"We discovered Ellen White failed the Biblical tests of a prophet"

  Honest Answers
  for Real People
Main Menu Search


A Denominational Embarrassment

By Dirk Anderson

Esta pagina in Español

Many Adventists agree the following statements are the most absurd ever penned by Ellen White:

"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."1

"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."2

A Summary of Mrs. White's main points about Amalgamation

  1. The Worst Sin Imaginable - This was not just any sin. It was the primary sin, the "one sin above another", that called for "the destruction" of the entire human race.

  2. It was the most abhorrent of moral sins - It was a vile, "base crime".3

  3. It ruined the image of God - At creation, God created man in his image (Gen. 1:26). Amalgamation "defaced the image of God" in man.

  4. It occurred both before and after "the flood."

  5. Evidence of Amalgamation can be seen today - Its effects can be seen "in certain races of men."


There is no doubt that Ellen White understood her statements to be describing the sexual union between man and beast. The cross-breeding of animals with humans "defaced the image of God" in man, and the half-man, half-beast beings resulting from this union caused "confusion everywhere."

At the time Mrs. White penned this "inspired" section, it was believed by some...

"...that crosses between men and animals had created a no-man's-land between man and beast, populated by gorillas, chimpanzees, wild bushmen of Africa, Patagonians, and Hottentots."4
Unfortunately for Mrs. White, this fanciful story of part-animal, part-human beasts roaming the earth is nothing less than a fairy tale. For nearly a century, science has known that it is impossible for humans and animals to inter-breed or produce offspring.

Got her ideas from a fictional book?

It is obvious Ellen White did not get these ideas about amalgamation from God. So, where did she get them from? Many of Mrs. White's statements about the pre-flood era appear astonishingly similar to statements in the Book of Jasher, a fictional account of earth's early history published in 1840 (click here to examine the evidence). In that book we find that the pre-flood humans experimenting with amalgamation...

"... 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."5

Which race is a product of amalgamation?

Mrs. White said the results of amalgamation could be seen "in certain races of men." The question that has haunted the SDA Church for more than 140 years is, which races are the result of amalgamation of man and beast?

Ellen White's statement provoked instant controversy and stinging criticism of her in the 1860s. This forced church leaders to perform damage-control to restore the image of their prophet. In 1866, two years after the amalgamation statements first appeared in print, Adventist leader Uriah Smith6 published his defense of Ellen White, in which he tried to make sense of some of Ellen White's more outlandish statements. In a series of articles appearing in the Adventist Review we find the first official Seventh-day Adventist explanation of the amalgamation statement. Smith conjectured that the union of man with beast had created "such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country, &c".7

To assure the SDA brethren that Smith's explanations had the approval of SDA authorities, the General Conference reviewed his manuscript prior to publication in the Review and provided a "hearty approval" for his explanations in the June 12, 1866, edition of the Review.

Two years later, Smith re-printed the articles in a book. James White "carefully" reviewed Smith's book prior to its publication, and then recommended it in glowing terms to the readers of the church's official magazine, the Review and Herald:

"The Association has just published a pamphlet entitled, 'The Visions of Mrs. E.G. White, A Manifestation of Spiritual Gifts According to the Scriptures.' It is written by the editor of the Review. While carefully reading the manuscript, I felt grateful to God that our people could have this able defense of those views they so much love and prize, which others despise and oppose."8
SDA Church Identifies Amalgamated Species of Humans
Bushmen of Africa
The Hottentots
The Digger Indians
The Bushmen are black Africans living in southern Africa. "Genetic evidence suggests they are one of the oldest, if not the oldest, peoples in the world a 'genetic Adam'...from which all humans can ultimately trace their genetic heritage."10 The Khoikhoi are black Africans of southwestern Africa, closely related to the Bushmen. They were traditionally known to white colonists as the Hottentots, a name that is currently generally considered offensive.11 The term "Digger Indians" is a reference to the Paiute Indian tribes living in the Southwestern United States of America. They were called "diggers" presumably because of their practice of digging for roots, although that term is now considered derogatory.12
As noted, the prophet's husband carefully read Smith's book. It is inconceivable that the statements about the Bushmen of Africa passed by James White without notice. His endorsement of the book indicates his implicit approval of the explanation. In fact, because it supposedly established Mrs. White's claims, James and Ellen took 2,000 copies of Smith's book with them to peddle at camp meetings that year!9 By promoting and selling Smith's book the Whites placed their stamp of approval on his explanation of the amalgamation statement.

And just who are these races that are so unfortunate as to be labeled by Seventh-day Adventist leaders as amalgamations of man with beast? As indicated in the table to the right, they are some of the most truly authentic human beings on the planet!

How unfortunate that the SDA prophet and SDA leaders failed to realize that the very "Bushmen" they labeled as part-man, part-beast, carry the genetic markers indicating they are the ancestors of the entire human race, and are genetically as fully human as white people! How could their inspired prophet be so dreadfully wrong?

SDA Scholars Perform Mental Gymnastics

While the "Bushmen of Africa" explanation was good enough for the Whites, Smith, and the 1866 General Conference, it eventually fell out of favor with later generations of SDA leaders. It became increasingly difficult to explain these statements to an increasingly educated and racially diverse denomination.

Despite the controversy, both the critics and supporters of Ellen White agreed that Mrs. White was talking about the union of man with beast. However, by 1947 an Adventist biologist named Dr. Frank Marsh convinced an SDA panel to interpret Mrs. White's statement to mean the interbreeding among species, not interbreeding between man and beast. Dr. Marsh argued convincingly that the union of man and beast is impossible. Despite the fact that James White, Uriah Smith, W.C. White (her son), and D.D. Robinson (her secretary) all indicate Mrs. White believed her statement to refer to the interbreeding of man with beasts, the mounting scientific evidence made it impossible for Adventists to continue to defend her statement based upon its intended meaning.13 Thus, they developed a new meaning for the statement, a meaning which was unknown to Ellen White, a meaning which was at variance with Smith's defense of her statement, and a meaning which is extremely difficult to extract from the text of the amalgamation quotes themselves.

Recent generations of Adventists have performed all types of mental gymnastics to twist and turn her statements into something she never meant nor intended. For example, one recent Adventist scholar, Francis D. Nichol, in his book Ellen G. White and Her Critics, informs us that the word "amalgamation" was used commonly in the 19th century to refer to intermarriage between the black and white races. He also notes that Ellen White used the word "amalgamation" to refer to the intermarriage between those of different faiths. Nichol argues that Mrs. White's statement was referring to amalgamation between "man and "man", namely, the interbreeding between humans of different races or different religions.

Intermarriage between the races?

First of all, Mrs. White dealt with the issue of intermarriage between races in her writings, and she discouraged the practice, but she never called it a "base crime" or even a sin. The "intermarriage" theory raises questions than cannot possibly be answered, and Nichol makes no attempt to explain how this could possibly make sense:

  • How could intermarriage between races deface the image of God in man? How could one human (made in the image of God) married to another human (made in the image of God) deface the image of God?

  • If intermarriage between races is a "sin" and a "base crime", then why is it never described as such in the Bible?

  • Many Biblical scholars believe Moses' wife Zipporah was a different race. Therefore, according to Nichol's theory, the children of Moses were an amalgamated species. If so, why did God offer to make the children of Moses into a great nation? After all, wasn't amalgamation the main reason God destroyed the earth with a flood? So why didn't God destroy Moses and his family for committing a base crime?

Intermarriage between godly and ungodly?

Another theory proposed by those wrestling to come up with a way to explain away this statement is that Ellen White meant the intermarriage between the righteous sons of Seth and the wicked. However, this interpretation seems to contradict the context of the statement. Gordon Shigley explains:

"It was difficult to read the statements within their context without seeing a series of sins, of which the last sin--the 'one sin above another'--was obviously the climax. It was not likely that Ellen White was talking about intermarriage since she already had described that sin in an earlier paragraph. ...it is impossible to make the amalgamation of beast with beast or man with man the one sin greater than idolatry, adultery, polygamy, theft, or murder."14
Again, this interpretation raises far more questions than it answers:
  • Is intermarriage between the godly and ungodly a "sin" or a "base crime?" Interestingly, Mrs. White describes the intermarriage between the sons of Cain and Seth just four pages earlier on page 60 of Spiritual Gifts. She says the intermarriage "displeased God", but she does not call it a base crime. Nor does she mention amalgamation. Samson married a Philistine woman over the objections of his parents and the Bible simply says:
    "But his father and his mother knew not that it was of the Lord..." (Judges 14:4)
    If marrying an ungodly woman was a "base crime" worthy of the destruction of the human race, why would the Bible say that Samson's marriage to a Philistine was "of the Lord?"

  • How could the results of intermarriage between people of different faiths now "be seen" in "certain races of men?" Which races show visible evidence of intermarriage between believers and unbelievers?

"Base Crime" proves White Estate and Nichol wrong

Mrs. White describes amalgamation as a base crime. Why? What is a base crime? What does the dictionary say? First, let us look at Webster's 1828 dictionary:
Base - Mean; vile; worthless; that is, low in value or estimation; used of things.15
Webster's 1913 dictionary:
Base - Morally low. Hence: Low-minded; unworthy; without dignity of sentiment; ignoble; mean; illiberal; menial; as, a base fellow; base motives; base occupations. A cruel act of a base and a cowardish mind.16
Here are the synonyms to the word "base" from Webster's 1999 dictionary:
Synonyms: BASE, LOW, VILE mean deserving of contempt because of the absence of higher values.
  • BASE stresses the ignoble and may suggest cruelty, treachery, greed, or grossness [base motives].
  • LOW may connote crafty cunning, vulgarity, or immorality and regularly implies an outraging of one's sense of decency or propriety [refused to listen to such low talk].
  • VILE, the strongest of these words, tends to suggest disgusting depravity or filth [a vile remark].17
If the amalgamation was "human with human, and beast with beast," then how could these relationships be described as base crimes? How could sexual relations between married human partners be described as base crimes? Doesn't God honor marriage, whether or not both partners are of the same race or religion? How could union between different species of animals be a base crime? Animals have no such moral capacity to commit a base crime!

If the union of human with human is not a base crime, and if the union of animal with animal is not a base crime, then what is a base crime?

A base crime is an act of vile immorality. Mrs. White uses the phrase base crime only one other time in her writings. She used the phrase to describe Potiphar's wife's vile and adulterous sexual advances upon the youthful Joseph.18

The Bible is very clear that sexual relations between humans and animals is a vile, base crime. It is condemned in the Bible as an abomination worthy of the death penalty.19 Notice carefully that the crimes of adultery and bestiality are in close context with one another in the Levitical law:

Lev. 18:20 - "Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour's wife, to defile thyself with her."

Lev. 18:23 - "Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith: neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it [is] confusion."

To reiterate, Mrs. White uses the term "base crime" only two times in her entire writings. One, the sexual assault upon Joseph, refers to a violation of Lev. 18:20. The second, the amalgamation statement, refers to a violation of Lev. 18:23. Furthermore, Mrs. White says the amalgamation "caused confusion everywhere", clearly linking it to Lev. 18:23 which states that bestiality "is confusion". Mrs. White's choice of the words "base crime" and her allusion to the resulting "confusion" is irrefutable evidence she was describing bestiality, not intermarriage between humans with racial or religious differences.

Is Amalgamation the greatest reason for the flood?

If Ellen White is correct, that the "one sin above another which called for the destruction of the race" was amalgamation, why was that sin never mentioned in Genesis? Moses mentions the sins of corruption and violence in Genesis 6:11-13, but never amalgamation. One would think that if amalgamation was the "one sin above another" that caused the flood, Moses would have at least mentioned it! How could such a grievous sin pass by Moses without mention?

Why were these "inspired" statements removed?

If the amalgamation statements were true, then why remove them from Mrs. White's later book Patriarchs and Prophets? Many questions are raised by this deletion:
  • If this sin caused the flood, shouldn't people be warned about it so that they don't repeat it?

  • If the "bushmen of Africa" are the result of union between man and animals, doesn't the world have a right to know about it?

  • The White Estate is always bragging about how Ellen White was "years ahead of science". Well then, why not inform the world about this amazing scientific discovery made by Ellen White?

  • Shouldn't the world's leading scientists be made aware of this so that they can begin studying the bushmen?

  • Wouldn't it be a wonderful proof of Ellen White's divine inspiration if scientists were to examine the bushmens' DNA and prove they are indeed half-animal?
And finally, and most importantly, why should prophetic utterances need to be deleted from later editions of a prophet's writings?

We are not the first to ask these questions. People have been asking those questions for over 100 years. The removal of the amalgamation statements created such a controversy that the White Estate decided it was important for them to provide an explanation for the omissions. Her son W.C. White writes:

"Regarding the two paragraphs which are to be found in Spiritual Gifts and also in The Spirit of Prophecy regarding amalgamation and the reason why they were left out of the later books, and the question as to who took the responsibility of leaving them out, I can speak with perfect clearness and assurance. They were left out by Ellen G. White. No one connected with her work had any authority over such a question, and I never heard of anyone offering to her counsel regarding this matter.

"In all questions of this kind, you may set it down as a certainty that sister White was responsible for leaving out or adding to matters of this sort in the later editions of our books.

"Sister White not only had good judgment based upon a clear and comprehensive understanding of conditions and of the natural consequences of publishing what she wrote, but she had many times direct instruction from the angel of the Lord regarding what should be omitted and what should be added in new editions."20

That settles it. Now we know the reason.
  • Did Mrs. White remove the statements because they created a controversy?
  • Did she remove them because they were wrong?
  • Did she remove them because the brethren faced a predicament trying to explain them to new converts?
  • Did she remove them because they made her appear biased and uneducated?
No, the prophet's son assures us she removed them because one of the angels who helped her write her books instructed her to do so. That leads us to our final question:

Why didn't the angel instruct her to omit the lines before they were published?

Your Questions Answered
QUESTION: The White Estate web site says the word "amalgamation" is not defined in any dictionary to mean the combination of man with beast. Therefore, aren't you wrong to say Ellen White used it that way?

ANSWER: While the current defenders of Mrs. White at the White Estate cannot seem to provide a definitive explanation as to what Mrs. White was talking about, they assure us on their web site that whatever it was that Mrs. White was talking about, it was not the union between man and beast:

"No dictionary has ever used 'amalgamation' to describe the cohabitation of man with beast. ... Mrs. White never hinted of subhuman beings or any kind of hybrid animal-human relationship. ... The burden of proof rests on those who affirm that Mrs. White gave a new and alien meaning to the term."21
The word "amalgmation" comes from "amalgam" which has two primary meanings:
1 : an alloy of mercury with another metal that is solid or liquid at room temperature according to the proportion of mercury present and is used especially in making tooth cements
2 : a mixture of different elements23

How was the word used in the 1800s? Webster's 1828 dictionary:

Amalgamation - The mixing or blending of different things.24
Webster's 1913 dictionary:
A*mal`ga*ma"tion (#), n. [Cf. F. amalgamation.]
The mixing or blending of different elements, races, societies, etc.; also, the result of such combination or blending; a homogeneous union.25
While dictionaries do not explicitly describe amalgamation as the union of man and beast, they certainly allow for that definition. The word "amalgamation" is widely used in the English language to describe a mixture of any two or more different elements. For example, the word is used today to describe the following combination of the human with the non-human:22
  • The mythical creature called a Werewolf--a being that is part human and part wolf--has been described as an "amalgamation".
  • The Sphinx is described as an amalgamation of a lion and a human.
  • Science Fiction buffs use it to describe the offspring of the union between human and alien beings!
The best proof is the SDA pioneers themselves, who were perfectly satisfied in accepting the word "amalgamation" as meaning the mixture of animals with humans up until 1947, when they found out it was impossible. Thus we can see by these few examples that it is a perfectly valid usage of the word to describe the combination of an animal with a human.

The White Estate claims that we are under a "burden" to prove that Mrs. White was talking about the union of man and beast because that specific definition never appears in a dictionary. They write:

"The burden of proof rests on those who affirm that Mrs. White gave a new and alien meaning to the term."26
Is that true? Are we under the burden to prove the word can be used in that manner? Or is this simply a "smoke-screen" used to hide the truth?

Let us examine some of Mrs. White's other uses of the word to determine whether or not they appear in the dictionary:

"Every noxious herb is of his [Satan's] sowing, and by his ingenious methods of amalgamation he has corrupted the earth with tares."27

"...by union with the world, the character of God's people becomes tarnished, and through amalgamation with the corrupt, the fine gold becomes dim."28

No dictionary specifically describes amalgamation as Satan mixing evil properties into herbs to produce tares. Neither does any dictionary specifically describe amalgamation as the union of Christians with the world. Therefore, is Mrs. White giving a "new and alien meaning to the word" by such uses? Of course not! All of Mrs. White's usages of the word amalgamation clearly fit within the dictionary's definition of the word. The word is used in thousands of ways to describe the hybrid union of any two things that are different. How could a dictionary possibly list every potential use of the word amalgamation? It would take thousands of pages for just a single word! Just because a particular usage of a word does not appear in the dictionary does not prove that the usage is incorrect!

For Mrs. White to use the word to describe the union of man and beast is not "new and alien," nor is it without precedent. As noted above, the word is used in reference to the Sphinx, the Werewolf, half-human, half-alien beings, and a host of similar unions.

QUESTION: Could Ellen White have meant genetic amalgamation?

ANSWER: A recent and even more outlandish defense of Mrs. White's amalgamation statement has arisen with the advent of genetic engineering. Some have suggested the ancients performed manipulation on human genes in the laboratory in order to produce genetically altered humans. Perhaps this idea was spawned by Adventist viewers of Hollywood Science Fiction movies such as Jurassic Park. Regardless, this defense does not take into consideration the great difficulties of genetic engineering.

Genetic engineering is an extremely complex process that science is only now beginning to grasp. It requires the use of super-computers and highly advanced technology. While there is no evidence that the people before the flood possessed this type of enabling technology, Mrs. White says this amalgamation also happened after the flood! There is absolutely no evidence that the advanced technology needed to accomplish genetic engineering ever existed in any society after the flood. It is pure conjecture--mental gymnastics at its best.  

QUESTION: Maybe she saw some half-animal half-human creatures that are now extinct?

ANSWER: In order for this to be true, it must be shown that humans can mate with animals and produce offspring, and this is a scientific impossibility.

Furthermore, Ellen White said the results of amalgamation could be observed "in certain races of men." If we take this statement at face-value, then in the 1800s, these animal features were observable in certain humans. Ellen and James seemed satisfied with Uriah Smith's explanation, and his explanation certainly fit with the mind-set of that era. We have no reason to think Mrs. White was referring to extinct creatures, and even if she was, that explanation would be no more plausible than Smith's explanation.  


1. Ellen White, Spiritual Gifts, Vol. 3, p. 64.

2. Ibid., p. 75.

3. The 1913 Webster's Dictionary gives a good definition of how "base" relates to immorality: Base, Vile, Mean. These words, as expressing moral qualities, are here arranged in the order of their strength, the strongest being placed first. Base marks a high degree of moral turpitude; vile and mean denote, in different degrees, the want of what is valuable or worthy of esteem. What is base excites our abhorrence; what is vile provokes our disgust or indignation; what is mean awakens contempt.

4. Gordon Shigley, "Amalgamation of Man and Beast: What Did Ellen White Mean?", Spectrum, vol. 12, no. 4, p. 13. Gordon Shigley wrote this article while a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin.

5. Jasher 4:18.

6. In 1868 Uriah Smith still professed belief in Ellen White as a prophet. By 1883 he did not hold the same degree of conviction: "It seems to me that the testimonies, practically, have come into that shape, that it is not of any use to try to defend the erroneous claims that are now put forth for them." (Smith to Canright, March 22, 1883).

7. Uriah Smith, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, July 31, 1866. A similar statement is found in the book Smith later published called The Visions of Mrs. E. G. White, A Manifestation of Spiritual gifts According to the Scripture, p. 103, (Steam Press, Battle Creek Michigan, 1868). NOTE: This book is not available in any SDA bookstores today. Here is the full quotation from pages 103-104:

"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." This view was given for the purpose of illustrating the deep corruption and crime into which the race fell, even within a few years after the flood that signal manifestation of God's wrath against human wickedness. There was amalgamation; and the effect is still visible in certain races of men." Mark, those excepting the animals upon whom the effects of this work are visible, are called by the vision, "men." Now we have ever supposed that anybody that was called a man, was considered a human being. The vision speaks of all these classes as races of men; yet in the face of this plain declaration, they foolishly assert that the visions teach that some men are not human beings! But does any one deny the general statement contained in the extract given above? They do not. If they did, they could easily be silenced by a reference to such cases as the wild Bushmen of Africa, some tribes of the Hottentots, and perhaps the Digger Indians of our own country, &c. Moreover, naturalists affirm that the line of demarkation between the human and animal races is lost in confusion. It is impossible, as they affirm, to tell just where the human ends and the animal begins. Can we suppose that this was so ordained of God in the beginning? Rather has not sin marred the boundaries of these two kingdoms?

Smith's manuscript was reviewed prior to publication by both the Michigan and General Conferences who published the following statement in the June 12, 1866, edition of the Advent Review and Sabbath Herald: "Resolved, That we, the members of the General and Mich. State Conference, haveing heard a portion of the manuscript read, which has been prepared by Bro. U. Smith, in answer to certian objections recently brought against the visions of Sister White, do hereby express our hearty approval of the same. Resolvd, That we tender our thanks to Bro. Smith for his able defense of the visions against the attacks of their opponents."

8. James White, Review, Aug. 15, 1868.

9. Shigley, p. 18, footnote #11: "This information appears as a handwritten note at the bottom of a copy of Uriah Smith's 'Objection 39: The Negro Race Not Human,' provided by [Professor] Frank Marsh." It is a good thing that Smith provided this explanation, because some were apparently applying Ellen White's statement to the Negra race. The author is saddened to say, that as an SDA for 33 years, I know for a fact that behind closed doors in private conversations a few white American SDA's still believe this "inspired" statement applies to the entire negro race. One person claimed to have seen an unpublished manuscript in the White Estate vault indicating such, but proof is lacking. In a statement received from a former SDA via e-mail, October 2004: "I found the testimony from the guy that was in the vault and Dr. B showed him where EGW wrote about women being with apes. Well, I wanted to tell you back in the early 1980s my husband had a good friend that went to Andrews. He told my husband about seeing this writing while doing research in the vault. We wondered all these years about it. I was pleased to confirm it with that part of your site. We suspect he was kicked out of school, as bearing that statement he began preaching to kids on campus about what he had found, referring to black people as monkeys."

10. "Bushmen", Wikipedia, extracted June 19, 2009.

11. "Khoikhoi", Wikipedia, extracted June 19, 2009.

12. "Paiute", Wikipedia, extracted June 19, 2009.

13. See Shigley, pp. 11-18.

14. Shigley, p. 11.

15. Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

16. Webster's 1913 Dictionary.

17. Merriam-Webster Dictionary 1999 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.

18. See article written by Ellen White, Signs of the Times, Jan. 8, 1880.

19. Leviticus 18:23, 20:16.

20. W.C. White, Selected Messages, Vol. 3, p. 452.

21. See www.whiteestate.org web site, "Comments Regarding Unusual Statements Found In Ellen G. White's Writings".

22. For example, in a review of the book Blood of the Wolf, the reviewer makes this statement: "This has nothing to do with Tribes or Auspices, just the physical and psychological aspects of being spirit, flesh, human and wolf all rolled up into a single disturbing amalgamation." (reference found on http://www.nocturnis.net/reviews/268 on the date Nov. 26, 2006). A second example is the Sphinx: "Some scholars believe that the famous Sphinx, with its lion's body and human head, was an amalgamation of Leo and the nearby constellation of Virgo, the Maiden." ("Leo the Lion may have inspired the Great Sphinx", Feb. 19, 2006, http://archive.recordonline.com/archive/2006/02/19/features_buzzandsundayextra-19bzcosmic-02-19.html). For an example of the word "amalgamation" used to describe human-alien union, see Christ Links forum posting #25114, March 14, 2006: "There are people in hiding, underground citys and such, who are amalgamating man and beast. ... The grays appear to be a human/animal amalgamation of some kind." (http://www.christianlinks.com/forums/showthread.php?p=25114#post25114)

23. Merriam-Webster Dictionary 1999 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.

24. Webster's 1828 Dictionary.

25. Webster's 1913 Dictionary.

26. See www.whiteestate.org web site, "Comments Regarding Unusual Statements Found In Ellen G. White's Writings". White Estate quoting F.D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, p. 308.

27. Ellen White, Selected Messages, Vol. 2, p. 288.

28. Ellen White, Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, August 23, 1892.

About  | Links  | Contribute 
www.nonsda.org www.amazingfiction.org www.cog7.org

All material on this web site is copyrighted © 2009,2018 by nonegw.org