Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

Amalgamation of Man and Beast


By Derrick Gillespie (April 2014)

This document could be considered part 3 in a series of papers I wrote on this matter under
consideration. Parts 1 and 2 delved seriously into the fundamental issues of contention, as may be seen
here and here respectively (click links). In this new paper I aim to tie up the loose ends, as it were, by
presenting a variety of other short articles I wrote, as well as emails I sent to individuals. These will,
hopefully, help to bring further clarity to the issues, as well as answer other pressing questions I might
not have fully addressed earlier.




Certain of Mrs. Whites own words (and actions) are telling after the 1864 and 1870 publication of her
controversial, and often misunderstood amalgamation of man and *of+ beast statement. Her own
words and what she did in the 1880s and 1890s gave certain cues as to how her controversial
expressions should be seen by the SDA Church thereafter, but many today, in studying out the issue, fail
to pick up on these crucial clues and signals from her. What are these often-missed cues, and what is
their significance to those who want to give a balanced and correct account of the issues?

1. Her deleting the 1864/1870 amalgamation of man and beast statements in her later works, from as
early as 1879 and 1888. This was a crucial signal to SDA pioneers as to how the Church should thereafter
relate to the earlier published statement that was causing misunderstanding, partly because of its
inherent ambiguity, and partly because how it could and was being misinterpreted in racially charged

2. Her adding new expressions to her writings being reproduced in 1890 (even while deleting the
AMBIGUOUS and CONTROVERSIAL amalgamations statements from these earlier publications). In
these additions she signals what she initially meant was the main issue (i.e. above another) that
resulted in the Flood. Here following (in highlights) are two crucial additions she made to the text of her
earlier publications:
[a] 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. - Patriarchs and Prophets, 1890

Notice, in her own words, what IN NO SURER WAY (i.e. this above all others) DEFACE THE IMAGE OF
adding this to her script earlier published, and in the very period in which her earlier amalgamation
expressions were being misinterpreted by some to mean bestiality, it is clear that it was no accident
she wrote these things. Notice too in the following quote [in bold type] the added line to the same
previously published manuscript:

[b] 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. . . . 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 Sin spread abroad in the earth like
a deadly leprosy Patriarchs and Prophets, 1890

Notice her 1890 care in ADDING (expressing/penning for the first time) these [highlighted] words to a
passage previously published in 1864 and 1870 in light of those among the SDA pioneers (between
1864 and 1890) thinking it was bestiality she meant when she earlier expressed if there was one sin
above another which called for the destruction of the race by the Flood. She was clearly writing in 1890
to dispel that notion, but in a quiet, non-confrontational way.

N.B. The above added expressions to her writings were to obviously emphasize what she said earlier in
the 1880s and in the early volumes of Testimonies to the Church. She made it clear in the early volumes
of Testimonies to the Church (written between 1882 and 1889, i.e. even before expressing it again in
Patriarch and Prophets of 1890) that:

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. Considering that Cain and Seth were blood brothers it is clear that reference to them as "races" before
the Flood was a spiritual application; not biological. Using the same principle, she also showed how she
meant certain races of men in her amalgamation statement was to be understood in the spiritual
sense as two parties always in existence (i.e. then and even now), and gave examples of how the
spiritual amalgamation in these certain [spiritual] races of men is evidenced after the Flood, and how
this defaces the image of God in Gods people:

the sons of men [see Genesis 6] that were set against the worship of God were drawing away the
sons of God. There were two parties *i.e. SPIRITUAL races, as it were+ in the world then, and there
always will be. The worshipers of God called themselves the sons of God. The descendants of Seth went
up into the mountains and there made themselves homes separate from the sons of Cain. Here in their
mountainous homes they thought to preserve themselves from the prevailing wickedness and idolatry of
the descendants of Cain. But after the exhortations and the influence of Enoch were removed from them,
they commenced to unite with the descendants of Cain.

Here I wish to impress upon your minds that there are always two parties *i.e. SPIRITUAL races, as it
were]: those who stand as faithful sentinels for God, and those who are against God. God has a test
and a trial for every living soul upon the face of the earth. There are always witnesses standing faithful to
God, as representatives of Gods righteousness, and those who are opposed to God, representatives of
the government of Satan. It is the privilege of all who witness these two parties to choose which party
they will be in- Ms. 86, 1886

N.B. Notice carefully in the above quote how she chose to express, FOR THE FIRST TIME, the idea of
two parties always existing, instead of saying races as it concerns describing the sons of God and
the sons of men. And notice she did this in the aftermath of publishing the 1864 and 1870
amalgamation statements, i.e. after the earlier written races of man expressions were being
misinterpreted and used in a racially charged ways by Uriah Smith and others in early Adventism. Notice
now in the following quote how the two parties (earlier expressed as the ever existing spiritual races
of men) is evidenced as being spiritually amalgamated/united since they came into existence with the
descendants of Seth and Cain before the Flood.

"It came to be a common practise [since the Flood] to intermarry with the *heathen. The Israelites
[when they engaged in this prohibition] 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

This is PART OF what Mrs. White evidently meant by saying since the Flood there has been
"amalgamation of man and *of+ beast (i.e. in the context already presentedof their being two
separate amalgamations in their own spheres, or AS MAY BE SEEN [1] in certain races of men and
[2] in the almost endless varieties of species of animals!! Here now is where many go wrong (I strongly
feel), even SOME OF the SDA Church leaders and scholars (as may be seen in the newly published 2013
Ellen G. White Encyclopedia). The part of the statement which states as may be seen is NOT
talking about the RESULTS of amalgamation since the Flood, but rather about visible *EXAMPLES
and *INSTANCES of, first, spiritual amalgamation involving 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, visible instances of biological amalgamation are seen in
humans continuing to practice the divinely prohibited hybridization of the almost endless varieties of
species of animals (plant species too) by either cross breeding and or by more recent means of high-
tech genetic manipulation . To make the part of the statement which says as may be seen mean
only the results of (as the traditional interpretation dictates), this ignores the other plausible
possibility of it meaning the visible instances in which or the visible examples of. It also creates
difficulty to see visible races of men resulting from spiritual amalgamation if it be argued that the
almost endless varieties of species of animals result from biological amalgamation. It is a better
reading I strongly feel, and easier to explain, when we understand the expression as may be seen to
possibly mean that the amalgamation of man and *of+ beast (i.e. two separate amalgamations in
their own spheres) can be visibly exemplified or instances of it are evident since the Flood. Am yet
to see what can fully refute that reasonable possibilityespecially considering the issues under
consideration are moot.

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.

By the way, did you know that in the time of E.G. White, the word "races" was also used to refer to
differing species or *types of animals, and not just to humans? I discovered that lately when I
discovered that Charles Darwin who lived in the time of E.G. White titled His book, "the Origin of
Species" with a longer title than is normally known, and that title was referring to BOTH animal types,
and human types as "races". Actually that original book title was "On the Origin of Species by Means
of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured *Races in the Struggle for Life". When I checked
what Darwin meant by "Favored Races", I discovered he was talking about both the so-called
superior, fitter or stronger animal types and human types, that would survive the "struggle for life". It
was then that it dawned on me to check the word "races" in the dictionary of Mrs. White's time, and
lo and behold, the 1828 Websters Dictionary of American English had this entry for "races" --

"3. A particular breed; as a race of mules; a race of horses; a race of sheep."

Thus it is plain that the word "races" can mean a particular type or "breed" of both animals and men;
and not just how we understand the word "race" today. No wonder Mrs. White later replaced her
original controversial *1864 explanation about "certain races [types or breed] of men" with ones that
speak of types, "classes" or "parties" of humans in the *spiritual (not the biological) sense, since she
obviously meant to originally convey that meaning with the words "certain races of men", but sadly it
was being misinterpreted by even her pioneering colleagues. That's why she later said, in 1886 and
1890 respectively, when speaking about the blood relatives of the two brothers, Cain and Seth (who
were different spiritually):

the sons of men *see Genesis 6+ that were set against the worship of God were drawing away the
sons of God. There were two *PARTIES *i.e. SPIRITUAL races, as it were+ in the world then, and there
always will be. The worshipers of God called themselves the sons of God. The descendants of Seth
went up into the mountains and there made themselves homes separate from the sons of Cain. Here
in their mountainous homes they thought to preserve themselves from the prevailing wickedness and
idolatry of the descendants of Cain. But after the exhortations and the influence of Enoch were
removed from them, they commenced to unite with the descendants of Cain.
Here I wish to impress upon your minds that there are always two *PARTIES *i.e. SPIRITUAL races,
as it were]: those who stand as faithful sentinels for God, and those who are against God. God has a
test and a trial for every living soul upon the face of the earth. There are always witnesses standing
faithful to God, as representatives of Gods righteousness, and those who are opposed to God,
representatives of the government of Satan. It is the privilege of all who witness these two parties to
choose which party they will be in

---E.G. White, Manuscript. 86, *1886

For some time the two *CLASSES *or spiritual "races"+ remained separate. The race *spiritual "class"
or "party"] 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. . . . 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 Sin spread abroad in the earth like a deadly leprosy --E.G.
White, Patriarchs and Prophets, 1890

See how a better understanding of word usage in a particular time in history can make a whole lot of
difference? Hmmmmmm.

To delve further into the issue of "the amalgamation of man and beast" AS EXPRESSED BY E.G. WHITE, I
offer to all two free e-books I penned entitled "The Amalgamation Statements and the Key Expressions
Involved" (Parts 1 & 2), which can be downloaded at the links:





Serious Consideration!!
Just recently I had the task of determining for myself what the American author, Ellen G. White, who
wrote primarily in the 19th century, meant by the cryptic expression "confused species" where animals
are concerned. It did not take me long to realize that no dictionary at the time (including the popular
1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of American English) had the phrase "confused species" as an entry. I
had to set about doing careful literature analysis, and by a forensic-type approach to background
meaning of the individual words "confused" and "species", as well as by doing careful contextual
analysis of the application made of the expression "confused species" by the author herself, it was then
that the issues began to become clearer. However I realized just recently (since February 24, 2014) that
the answer to, or confirmation of the meaning of expression "confused species" was staring me in the
face all along. It was confirmed by way of a subject I have been dealing with quite often in my online
discourses and gospel ministry. It just so happened to be the subject of homosexuality and the 'confused
genders' that emanate from that confusing lifestyle.

While doing a research on the matter of what is a 'confused gender' I was directed by the dictionary to
concepts like "agender", "transgender", "bigender", "third gender", and "gender queer" (all "confused"
descriptions, clearly). It was a "Eureka moment" (!!!) for me in terms what it means to be a "confused
species" in the subject I was previously researching. It then dawned on me that in just the same way a
'confused gender' is neither of the only two fundamental genders, and it straddles the fence, as it were,
where both genders are concerned, where the person, whether by mindset, lifestyle, or by virtue of
becoming transgendered, is not fully one gender, the same is true with a "confused species" of animals.
Since "species" must be animals with common genetic traits from one genetic ancestor, and are by
nature fertile and can reproduce by normal reproductive 'gendering' (coupling), it then dawned on me
that I was indeed on the right track in seeing hybrid animals as "confused species". These 'creatures'
resulting from human experimentation (or from cross breeding or ancient "genetic engineering") they
usually cannot reproduce, with minor exceptions, and they cannot be properly designated as any
specific type of specie. And any attempt to give them one fixed "specie" name (as common with
normal species) it normally has them being given a two-in-one 'compound 'name' that is NOT specific
(e.g. ligers, tigons, zonkeys, zebroids, hinnys, mules, etc. all have no specific specie name; see the long
list of hybrids or "confused [blended or mixed] species" of animals with no specific specie name, and
which are generally sterile at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_%28biology%29).

Now if the word "confused" in Mrs. White's time meant--- according to the 19th century Noah
Webster's Dictionary of American English---"mixed or blended, so that the things mixed cannot be
distinguished", then it is clear what a "confused species" of animals imply---*hybrids that are no specific
or single specie by name, and they usually cannot reproduce as god intended normal species to be able
to do.

It is absolutely clear to me now that this is what Mrs. White meant by "confused species" when she used
the expression in the 19th century regarding certain animals, since these animals (with the list of these
'creatures' growing rapidly each year) that are so produced by humans tampering with the 'genetic
boundaries', they normally end up being unable to fulfill God's first purpose for them, when he said in
Genesis 1 to all animals "be fruitful and multiply". No wonder God had to destroy them because of
this, as E.G. White captured in her writings:

"Every species of animals which God had created was preserved in the ark [of Noah]. The *confused
species [i.e. animal hybrids] which God did not create, which were the result of amalgamation [i.e. cross
breeding], were destroyed by the flood." - E.G. White.

The same way a 'confused gender' or homosexual lifestyle cannot normally fulfil this natural mandate to
"be fruitful and multiply" and create a normal family, and is hence considered an "abomination" in
lifestyle, so too is a "confused species" of animals created by humans via cross breeding (a type of
"genetic engineering" from ancient times). They are considered by God as "corrupted" as well.

"Genesis 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his
way upon the earth. Gen 6:17 And, behold, I [God], even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to
destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth
shall die."

One can be certain that the same attitude God had towards "corrupted" or "confused species" of
animals before/during the Flood, will be same he will have towards those zonkeys, ligers, tigons, etc.,
that are being created today by humans messing around with genetics (see Malachi 3:6). Of course we
already know of God's attitude to the "abominable" homosexual and the confused
transgender/effeminate lifestyle (a lifestyle reversing God's natural order), and Sodom's fiery demise is a
constant reminder, to those who will continue to push the confused homosexual culture and its 'gender
confusion', that Judgment is coming!! Plus, when the people of God today become united with the
world and its spirit, it is the same principle at play as seen in Genesis 6, wherein we see that God had to
destroy with fierce wrath those who were confused in their loyalties . Lessons from the past should
wake us up to see ourselves in these last days, and move us to repent of our deeds... even those
scientists 'playing God' by creating 'hybrid monsters' almost everyday!!

"God in the beginning made the cattle [and all animal life] after their kind (Gen_1:25), and we must
acquiesce [rest without opposition and discontent] in the order of nature God hath established, believing
that is best and sufficient, and not covet monsters. Add thou not unto his works, lest he reprove thee; for
it is the excellency of the work of God that nothing can, without making it worse, be either put to it or
taken from it, Eccl_3:14..."
- Matthew Henry's [Bible] Commentary (on Lev. 19:19)

"Ecclesiastes 3:14 Whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can [should] be put to it, nor any
thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him."


Is the SDA Church (or at least some in it) being prudent in resurrecting the pre-1888
amalgamation of man and beast statements of E.G. White THAT SHE HERSELF DELETED OR
ALTERED, and using them to teach new theories like the ancient genetic manipulation of
species (i.e. through high-tech laboratorial means), especially the production of human-animal
chimeras or human-animal monsters by the pre-Flood civilization?

ANSWER: Frankly I am of the view that those engaged in this practice are misguided, and they are not
taking an insightful cue from Mrs. Whites efforts (from as early as 1888) to delete and reword her
statements. Despite I believe the Church remains Gods true Remnant and three angels Messenger for
these last days (with a vital core Message), yet by resurrecting the earlier ambiguous amalgamation
statements to teach new theories (and not seeing the wisdom of Mrs. White herself leaving them
behind, or rewording them in a way that is not ambiguous), I believe the SDA Church (or at least those
responsible) is playing right into the hands of the critics, and, worse, is hedging up its own way with
further difficulty over the issue.

Today, it is popular among SOME SDAs (scholars, authors and certain leaders included) to be teaching a
new interpretation of the already deleted and reworded statements--- that the ancients (before and
probably after the Flood) had HIGHLY ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT to practice highly
advanced genetic engineering of human and animal DNA combined, and that this was what Mrs. White
initially meant by her amalgamation of man and beast statements (i.e. human-animal chimeras or
hybrids resulting from genetically combining humans and animals). They even try to read into those
statements of Mrs. White that the ancients were very advanced scientifically and technologically for
their time (even more than we realize today) , and see this as a reason to believe they could have had
technology as advanced and even more advanced than our technological age of the 21st century. But all
of this is simply fanciful or speculative thinking, which relies too much on imaginative approaches and
even fictional writing. The pre-Flood ancients could not even write, and they did not have books, and yet
we have knowledge of their ancient technology as recorded in the early chapters of Genesis. This was
because the oral tradition or word of mouth modality was employed to pass on the knowledge of the
ancients and their way of life.

Nothing in archaeology or recorded history gives satisfactory evidence that the ancients even knew
about DNA in and of itself (a highly complex substance discovered only in the 19th and 20th centuries,
which demand super computers and highly specialized scientific labs to manipulate), and nothing
historically gives sufficient evidence that humans were that advanced to manipulate DNA to accomplish
genetic engineering of the caliber some are purporting in Adventism since the 1940s. Ancients only
knew how to do crossbreeding of animals (the ancient/traditional form of genetic engineering) to
produce hybrids that are indeed confused species (see explanation of confused species here); not
the high-tech DNA manipulation known about (and possible technologically) only since the 1970s. It is
simply fanciful thinking to presume otherwise, and this presumption lacks plausible supportive evidence.

Thus these views should be discarded, especially considering that Patriarchs and Prophets of 1890 (page
81) shows the amalgamation Mrs. White REALLY intended to mostly highlight (AN AMALGAMATION
OF THE GODLY AND UNGODLY) --- the type which was productive of the *WORST RESULTS, and which
caused such a degeneration of the race, in terms of wickedness/sinfulness, that the Flood was
inevitable. Going beyond that more reasonable interpretation (or beyond the possible human-induced
hybridization of diverse animal species, as prohibited in Lev. 19:19; thus sinful) is wild speculation on the
part of these new SDA authors and thinkers, and I call upon them to be wise, and take a cue from Mrs.
White herself on the amalgamation statements. Leave behind the earlier amalgamation of man and
beast statements (unless responding to critics who resurrect them for attack purposes), so that the
work of the SDA Church will not be hindered by those things in the Churchs past that have been long
altered or deleted for wise purposes. A word to the wise is sufficient, I feel.



Many of the critics (some SDA writers too) point to Gordon Shigleys research paper entitled
Amalagamtion of Man and Beast: What Did Ellen White Mean? (Spectrum 12, No. 4, June 1982), and
triumphantly proclaim it proved Mrs. White taught that bestiality produced races like the Negroes. Yet
after carefully reading that paper for myself I see where this cannot be proven. The paper would be
better titled What Did SDAs *Think She Meant!! All Gordon Shigley's research paper did was give a
detailed account of the debate between SDA scholars Frank Marsh and Howard Clark, and gave the
details of their personal polemics as combatants regarding what they (and the early SDA pioneers)
think/thought Mrs. White meant; nothing more. It is only a perspective-driven bias that determines
which side of the issues presented one would take as a reader, and it is disingenuous for critics to
present Shigley's paper as being anything more than a balanced report of the 1940s debate between
Marsh and Clark. Many of the critics would not choose to present the plausible counter-arguments of
Frank Marsh in the balanced debate between himself and Howard Clark, showing how much they are in
involved in the business of presenting half-truths; not the whole story. It is true too that the critics of
E.G. White would never countenance the 1924 letter of William C. White (whom they often say believed
his mother taught that certain races of men, like the Negroes, resulted from ancient bestiality). This
letter would certainly blow holes into their pet theories about the "amalgamation" controversy (see that
letter in my Part 2 manuscript on the "amalgamation" controversy). But what's really new? The critics
usually have certain predictable traits (often misrepresenting the true facts), and leopards do not
change their spots.



Hello Dr. Andre Hill,

Just in case you wondered why I was so keen on getting the original documents I requested from you
regarding the "amalgamation" issue. Apart from what I already said to you, and what you could surmise
(i.e. as to my reasons), let me further demonstrate how crucial I find going to original source material
is. I notice that you uploaded to "Bredda Nick's" Facebook page much of your information as gotten
from Dirk Anderson (among other critics/authors of course), and yet I find Dirk Anderson to be a poor
exegete, often a careless reader, and one often lacking in insight to see context and even to grasp the
obvious meanings of words before him...even in the Bible itself. Thus anything he quotes from and
comments on I make sure to see the original for myself. Often I am able to spot where he missed either
context or key words and word meanings here and there, WHICH MAKES A WHOLE LOT OF
DIFFERENCE!! I do all of this not just to engage in 'Church defending', but to get at the REAL TRUTH of
the matter. Apart from what I already knew about the issues you highlighted on Religious Hardtalk, I am
learning so much of late (on all the issues of contention...even ones you did not mention) and it is
refreshing, and continues to strengthen my faith in ways I never dreamed before!

"amalgamation" issue, for instance, I have been downloading from digital archives online crucial
ORIGINAL information and material available in the 19th century, including things like the full text of the
Uriah Smith's 1868 booklet defending E.G. White, The [1876] Johnson's New Cyclopedia referred to by
SDA pioneer G.V. Kilgore (as referenced in Ronald Osburn's 2010 paper "True Blood"), the original
Advent Review and Herald magazines, et al, so that I can see the full text of the articles and
presentations/utterances OF ALL CONCERNED. And I find that IT MAKES A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENCE!

For instance, Dirk Anderson accuses Mrs. White of getting some of her ideas (on the amalgamation of
man and beast) from the apocryphal book of Jasher (an apocryphal book referred to by bona fide Bible
writers in more than one place, incidentally; just like how Jude evidently referenced the apocryphal
book of Enoch in Jude 1:14). And I see where you uploaded from his website a table comparing what he
contends might have been "borrowed" from the Book of Jasher, including the amalgamation issue. And
so I thought it prudent to download the entire book of Jasher online (and not rely on Dirk Anderson's
quotes in that table, with him often using ellipses that can be quite misleading), and lo and behold I
AGAIN see how Dirk Anderson fails to read properly, or see context, OR QUOTE THINGS ACURATELY.
Interestingly, if I should accept from Dirk Anderson that Mrs. White "borrowed" the amalgamation idea
from the Book of Jasher, IRONICALLY I would be further strengthened in my interpretation of the
statement from E.G. White (in the F.D. Nichol tradition of interpretation) since, here is what the book of
Jasher (4:16-19) actually said (a blow to Dirk Anderson, by the way):

"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
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 verse 18, and the two (2) types of amalgamation/mingling described by the book of
Jasher, especially the second type of amalgamation involving "the mixture of ANIMALS, of one specie
with the other" (as prohibited in Lev. 19:19), i.e. separate and apart from the human amalgamation
earlier described in the same verse.
Dirk Anderson should have realized, if he had only read properly this reference he made, that it actually
defeats his own argument, since this book of Jasher he referenced speaks of two separate
amalgamations in the very verse he referenced, i.e. involving humans and animals separately (the types
F.D. Nichol felt was E.G. White intention all along, despite what others among the early pioneers
READING FULLY FOR ONE'S SELF? I don't even always 'trust' what bonafide SDA authors themselves say
sometimes, since they too can be misguided in SOME THINGS, or IN SOME THINGS miss context and
background in their interpretations of even Mrs. White whom they support...sometimes even seeing so-
called "contradictions" when there are really none.

This applies to even Ronald Osburn's "scholarly" paper, where upon reading the original sources he
referenced and quoted for myself I can confirm some of what he said, as well as see where he went
wrong in some of his interpretations/comments too...which again makes a whole lot of difference for
me. I could show you a number of things Ronald Osburn is misguided in (after fully reading the available
original sources he quoted), despite his paper is indeed potent in several areas.

BTW, I never had a copy of Jud Lake's book "Ellen White Under Fire" when I made my appearance on
Religious Hardtalk, and had no chance to read it before then, IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO YOU
SURMISING THAT I DID, but I was able to get hold of a copy long after that appearance, just about a
month ago, and I have read it too with the same open mind, and aggressive seeking after much of the
actual reference material he alluded to, in order to "prove all things" for myself. It really doesn't deal
with all the individual controversial issues comprehensively, it wasn't written for that purpose, as the
author himself made plain in the introduction, but boy is it loaded with references as to where to get
answers for myself!! Love it for that). BTW again, am gonna be doing a full critique of your written
thesis on E.G. White in short order (having seen all the weaknesses and failings of your thesis, and being
able to adequately prepare to address them)i.e. the paper you wrote entitled: "Can SDAs Trust the
Claims of EG White?"
Bottom line? My adventure into discovery and evangelism continues, and I am sooooo much the
better for it.I just felt like sharing my personal journey (at least in snippets), which obviously is not
turning out to be the way your "journey" ended as it concerns the SDA Church [Dr. Hill left the SDA
Church]. Smile. But I still say, LET EVERY MAN BE CONVINCED IN HIS OWN MIND, and I FULLY defend
your right to hold your views about the SDA Church, even if I don't share them in all its forms.

Yours in Christ
bro Derrick Gillespie

Dear bro Bob,

I assume you are the website manager and maybe the main writer at TruthorFables.net? Seeing
that phone calls wont be tenable I will endeavor to write my rebuttal points. Having read
through your series of brief responses I can say the following:


I take it we are both agreed Mrs. White never personally meant bestiality in her "amalgamation
of man and beast" statements, despite it was so misinterpreted by certain/some early pioneers,
and this accounts for much (not all) of the 'difficulty' we confront with the critics today (as a
Church) and with properly interpreting this controversial statement from Mrs. White. I think we
are both agreed the primary witness, W.C .White, did much to dispel the popular notion that
she was racist and meant that bestiality was the cause of the black race, among others,

I also like the tone of our discussion so far, where we firmly press for our stance to be
understood (supplying our body of 'evidence'), yet we do not disrespect or disparage the
position of each other.


I think you have certain weaknesses and oversights in your argumentation, and hence this
leaves your case less than convincing for me. These "weaknesses" include:

a] You ignoring/downplaying the fact that I spoke of two types of amalgamations happening in
their own spheres, but, as is often the case in Mrs. White's "man and beast" quotations, she
groups the two separate yet related ideas and describe them together. I have given more than
ample evidence of this as it concerns her own unique manner of writing. See pages 4-5 of my
Part 1 presentation on the issue of her "man and beast" expressions (see the link "The
Amalgamation Statements and the Key Expressions involved")

b] You argue that I deny the ancient possibility of "genetic engineering". Quite the opposite.
What I deny/denied is concrete proof of high-tech, laboratory style, direct DNA manipulation
(maybe even involving ancient computer-type technology, as some try to postulate) by the pre-
Flood ancients, which involved creation of ancient chimeras (i.e. man-beast products). Careful
reading of my manuscript show that I do accept the reality that ancients before and after the
flood could and did engage in "genetic engineering" in the cross-breeding of diverse ANIMAL
and PLANT species among themselves (producing forbidden hybrids), and in disobedience to
the divine will expressed in LEVITICUS 19:19. Your oversight, Bob, is in not recognizing that
"genetic engineering" consists of two types, namely: cross breeding or selective breeding which
has existed from ancient times (even before the Flood), and high-tech DNA manipulation (i.e.
direct cell alteration techniques via laboratories) which is only recent lab-type technology since
the 20th century (i.e. since the 1970s). Wikipedia (online encyclopedia) confirms this reality by
saying (in article on "Genetic engineering" and "Selective breeding" respectively):

"Humans have altered the genomes of species for thousands of years through artificial selection
and more recently mutagenesis. Genetic engineering as the direct manipulation of DNA by
humans outside breeding and mutations has only existed since the 1970s."

"Selective breeding (also called artificial selection) is the process by which humans breed other
animals and plants for particular traits....Selective breeding of both plants and animals has been
practiced since early prehistory; key species such as wheat, rice, and dogs have been significantly
different from their wild ancestors for millennia, and maize, which required especially large
changes from teosinte, its wild form, was selectively bred in Mesoamerica. Selective breeding
was practiced by the Romans.[4] Treatises as much as 2,000 years old give advice on selecting
animals for different purposes, and these ancient works cite still older authorities..."

Thus if you RE-READ carefully my argumentation/presentations you will see me saying, for
instance [inserts added for emphasis]:

"Nowhere does Mrs. White [in her initial 1864/1870 statements] 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 resulting from mans sin of crossbreeding/amalgamating [i.e.
genetically engineering] 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...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 [i.e. genetically
engineering them via selective breeding or hybridization]; just as modern SDAs have been saying
that this was what E.G. White was referring to all along?"

Thus, Bob, you pointing to ancient evidence of genetic engineering as evidenced in plant hybrids
actually proves my points raised above, but it does NOT prove ancient chimeras (human-beast
hybrids) being produced via high-tech 'laboratorial' means....i.e. via the modern way known for
producing chimeras by direct DNA or cell manipulation in the labs.

c] You make it seem that cross-breeding kinds and species that are somewhat related could not
be what God was prohibiting in Lev. 19:19, and to you it seems unrealistic to imply that. But that
is just an assumption on your part. My extensive reading around the passage Lev. 19:19 reveals
some interesting things....some of which I will share below, but first of all, let me address your
quote from the new EGW encyclopedia. Regarding this you said:

"On p. 232 of the new EGW Encyclopedia, it states: Referring to (5) the emergence thorns and
thistles (Gen. 3:18), she wrote: Every noxious herb is of his *Satans+ and by his ingenious
methods of amalgamation [malicious genetic engineering of plants] he has corrupted the earth
with tares (Ms 65, 1899, in 2SM 288; 1BC 1086; 16MR 247)....Thus, regardless of whether the
authors of the above think the amalgamation before the flood was of man and beast or man
with beast, they still think that in at least this instance, "amalgamation" in Ellen White's writings
refers to genetic engineering."

From the foregoing you should realize this is weak argumentation from you, since I do accept a
certain type of "genetic engineering" (i.e. cross-breeding/selective-breeding) to have existed
from ancient times, and accepted it was not within God's plan for human tampering with the
plant and animal species to take place (Lev. 19:19). The above quoted passage from Mrs. White
does not say humans deliberately created "tares" (or "noxious herbs"; see "Noxious weeds" in
the Wikipedia), but rather by Satan's "ingenious methods of amalgamation" he caused/caused
harmful weeds or "tares" to exist (i.e. weeds that are not beneficial to man nor the
environment). Reading how "tares", or "vetch" or "darnel" can 'accidentally' result from mixing
seeds (which God prohibited for good reasons) or by natural and 'accidental' means out in the
wild (see the "noxious weeds" link above) this does reveal why God was opposed to mixing
seeds while planting, and shows that cross breeding of species that are related but not exactly
alike was what God prohibited. Remember, tares and wheat, for instance, are both species
from the grass family or grass kind (remember "kind" and "species" do not mean the same
thing), but mixing seeds of various species of grass kinds can certainly result in noxious herbs or
weeds resulting, and God prohibited this. Thus the same is true, it seems, with cross-breeding
animal species. Various Bible Commentaries reveal much about what might have been
prohibited in Lev. 19:19, and it further strengthens my points expressed in my manuscripts. Let
me now share what some Bible Commentaries reveal about Lev. 19:19:
Adam Clarke's Commentary:

"Gender with a diverse kind - These precepts taken literally seem to imply that they should not
permit the horse and the she-ass, nor the he-ass and the cow, (as they do in the East), to couple
[plow] together; nor sow different kinds of seeds in the same field or garden...And if all these
were forbidden, there must have been some moral reason for the prohibitions...With respect to
heterogeneous mixtures [i.e. 'gendering'] among cattle, there is something very unnatural in it,
and it was probably forbidden to prevent excitements to such unnatural lusts as those
condemned in the preceding chapter, Lev_18:22, Lev_18:23. As to seeds, in many cases it would
be very improper to sow different kinds in the same plot of ground. It would be improvident to
sow oats and wheat together: the latter would be injured, the former ruined. The turnip and
carrot would not succeed conjointly, where either of them separately would prosper and yield a
good crop; so we may say of many other kinds of seeds; and if this be all that is intended, the
counsels are prudential agricultural maxims..."

John Gill's Commentary:

"thou shall not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind; or "cause them to gender" --- for cattle
do not usually of themselves gender with a diverse kind, unless directed and solicited to it, as a
male of one kind with a female of another; for instance, an horse with a she ass, or an he ass
with a mare, and even creatures that were like one another, yet of different kinds, were not to
mix together; as a wolf and a dog, a hound and a fox, goats and roebucks, goats and sheep, a
horse and a mule, a mule and an ass, an ass and a wild ass; for though they are like one another,
they are of different kinds ...the act of causing to gender is what is forbidden: the design was to
preserve the order of beings, and the nature of creatures as they were at the first creation; that
there might be no change among them, or anything taken from or added to what God had

"thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: or seed of divers sorts, as wheat and barley,
and which, according to the Jews (i), was not mingled unless there be two grains of wheat and
one of barley, or one of wheat and two of barley; or wheat, and barley, and rye: they also
include herbs and trees in this law, and make an graft of them a forbidden mixture; hence, they
say (k), they do not ingraft one tree in another, nor one herb in another, nor a tree in an herb,
nor an herb in a tree, of which they give instances: and there are various sorts of seeds, herbs,
roots, and trees, which are and are not of divers kinds, and some that are alike and yet diverse;
for they have a whole treatise of such like things, called "Celaim", or divers kinds: as to the
mystical sense, the "field" may represent the church of God, which is not an open but an
enclosed field, enclosed by the grace of God, and separated from others by it, well manured and
cultivated by the Spirit of God"

N.B. The above quote is interesting, because it suggests the reasonable idea that God could
have been not only been prohibiting ancient genetic engineering, by traditional means, to
preserve the natural order of his own creation in the animal and plant kingdom (a moral
obligation of man to honor the Creator by obeying), but to also teach spiritual lessons about
how injurious and confusing intermarriage between the godly and ungodly 'species' or
'spiritual races' of men can be.

Matthew Henry's Commentary:

"Here is the law against mixtures, Lev_19:19. God in the beginning made the cattle after their
kind (Gen_1:25), and we must acquiesce in the order of nature God hath established, believing
that is best and sufficient, and not covet monsters. Add thou not unto his works, lest he reprove
thee; for it is the excellency of the work of God that nothing can, without making it worse, be
either put to it or taken from it, Eccl_3:14..."

Jameison, Fausset and Brown's Commentary:

"Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind This prohibition was probably
intended to discourage a practice which seemed to infringe upon the economy which God has
established in the animal kingdom....thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed ...those who
have studied the diseases of land and vegetables tell us, that the practice of mingling seeds is
injurious both to flowers and to grains. If the various genera of the natural order Gramineae,
which includes the grains and the grasses, should be sown in the same field, and flower at the
same time, so that the pollen of the two flowers mix, a spurious seed will be the consequence,
called by the farmers chess. It is always inferior and unlike either of the two grains that
produced it, in size, flavor, and nutritious principles..."

John Wesley's Commentary:

"Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender - This was prohibited, partly to restrain the curiosity and
boldness of men, who might attempt to amend or change the works of God, partly that by the
restraint here laid even upon brute - creatures men might be taught to abhor all unnatural lusts,
partly to teach the Israelites to avoid mixtures with other nations, either in marriage or in


I believe I am in 'good company' as it concerns my stance taken on the issue of what Mrs. White
meant by the "amalgamation of man and [of] beast" statement, as it applied both before and
after the Flood. Read again carefully my two-part presentations, and prayerfully too, Bob, so
that truth may be the winner; not just personal perspectives. I am convinced my stance can be
more than comfortably evidenced and demonstrated; the stance that is the 'standard' teaching
of the E.G. White Estate (the body entrusted/willed by Mrs. White herself to guard the writings
of our beloved prophetess). A careful study of the word uses by Mrs. White (not imposing our
own unwarranted meaning on them) should guard us against fanciful interpretation of her
writings, or from falling prey to fanciful interpretations like what some of the early pioneers (like
Uriah Smith) sadly fell prey to. I stand by my statements and overarching premise, where I said:

"Never forget that she [Mrs. White] 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 [prohibited amalgamation] 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.
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)."

I see no COMPELLING reason to adopt your stance, Bob; that of human-beast chimeras
produced before the Flood, despite I do respect it as your choice of opinion. But let every man
be convinced in his own mind, especially as it concerns issues that are not 'salvific' in nature,
and can probably accommodate more than one interpretation WITHOUT LOSS OF ONE'S

bro Derrick Gillespie

----------------- THE END -----------------------