spin

It is interesting in itself that you are willing to believe this.

Again your willingness to believe this stuff is notewirthy.

What independent evidence could you refer to?


spin

dzim77

Above I explained that God does not *need* anything from man. However, he chooses to give man stewardship over creation (specifically the earth)... just as a Father might give his son 'stewardship' over his own bedroom even though the Father still owns the house.


Dominion over creation - specifically pertaining to the earth.


Regardless of how you manipulate symantics, the Genesis account clearly states that God created men and women with the intention that they would multiply, fill the earth, and have dominion over it.

This definition from Merriam-Webster should suffice:
pur·pose 1 a : something set up as an object or end to be attained

ie... According to the Genesis account, in creating man and woman God *set up as an end to be attained* that man and woman should be fruitful and multiply, filling the earth and having dominion over it.

Thus, going back to my original point... in the Babel account, people were not fulfilling the intention that God had for them.

(it seems you are going toward a 'human responsibility v. God's sovereignty' theological issue here)

i guess that depends on your view of the Bible

dzim77

We know God gives man permission to eat meat because it is explicitly stated in the text. What textual evidence do you see that indicates God's intention for man and woman to subdue the earth is null and void after the flood? Is this argument from silence?


Where does the text clearly say "God was *afraid* the tower they were building would *reach to heaven*"? (it does not)

Where does the text clearly say *why* God was displeased that people were building the tower and would be able to do anything they imagined?

My contention is concerning the reasons why God was displeased about the activity of men and -in turn- the reasons why God confused their language... he was displeased was because men were not fulfilling God's intention to fill the earth and have dominion over it.

You seem to be assuming that God is "afraid" and somehow feels threatened by men building the tower. This is stated *nowhere* in the text and is something that you are reading into the text.

spin

I don't think there's any point clouding the issue with your attempts to subordinate the son to the father.

In fact, dominion over creation is surely totally unnecessary, given a perfect creation. God doesn't even need or have any reason for dominion over it. It's obviously perfect, whatever its purpose is.

You're having such a hard time over purpose for humans that I doubt you'd want to face the purpose of creation. Hedonism must be excluded.

Oh, so they don't have dominion over all of creation -- whatever dominion means.

So humans are at the top of the status quo. What is their purpose? Do they tell animals what to do? Do the animals listen?

Being fruitful and multiplying is not a purpose. It is a part of the human system. Well, a part of the animal system. All living entities are fruitful and multiply, most at the cost of the others. Filling the earth is a relatively meaningless notion: does it mean wall to wall people? fill at the cost of other beings? Having dominion merely puts humans into a position of control, but creation needs no control, otherwise it wouldn't be perfect.

Before we go back to the OP, you haven't justified your starting notions as relevant.

Only partially. It requires one to be rational, to be aware of the context in which the relevant text was written, and to be up with genres of the era, such as aetiological explanation.


spin

dzim77

Spin, I have a simple question....

According to the creation account in Genesis 1, was it God's intention that man and woman should be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground?

Yes or no?

spin

That is what the text says.

Was it the intention of the bible god that animals didn't go out and be fruitful and multiply? Is it not in the nature of all beings to be fruitful and multiply? Is it directive or nature?

Did people independently of the happenings of Babylon exist at the same time in China, India, Africa and Australia? If so, this bit about being fruitful and multiply is irrelevant to the Babylon story. The dominion bit would also be irrelevant, if humans were already in reality being fruitful and multiplying. The Babylon story should be seen as having nothing to do with reality, but fulfilling aetiological purposes.


spin

dzim77

And we are dealing with what the text says, rather than your opinion of whether God's intentions, as stated in the text, are meaningful, are we not?

My contention is that, according to what the text says, the people at Babel were not fulfilling God's intention for them to fill the earth, in fact, they were in direct opposition to it... thus, giving reason for God to intervene.

spin

No. You are talking about purpose.

I know what your contention is and I have dealt with it along two lines. Do you honestly believe that everyone on earth was gathered together in Babylon to build the tower??


spin

pharoah

Stated where? It's certainly not stated in Genesis 1:29-30. It seems that God's ideas about man and meat evolved over time. Originally man was to be a vegetarian. Then he told Noah to eat meat from any animal. Then he told the Israelites to eat only "clean" animals. Now man can eat any meat. All of this from an "unchanging" God.

I'm making no such claim. I'm merely pointing out that you have established no basis for cherry-picking certain OT verses as permanent commands. Do you take Genesis 2:24 as a command for all men to marry? Or do you think that God's "everlasting" command for Abraham's descendants to be circumcised is still in effect?

1) Genesis 11:1 establishes the theme of the passage. "And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech." The writer is letting you know that what follows is an explanation of why that's no longer the case.

2) The people started building a tower. Their goal was to build it all the way to heaven.

3) God personally came to down to see the tower. This shows that God was concerned about the tower itself.

4) God said that because the people had one language they would be able to do anything that they imagined. One of the things that they imagined was building a tower that would reach all the way to heaven. So what we have here is:

P1) The people imagined that they could build a tower to reach all way to the heaven and they started building such a tower.

P2) God was concerned enough about their building project that he came down to personally inspect it.

P3) God said that the people would be able to do anything that they imagined.

C) God was afraid that the people would succeed in building a tower all the way to heaven.

I've shown you over and over that the building of the tower itself was why God was displeased. I don't expect you to accept this because it doesn't square with your theological notions about God, but it's the only reasonable conclusion to draw from the text.

driver8

Thanks for demonstrating textually God's irrational fear. I'll be sure to remember this one, its a beauty.