In a few verses farther on is found
the answer:
"And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all
flesh had corrupted his [A.R.V. their] way upon the earth." Gen. 6:12.
"And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of
cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth, and every man." Gen. 7:21.
The Plan of God for Eden
When God first made the world He placed upon it a wide variety of
animals and plants, distributed over hills and valleys, on sunny plain
and in shady dell. The picture was one of beauty and harmony in
diversity. We can, of course, only conjecture as to details of the
Edenic world. The record declares that God commanded that each form of
life should bring forth "after his kind." Gen. 1:24.
And the fossil records bear silent testimony that between the major
forms of life there appear to be no intermediary forms. There are sharp
gaps instead. Whether the Lord designed that His perfect earth should
also preserve distinctions between the more closely related forms of
life, we can only venture a guess. But if He placed all these more or
less closely related forms upon the earth, it would seem a reasonable
assumption that He did so as an expression of His divine conception of
what a perfect world should be like.
We think this is even more than a reasonable assumption in the light of
specific counsel later given to Israel, as God sought to set up in this
sinful world a government according to the plans of heaven. Through
Moses God said to Israel:
"Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a
diverse kind; thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither
shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee." Lev.
19:19. (See also Deut. 22:9-11.)
Satan and the Animal Kingdom
The Bible presents a picture of a controversy between God and the devil
that starts with the beginnings of our world and covers everything that
has to do with our world. That Satan, as a free moral agent, has been
allowed of God to roam the earth and use his diabolical skill in
creating disorder and destruction, the Bible amply testifies.
The first instance of Satan's attempt to bring disorder in our world was
his speaking through an animal, a serpent. And though Satan was the
instigator of the serpent's wily words, the Lord included the serpent in
the judgments meted out at the fall.
Where the Scripture record is so brief we must be slow to dogmatize. But
we may find in the fact of Satan, his evil purposes, and this
specifically mentioned instance of his control of a member of the animal
kingdom, a strong suggestion that the animal kingdom has suffered from
his diabolical cunning. We cannot believe that in Eden there were
blood-thirsty beasts, ill-tempered, snarling, and vicious. All believers
in the Bible grant that these evil changes in the beasts were the result
of sin. But how could a beast, which does not have a moral nature, and
therefore has no knowledge of sin, be changed in nature by the entrance
of sin into the life of Adam and Eve? The Christian mind will not permit
the idea that God so changed the animals. In the fact of Satan, whose
domination of the serpent is recorded for our learning, is surely found
the only real explanation of the sorry change that came over the animal
kingdom. Part of that change, we believe, was the confusing of the
species, the blurring of a wondrous picture of divine harmony in diversity.
A Belief Consistent With Scripture
We grant that this belief as to the cause of the confusing of species
cannot be supported by a clear text of Scripture. We affirm only that
this belief is consistent with such scriptures as discuss those earliest
days. And nothing more than this need be affirmed in order to protect
the belief from being lightly dismissed by any Bible believer, as an
unreasonable explanation.
It is evident that on this view of the confusion of species in the
animal kingdom we find a satisfying answer to the question: How could
the crossing of different forms of animal life be described as sin? Was
sin involved in the activity of the serpent? We all answer Yes. But we
immediately think of Satan. Even so with the crossing of animals. Any
and every move to mar God's original, orderly plan can be described only
as sin.
Mrs. White Focuses on Satan as Evil Power
One cannot read far in Mrs. White's writings before becoming aware that
she views the whole drama of our world from its earliest days onward as
a great struggle between God and the devil.[4] Mrs. White pictures Satan
as stalking over the earth, bent on disorder and devastation, even as
the Bible pictures him. It is true that she did not specifically refer
to Satan in the amalgamation statements in Spiritual Gifts. However,
another reference to amalgamation discloses her views as to the cause of
certain of the changes that took place in our world after Adam and Eve
fell. The statement reads:
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.
This statement, viewed in the setting of the whole tenor of Mrs. White's
writings which attribute to Satan the active responsibility for all evil
in our world, fully warrants us in concluding that she attributed to
Satan the "confused species" of animals. Hence she would most certainly
describe these "species" as a manifestation of sin, even as she could
properly speak of the appearance of insensate but "noxious, poisonous
herbs" as an exhibit of the activity of the "evil one." Thus her
amalgamation statement regarding "sin" is consistent with all that
Scripture has revealed of earth's early days, in terms of the
interpretation we have given to the key phrase, "amalgamation of man and
beast."
Statement Not Found in "Patriarchs and Prophets"
We come now to the consideration of the fact that the amalgamation
statements were not incorporated by Mrs. White in Patriarchs and
Prophets, now current, and the natural inquiry as to why these
statements do not there appear. Some have conjectured that these two
statements have been purposely suppressed.
The fact that a passage is not retained in later publications, or that a
particular book is not republished, is not in itself valid ground for
assuming that suppression has occurred. The groundlessness of such a
suggestion is made transparently clear when we give these pertinent
facts in the case:
From 1858 to 1864 there appeared from Mrs. White's pen four small
volumes carrying the general title Spiritual Gifts. With the exception
of volume 2, which is largely autobiographical, and the latter half of
volume 4, the volumes present a portrayal of sacred history from the
creation to Eden restored.
From 1870 to 1884 she brought forth four larger volumes, under the
title The Spirit of Prophecy. These volumes cover more fully the subject
of man's religious history from Eden to Eden. In large part the material
in Spiritual Gifts, except the autobiographical volume, is reproduced in
The Spirit of Prophecy. Often the text of the former is exactly
reproduced, chapter after chapter, in the latter. In some instances
there are deletions, and often there are additions. A detailed study of
the matter reveals that here apply the principles by which an author, in
bringing out a new and more complete treatment of a theme, may properly
add or subtract or revise. The two amalgamation passages appear verbatim
in The Spirit of Prophecy, in volume 1, published in 1870.
How easy it would have been for Mrs. White to drop out the amalgamation
passages in the 1870 edition. The passages had already raised questions,
as is evidenced by the reference to them in Uriah Smith's work,
Objections to the Visions Answered, published in 1868. That was the time
to "suppress" them if she cared to do so. But two years later she
reproduced the chapters containing the passages, so that both the
passages and the context remain the same.
Up to this time Mrs. White had been writing quite exclusively for the
church. The next step was the planning of books that might be sold to
those outside the Seventh-day Adventist church, even to those who might
not have any religious background or connection. Naturally, included in
such a plan would be the desire to give an appropriate emphasis to
certain truths that distinguish the preaching of the Advent movement.
Now, even as a minister, turning from his congregation to address a
mixed multitude, would quite change his treatment of a subject, by
addition, subtraction, or revision, even so would a writer. In 1890 the
great subject of man's early history, which is the theme of Spiritual
Gifts, volume 3, and Spirit of Prophecy, volume 1, was covered in a new
way in the book Patriarchs and Prophets, prepared for sale to the
general public. This is one of a set of current works which cover the
religious history of man from Eden to Eden, and known generally as the
'Conflict of the Ages' Series. In each volume of the series the field is
covered in an amplified and sometimes new way, and no pretense is made
of reprinting an earlier work. It would be just as consistent to contend
that the whole four volumes of The Spirit of Prophecy have been
suppressed as to contend that a certain five sentences--the total
involved in the amalgamation passages--have been suppressed.
In this connection we remind the reader that the four volumes of
Spiritual Gifts, which are the original source of the amalgamation
passages, are currently available in a facsimile edition.
_______________________________
[1] The Century Dictionary, edition of 1889, says, under "Amalgamation":
"2. The mixing or blending of different things, especially of races."
The idea of the blending of races, as one meaning of the word, seems to
have faded out of some dictionaries, probably in view of the fact that
the term "hybridization" is now generally used to denote fusion, or
crossing, of living things. However, the 1949 printing of Funk and
Wagnalls New Standard Dictionary says, under "Amalgamate": "3. To form
into a compound by mixing or blending; unite; combine; as to amalgamate
diverse races. Used specifically, in the southern United States, of
marriage between white and black persons."
A Dictionary of American English (Oxford University Press, 1938-1944, 4
vols.) says:
"Amalgamate, v. (1797-, in general sense.) Of persons: a. To combine or
coalesce, esp. by intermarriage. /b. (See quot. 1859) ... 1859 BARTLETT
8 Amalgamate ... is universally applied, in the United States, to the
mixing of the black and white races.
"Amalgamation. (1775- in general sense.) /The fusion of the white and
black races by intermarriage."
[2] Some might contend that the construction of this sentence indicates
that the writer is listing a new crime to the series, something in
addition to the unholy marriages, idolatry, murder, etc. We do not
believe that such a conclusion is required. It is no unusual thing for a
writer to list a series of items, and then, in conclusion, focus upon
one of them, with some such introductory phrase as, "If there is one
item above another . . ." Nor do we believe that any special weight
should be placed on the fact that in thus recapitulating, the writer
amplifies on the particular point under discussion, as though the very
focusing on it seems to draw the writer's mind to a related thought.
This, we believe, is a wholly reasonable way to view the construction
before us. Mrs. White returns, in the last paragraph of the chapter, to
focus on the main cause of the Flood, as earlier set forth in the
chapter. In so doing she expands a little to include the related
"confusion" in the animal kingdom that had resulted from the entrance of
sin into the world.
[3] In the middle of the nineteenth century, when some dark recesses of
the earth had scarcely been touched by explorers, strange stories were
often told as to the kind of savages who dwelt there. Probably some who
first read Mrs. White's amalgamation statements unconsciously allowed
these strange stories to determine their interpretation of the passages.
Needless to say, now that all the savage races are fairly well known,
the testimony of those who have come in contact with them is that though
they may be depraved, they are exceedingly human in every respect, and
need only the opportunity to acquire the white man's habits and vices!
Mrs. White does not comment on the phrase, "certain races of men." She
gives no details as to how the races intermingled after the Flood, nor
does she say that such postdiluvian intermingling was a "base crime." We
need only to note that she makes the simple statement that
"amalgamation" produced "races of men," not races part man and part animal.
[4] A four-volume work by Mrs. White, published between 1870 and 1884,
entitled Spirit of Prophecy, carries the secondary title: The Great
Controversy between Christ and Satan, not to be confused with the later
work Great Controversy, which is an expansion of the fourth volume. In
the first volume the two amalgamation passages are reprinted in their
original context.
Ellen G. White Estate Homepage
Selected Issues Regarding Inspiration and the Life and Work of Ellen G.
White
Post by Whazit Tooyah" 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."
"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."
Both quotes are cut and pasted from Spiritual Gifts pgs 64 & 75.
1. Just to clarify, Mrs. White used the term "base crime" only one other
time, to describe the act Potiphar's wife wanted to commit with Joseph.
2. Sex between humans cannot "deface the image of God," since the product of
that sex would be human "made in the image of God."
3. Confused species can only mean hybrids
4. Nowhere in scripture is can one find marriage between races called
sinful with the exception of the Israelites marrying people outside of the
covenant. There were no racial boundaries for those who wished to be under
the covenant with Israel. Once under the covenant they were free to marry.
Conclusion: If you don't believe that Mrs. White taught that sex with
another species produced animals "which defaced the image of God," then you
have been lied to and/or you are lying to yourself.
Sorry, this is one embarrassment that can't be explained away, at least with
any credibility.
http://www.whiteestate.org/search/search.asp
This is the White Estate's web site so there is no bias against Mrs. White
here. It's quite revealing, just about everything that people claim about
her weird ideas can be verified or proved wrong. I usually read a paragraph
or two before and after a quote to be sure that she is not being taken out
of context. Usually her critics are proven to be right by her own words.
WT
WT