True believers: dominion over animals?

If man has “dominion over animals” why didn’t God command that animals don’t harm man? Bees, scorpions, and snakes, to name a few, routinely harm and even kill people with no provocation.

They didn’t harm people back in the garden of Eden.

After the ‘fall’ the rules changed.

BTW – I suspect most or all of that harm does come only with provocation, even if only perceived as provocation from the animal perspective.

Strictly speaking, it wasn’t until after the flood that the rules changed - otherwise, that ark would have been a bloody mess.

Cite? Witnessing?

As far as I can tell it’s all metaphor for doper Christians. Dominion, fall, flood, heaven…

Except the whole snake thing…

Firstly, not to threadshit, but “Hey true believers, explain <this>” threads are really common here and never go anywhere. Generally the few (literalist) believers who are here are wise enough to not step directly into the flames, but ultimately, they’ll give some ad hoc explanation that they find satisfying, and the rest of us don’t, and that will be that.

Secondly, I’m not really sure I follow the logic of the OP. Why is dominion inconsistent with some animal species being hostile? Dominion is normally taken to mean responsability, ownership.

Metaphor?

So therefore you are not a “true believer” qualified to answer the question?

According to who?

I guess the short answer is that if He had made such a command, it would have been G-d exercising dominion, which would have been inconsistent with having turned that dominion over to Man.

Certainly not all.

I could see that our mere presence, coupled with the fact that we are made of meat could be construed as ‘provocation’ to a tiger, but how does one ‘provoke’ something like a mosquito or a guinea worm? These things don’t harm us because they are provoked - they harm us because that is their means of existence.

Wait a minute…? Wouldn’t that mean they have dominion over us?

I guess it depends on what is meant by dominion - I always took it to mean purposeful governance or ruling authority - that is, we could decide to wipe out mosquitoes, or breed them, or paint them all blue (although we might not necessarily succeed in all of those ventures).

If mosquitoes do anything to humans, it’s not because they chose to.

No. For example the British held dominion over the colonial empire but that didn’t mean that the colonized were incapable of revolting.

I’m quite tired of these Asperger-level literalness interpretation of Bible verses.

Its not metaphor for me, although I do hold to evolution and an old earth.

… what have they *done *to you ? You used to be the kind of guy who used the word “heretic” in earnest, man ! :slight_smile:

(Just bustin’ your chops. I for one prefer the new and improved Qin)

God commanded the animals to get along in the ark; it was a special occasion. They not only didn’t attack the humans, they didn’t attack each other as is there nature. Do you really think that lions and lambs got along before the flood?

The sin of man separated him from God. So it’s like a police officer stripped of his badge, radio, gun, etc. or more correctly the police officer refusing to take those items and standing in his boxer shorts trying to get the thug to stop thugging. No authority and no way to enforce it.

But Man still does have dominion over animals if man can regain his status (authority) with God, as in Daniel in the lions den. As man is nothing without God, for man’s place is with God.

Look, you’ve all got the wrong idea about this dominion-over-animals thing. It does not mean we get to eat them. It only means we get to fuck them.