Slap se nije obrukao, što se da videti iz dole navedenog citata:
Evo ponovo citata Ellen White gdje ona tvrdi kako je došlo do križanja čovjeka sa životinjom.
"Ako postoji bilo koji grijeh koji je iznad drugih, zbog kojeg se dogodilo i uništenje potopom, onda je to grijeh križanja čovjeka i životinje koji je zamaglio sliku Boga, i izazvao pomutnju posvuda." (Ellen White Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 64, 1864.)
Da bi dokazao ovo Jelenino vjerovanje i naučavanje
Uriah Smith je, četiri godine nakon što je Ellen White objavila
Spiritual Gifts u kojima piše o
križanju ljudi i životinja, dakle, 1868. objavio knjigu
The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White, A Manifestation of Spiritual gifts According to the Scripture. U ovoj svojoj knjizi Smith navodi neke rase ljudi,
Bušmane, Hotentote i neka plemena sa Patagonije, kao dokaz da je došlo
križanja između čovjeka i životinje.
Vremena su se promijenila.
Skandaloznom je postala tvrdnja Ellen White o križanju čovjeka i životinje, dakle, trebalo je "
proročicu vaditi iz g....a". Posao "čiščenja kanalizacije" zapao je Francis-a D. Nichol-a. Pogledajte koje je muke imao Francis. Da bi "dokazao" da u gornjoj Jeleninoj rečenici (
"Ako postoji bilo koji grijeh koji je iznad drugih, zbog kojeg se dogodilo i uništenje potopom, onda je to grijeh križanja čovjeka i životinje koji je zamaglio sliku Boga, i izazvao pomutnju posvuda.") ne piše ono što piše, Francis D. Nichol izveo je svoj "idiotsko-kažnjenički" dokaz ovakvom i ovolikom hrpom besmisla:
20. “Amalgamation of Man and Beast”
Charge: Mrs. White teaches that before the Flood, and also afterward, men cohabited with beasts and that
the offspring constitutes certain depraved races of men today. She is here simply revealing a credulous
belief in ancient myths regarding strange creatures produced by unholy alliances between human beings
and beasts. If progeny could result from such unions, it would support the anti-Biblical doctrine of
evolution. But it is an unscientific statement, wholly fanciful. Later on, she suppressed the statement.
The only passages in Mrs. White's writings that are ever cited in support of this charge are found in
Spiritual Gifts, volume 3, published in 1864 and republished in Spirit of Prophecy, volume 1, in 1870. The
earlier volume is devoted to a recital of the story of man's early history, beginning at creation. Chapter 6 is
entitled “Crime Before the Flood,” and contains this statement:
“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.
What Mrs. White meant by these passages has been the occasion of some speculation through the years.
Her critics have set forth their view of her words in the charge cited. Those who believe in her writings
have given two explanations. Some have held that she taught not only that men and beasts have cohabited
but also that progeny resulted. However, these defenders have contended that this does not really 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 at that, which would do no worse for Mrs. White than to leave her two
statements in Spiritual Gifts 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 we believe is 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, particularly mercury
with other 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.*
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. The burden of proof rests on those
who affirm that Mrs. White gave a new and alien meaning to the term.
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. Those writings 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.
* 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, 1938-44, 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.”
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 apostacy which ended in
the destruction of the world by a flood.”—Testimonies, 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 disputed passage:
“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.” *
* 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 he placed on the fact that in
thus recapitulating, the winter 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.
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.” And 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 Controversial Passage Examined
This brings us to a consideration of the second of the two controversial passages:
“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.”—Ibid., 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, of races of men defaced the image of God. The amalgamation of
“species of animals” resulted in “confused 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.”
2. Mrs. White speaks of the “almost endless varieties of species of animals” that have resulted from
amalgamation. Now the standard attack on Mrs. White in the matter of amalgamation is that she 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
supports 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.* 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.
* 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 commenton 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.
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!
The Greatest Objection Considered
Perhaps the greatest objection to accepting the view here set forth is found in this question: 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.
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.” Gert. 7:21.
* 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, vol. 2, p. 70.
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.)
The last part of this command, which deals with a garment, was doubtless intended to symbolize the idea
Of keeping separate those things that should be separate; the command with regard to the cattle and seed is
obviously literal.
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.* 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, in an
unpublished statement, she makes a reference to amalgamation—the only other reference thus far
discovered in all her writings—which 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.”—MS. 65, 1899.
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.”
We have; therefore; left for consideration only the charge implicit in the fact that the amalgamation
statements were not incorporated by Mrs. White in her later works, now current.
* 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.
The Suppression Charge Examined
Here is simply a variation of the charge of suppression. We believe that the chapter that dealt exhaustively
with that charge revealed that 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 charging that suppression has occurred. In view of
this clearly established point we might properly refuse to take seriously this plausible-sounding charge of
suppression as applied to the amalgamation passage. But that the groundlessness of the charge may be
transparently clear 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 set forth in the discussion on Suppression, 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. That was the time to “suppress” them. But 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!
If anything need be added, we presume it would be to 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! *
* At no time did Mrs. White offer any comment on the matter. James White spoke approvingly of Smith's
book defending Mrs. White against fifty-two objections. But it would be a bold assumption to conclude
from this that he agreed with every detail of every explanation and defense that Smith presented. (See
James White's approving paragraph in the Review and Herald, Aug. 25, 1868, p. 160.) In the chapter
“The Image Beast and 666” we noted that James White approved, with apparently no qualification, a
certain prophetic chart. But later, and in another connection, he gently ridiculed a point of prophetic
interpretation that is reflected in one statement in the chart. Now, if we are not warranted in drawing
from James White's approval of Smith's book the conclusion that he specifically endorsed Smith's
statement on amalgamation, we are even less warranted in concluding from James White's approval that
Mrs. White approved. Mrs. White's silence proves nothing. Only rarely did she make a statement
regarding the accuracy or inaccuracy of explanations made by others concerning her writings.
from James White's approval of Smith's book the conclusion that he specifically endorsed Smith's
Plitku si obranu postavio.