Some say it means we are in charge.
Are there limits? What to expect?
Think of spiritual guides. Our culture, others, have that idea.
In other terms: What animal totem inspires the human to do that.
Perhaps "dominion" means something else.
Domine. And "subdue"- sub Dieu; or the quiet seduce.
In fact, it does.
A transliteration indeed says, u-kbsh-e, VKBShH or וכבשה"seduce"; tame;
and then u-rdu, VUrDV or ורבו"sway" or lead towards, gently; or mentor FN 1
Example of the West's "dominion" from the news: The killing of a hero dog, see ://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/19/us/19dog.html?src=me/ That is sad but fine in the first form of "dominion.". Its owner was temporarily absent, no-one knew who he was. So he died ("euthanized" we say wrongly, kidding ourselves. This excess-dog death was not for the good of this dog) in the control of the dogcatchers. As unclaimed, no-count animals do die. Who cares. An unacceptable attitude in the second form of dominion: act to protect, foster.
Does the Native American belief system overview provide some insight into this other direction. Dominion as an overcoming by force is a modern idea in changed definitions, but old in implementation. That is what the West does. Explore the older roots: "domine" as the meaning of dominion. Be as the deity to the animals and plants, as the deity is to you -- help, foster, nourish. Not exploit. Regard, listen; not disregard if no profit to you. Subdue, again not as force and conquer, but quiet, seduce, lead away, see ://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=subdue/ Or as one feeling "subdued" - calm, intensity reduced.
is the Wolf the totem of the majority in Washington, again.
If so, what to expect.
Ask the Native Americans as a start.
Native American perspectives on responsibility, coexistence; our impact with "dominion"; and their demise
Then move from "caring for" to "learning from".
And a step further: From observed behavior, can we surmise that the Wolf in particular is the Totem of the Majority in Washington again; and takes "Dominion" in an extreme direction. Go to Manataka * and find Wolf. Find what to expect.
That is not mistake; but flawed Western mindset as to the role of animals.
No, New York Times. The hero dog was not killed by mistake. He was killed intentionally. Correct your story.
There was indeed a tawny guard dog who bravely confronted a suicide bomber at American military barracks near the Pakistani border, causing the detonation near the entrance but not inside.
He was given the canine equivalent of a ticker tape parade, adopted by nice people. He got out of his yard, was caught by people who are supposed to do that, then was intentionally killed. That was that.
But not killed by mistake. Euthanized intentionally. No mistake. Jam him in there. Boors watch as he goes. Another worthless breather of oxygen not profiting or loved by anyone in sight. And that is all that counts. With no specific champion to save this one, around in time, just another lump of damp fur, still nose.
The hero dog was killed by intent. Intentionally.
We kill animals we do not want, or who do not produce profit to us. They are ours. We have dominion. Genesis says so, supposedly. They have no attributes that qualify them in our hierarchy that puts those without a) furry ears or b) finny rib areas or c) feathers on rumps; on top. For all purposes. Any animal has no intrinsic right, no intrinsic value. Only a human can be a champion and must take specific steps each time to save this one or that. Galling. No mistake.
Shall we consider this: If only the Indians had won. Pardon, the Native Americans, the Indigenous Peoples, here when we arrived.
- Other living things are as valuable as ourselves, and needed to sustain the world
- Our obligation even under our own "Christian" heritage, broadly put, is to foster the natural productivity of all living things, and on the earth - no exploitation or factory farms, is the next corrolary.
- Breed abundantly in the earth. Follow those dots: No artificial insemination on the factory farms, breeding mares as soon as one is stopped, start another. No puppy farms. Ownership? A limited license that excludes exploitation. Indians would (go to the Manatee site) take what they need in killing an animal for food, use the rest of its body all up for other needs like clothing, sewing, all that. No waste; and gratitude to the animal for giving its life. New idea there. No sport killing.
- Multiply upon the earth -- not in the cage? Hah! Literalism is indeed worth it. No exploitation for profit there. Fowl, cattle, all creepies, rights to live and breed in the earth.
- Strong rules of behavior.
- Keeps out of the spotlight, doing its thing in the shadows where it is not seen.
- Alpha wolves are fixed at the top, and they are the ones who have the babies.
- Beta wolves beneath, and I guess they don't breed (or shouldn't, as human Betas are also treated), but are there to help with the Alpha pups.
- There is an Omega wolf at the bottom. Down there, last on this rigid hierarchical ladder of worth. That Omega wolf stays there. Identified, not getting food when food is scarce. The others, Alphas and Betas, will force the Omega wolf away. Get back, Loretta. The Omega wolf is the scapegoat. Doomed to that role for life. Better to die quick?
- Each wolf knows its place and stays there.
- They unite to accomplish a common goal, and once focused and on the hunt, any prey will weary before the wolf tag-team does. That is, once you are targeted, you lose. Period.
- A lone wolf means independence and freedom; but beware thed wolf in a pack is community and that community is etched in stone.
- Stand your ground.
- Defend your boundaries.
- Use ritual to bind its members in the pack. Regular lunar howling ceremonies, says the site, as an example.
Wolf in sheep's clothing: the negotiator who knew all along he would never agree to that, but waits for the concession. Werewolf. Navajo idea of wolf as a witch who shape-changes. See ://www.wolfsongalaska.org/wolves_in_american_culture.html/
The wolfsongalaska site also notes that the wolf's culling of others keeps the others strong, which is a benefit in the long run. The culling of others may weed out the sick so they do not breed their weakness, but culling also occurs as the identification of the Omega as the expendable Wolf at the bottom. Dispose of it as well.
The Wolf is its own death panel. Do read that Wolf Song of Alaska site, Wolves in American Culture. Love-hate relationship. Fine if you are a wolf, not so good if you are not. Cooperating to achieve a goal is fine, but only if the goal helps sustainability.
Do the nots have rights?
No. The Omega wolf has no chance. Unyielding Order. The Wolf. Dominion in traditional but erroneous Western thought. The ultimate asserter of Dominion as right to exploit. Ranchers and Wyomingers perhaps in theory, who are also Wolves (I get what I want when I want it) in mindset, get so incensed that an animal does what they do, that they poison and shoot them. Dominion as "domine" or "of the god." The helper, the sustainer, the user only of what is needed.
- Genesis 1:26. Where the deity is thinking of what the deity will do and make, and what the job description will be. This is the original statement of intent of the deity about making the human to do that certain job description, customarily translated as having "dominion".
- Does it really mean that; and compare it to the actual instructions given after the humans were made, at Genesis 1:28. Also translated as "have dominion" -- does it really mean that, and compare it to Genesis 1:26. Conclusion: nobody gets "dominion" in the sense we have been taught, right to exploit. The words mean lead towards and gently, tame, subdue as in being subdued, quietened.
1. Analyzing Genesis 1:26
The Word that is usually translated as "have dominion" is
Modern Hebrew בדגת
or UIRDU (no vowels in Hebrew, so the u and the v and even y go many places)
Latin Praesit (nothing to do with a dominion word)
Meaning of Praesit = prophecy?
Transliteration of VYUrDV from Scripture4all Sway see ://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C001.htm#V26
Translations of VYUrDV from Hebrew Old Testament Dominion, dominion, rule, dominion, dominion, dominion, dominion, dominion, rule. See see ://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C001.htm#V26
Now: Let your cursor hover or click it on the modern Hebrew at the hebrewoldtestament site ://www.hebrewoldtestament.com/B01C001.htm#V26 that. Google says that entire thing means "rule the fish". Terrific. Go fish.
Does then, by majority copying each other, does the word mean "Rule". Could be. At least the word "rule" as shown in the Google translation is not the same as the transliterated "sway", but not as forceful as "dominion" anything. Jury's still out. Go back to the transliteration: How on earth does the margin narrative, the traditional Biblical, get from "sway" to "have dominion"? The translation has no relationship to the meaning the site itself gives to the word.
Note again that there is only one word, UIRDU in Genesis 1:26. Sway, in transliteration. Rule and dominion in the "translations" from Jerome. Did Jerome blow it?
- Look at the Latin again. And, sure enough, Jerome even in the Latin does not use dominion here where the intention is stated, but only "praesit"
- Research praseit: We come up with "prophesy" --
- If praesit indeed means prophesy, how to get from there to "dominion?" Does that mean that the animals will lead us? We are to pay attention to what they say? Do we read the entrails? We know they know more than we do in many areas, including tsunamis; and their mental telepathy and noses beat ours.
Scripture4all makes it clearest in the mechanical transliteration. There is not a second concept there in the intent. Just the "sway." Put that with "praesit" and you have a mutuality. This one word idea is important because there are two concepts in the later Genesis 1:28, just two verses away. There see subdue and sway. Not just "sway". And "praesit" does not appear.
So: Genesis 1:26. There is only "A" Prime, no B afterthought. And A Prime means "sway". Praesit, Jerome's Latin translation, may mean something like prophesy -- no dominion there. Beat the dead horse.
- Genesis 1:28. The human job description instruction as given in two concepts to the humans from the deity. VKBShH and VUrDV: Subdue xomes first, and then the Sway from Genesis 1:26.
- Who put the original intent as the second in importance? How to reconcile the two? Whose macho hand is at work here, and can it be adjusted despite itself.
- Is the new A, the "subdue" put in to give permission for more force than the original B "sway" would have given?
- Is B suddenly put in second place here, not to be the primary role at all, even though it was the only role in Genesis 1:26?
- Or is the B the controlling concept for the subdue in A?
- Did somebody clarify "subdue" by putting "sway" in the transliteration for the second part to be sure that the "subdue" in the first part is appropriately understood as a taming, and not exploitation? Phonetic B gives the manner in which A is to be implemented, it looks like.
- And with "sway" as the only meaning for the original intent in Genesis 1:26
If that is supported by people who know, then the Native American sites and other religious systems that partner with the animals, birds, fish and bugs, and listen to them, help them everpresently, in trouble, then they are right and our religious self-serving Latinate system of control in order to kill at will is wrong.
Get out of those helicopters, you shallow, cowardly wolf-hunters. That is not following the Wolf Totem at all.
They say, "But God said I could do it!" No. God didn't.
Is that it?
3. Other languages. VERDOUX. There are additional angles, still pointing in the partnership and not exploitation direction:
- Look at the Latin now. Where is the verdoux? Nosiree. Not there. Dominamini over the fishes etc. Take That! and That! Hah! Domina- mini. I am in charge, you little minnows.
No. More to consider.
** Back to the parallel forms at Hebrewoldtestament.
- The word phonetically in Genesis 1:26 VYUrDV there is different from the VUrDV that is used for the actual instruction in the later Genesis 1:28.
Did the deity intend one thing, in Genesis 1:26, and end up doing another in Genesis 1:28? Or did somebody later not like the only "A" form as given in Genesis 1:26 to be the last word. Typo, intentional to change the course, and if so, by whom. We don't think so. We think the Y and the U are the same thing. There are no vowels, we understand, in Hebrew, so it is somebody's carelessness in not being consistent in how to represent the Y -- it appears a "U" also in Scripture4all.
Look at the big Y in there. Big Y is also a supermarket chain here in the East. American Owned. A star in the East!
And the meaning of the VYUrDV as the instruction is given in Latin as "praesit", not the "dominion" translation into Latin that Jerome puts in at Genesis 1:28. Praesit translates out as "presage" or prophesy, Free Online Latin site, and Stars. This is beyond me. Same Hebrew, two different translations into Latin, same translator.
- NO DOMINION IN ANY FORM IS GIVEN at all in the second creation story. Compare that grant of "mentoring" or "dominion" if that is in your head, to the second creation story, at Genesis 2:4 ff, where the poor gent is only to till the ground. No dominion there, you lackey.
FN 2 We began looking up "dominamini" because Latin was fun in school, it really was, and look what came up--
- This issue has become political in research ways and details that are beyond us here -- I am here updating my several-days old post, and was looking up the word Jerome translates as "dominamini" and see this: A site by Lawrence M. Ludlow about the same passage, about how we are to act, a) in concert with or b) mashing the earth. It is offered by a Libertarian, it appears, against traditional literalist Christians who take traditional and self-serving meaning without vetting.