Skip to main content

in reply to π••π•šπ•’π•Ÿπ•–π•’ πŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈπŸ¦‹

It is straight from the Old Testament

Genesis 1:26

26 Then God said, β€œLet us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

in reply to π••π•šπ•’π•Ÿπ•–π•’ πŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈπŸ¦‹

@Adam Hunt: I see what you mean.

In that sense, even the "Promised Land" that was allotted to the Twelve Tribes of Israel could be perceived as colonialismβ€”because the area was already inhabited by humans (and animals...)

The word dominion is rooted in the idea of a house or household. Hence, in biblical context it suggests learning to rightly administer the "household" of Earth.

The Lakotas of North America describe this concept as "kinship."

"Kinship with all creatures of the earth, sky and water was a real and active principle. In the animal and bird world there existed a brotherly feeling that kept the Lakota safe among them. And so close did some of the Lakotas come to their feathered and furred friends that in true brotherhood they spoke a common tongue." ~ Luther Standing Bear
in reply to π••π•šπ•’π•Ÿπ•–π•’ πŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈπŸ¦‹

even the β€œPromised Land” that was allotted to the Twelve Tribes of Israel could be perceived as colonialismβ€”because the area was already inhabited by humans (and animals…)


The real irony there in that specific case is that the Old Testament is (as is often the case) wrong. Archaeological evidence proves that the Israelites were actually decedents of the original Canaanites, they are the indigenous population.

in reply to π••π•šπ•’π•Ÿπ•–π•’ πŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈπŸ¦‹

Archaeological evidence proves that the Israelites were actually decedents of the original Canaanites, they are the indigenous population.


@Adam Hunt: Abraham dwelled in Canaan but was from Ur.

Do you know if the archaeological evidence has linked the Canaanites (Israelites) to inhabitants of Ur?

in reply to π••π•šπ•’π•Ÿπ•–π•’ πŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈπŸ¦‹

You have to keep in mind that the Old Testament is a work of fiction. Work in archaeology and genetics has proven that almost nothing written in the books is historically accurate. For instance the Israelites were never slaves in Egypt, they were slaves in Babylon.

in reply to π••π•šπ•’π•Ÿπ•–π•’ πŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈπŸ¦‹

Thanks for sharing the link regarding Jews and Arabs being genetically related to Canaanites.

Interestingly, I discovered another article at the site that distinguishes Ashkenazi Jews (Europeans) from biblical Jews (Canaanites.)

β™§β™§β™§

You have to keep in mind that the Old Testament is a work of fiction. Work in archaeology and genetics has proven that almost nothing written in the books is historically accurate. For instance the Israelites were never slaves in Egypt, they were slaves in Babylon.


Do you think that's why Revelation specifically references _"Babylon"_ as the world system that would have dominion over Earth and enslave her people?

in reply to π••π•šπ•’π•Ÿπ•–π•’ πŸ³οΈβ€βš§οΈπŸ¦‹

I don't think much in Revelation to John is coherent. If you read it out loud it sounds like heavy metal lyrics. Scholarship shows it is actually very typical of 1st century apocalyptic writing which was very popular then. Writers at the time could sell these as quickly as they could write them. This one is apocrypha, but was included in the New Testament because it mentions Jesus, but it probably post-dates the gospels.
⇧