government theory

Chapter 6 Concerning Adam's Sovereignty by God's Gift (2)
29．Second, no matter what God has given in this word of bestowal ("Genesis" Chapter 1No. 20), He did not promise to Adam alone to the exclusion of others.Therefore, whatever dominion Adam thus obtained, it was a dominion shared with other human beings, and should not be a personal dominion.The reason why it is said that this gift was not given to Adam alone is because it can be clearly seen from the original text, because this gift is expressed in plural, so it is not only given to one person, God blesses "them" , and say to "them" dominion.God said to Adam and Eve, give them dominion, and our author thus says that Adam was the prince of the world; but since the gift was promised to them, it was also said to Eve (many commentators think This statement was made after Adam had a wife, which is perfectly reasonable), so, just as Adam was the king of the world, shouldn't Eve be the queen of the world?Some would say that Eve was still subject to Adam, but we feel that her subjection to Adam would not interfere with her dominion or ownership of all things.Shall we say that God promises a common gift to two, but only one of them should enjoy it alone?
30．But it may still be said that Eve was created later.Even so, what benefit can our authors gain from this?The explanation of the scriptures is directly contrary to his statement, which shows that when God bestowed, he gave the world to all human beings, not just to Adam.The word "they" in the original text necessarily includes human beings, since "they" certainly cannot refer to Adam alone.In the narration of No. 20, verse [-], God announced his intention to give this dominion, and he obviously meant that he wanted to create a living being that would have dominion over other living beings on the earth .The original text reads like this: "God said, let us create man in our own image and appearance, and let them have dominion over the fish...." Therefore, it is "them" who have dominion.

So, who is this "they"?Indeed, it is every member of the race of man who is in the image of God and created by God; and if the word "they" refers to Adam alone, and excludes all other men who existed with him in the world, it is The Bible and all reason are contrary.Moreover, if the "people" in the first part of this verse and the "they" in the second part do not refer to the same thing, it does not make sense at all.Therefore, we can only interpret "man" there as human beings, and "them" as every human being, as usual; in this original text, we can find a reason why God "simulated in his own image and appearance," creating him (man) as an intelligent being capable of exercising dominion.Wherever the image of God is manifested, it must contain an intellectual endowment, and belong to all mankind, to enable man to enjoy dominion over the lower animals.Therefore, David said in the eighth Psalm quoted above: "You made him a little lower than the angels, and you made him dominion." Obviously, what King David is talking about here is by no means Adam. Individuals, but men, descendants of men, race of men.

31．It is also clear from the Psalms quoted by our author that this gift spoken of to Adam is really a gift to Adam and to all mankind. "The words of the Psalmist, 'God has given to the offspring of men the world of earth,' show that this right derives from the fatherhood." These are the words of Sir Robert in the preface quoted above.Here he draws a curious inference, namely, that since God gave the earthly world to the offspring of men, this right derives from the fatherhood.It is a pity that the proper usage of the Hebrew word refers to the human race by the offspring of the human race, not by the father of the human race.

It is indeed possible that our author has received phonetic support for the attribution of this right to paternity; but from "God gave the world on earth to the offspring of men" it follows that "the right to take it comes from on the identity of the father".This is a method of argument peculiar to our author.It takes a reader of great intellect to understand this against the sound and meaning of the words he uses to figure this out.But its meaning is thus more difficult, and more remote from our author's purpose.For what our author writes in the preface is only to demonstrate that Adam was prince, and his reasoning is this: God gave the earthly world to the offspring of man, and Adam, therefore, was prince of the world.I think that if it cannot be proved that the descendants of mankind refer to the fatherless Adam, then I dare say that no one can draw a more ridiculous, absurd, and even unforgivable conclusion than this.But, whatever our authors may say, the Bible does not make such nonsense.

32．In order to demonstrate this ownership and personal dominion of Adam, our author proceeds from two aspects, and tries on the next page to overthrow the statement given to Noah in another similar place (Genesis Chapter 9, verses 9, [-], [-]). community of Asia and her sons.First, Sir Robert seeks to persuade us, in direct contradiction to the plain text of Scripture, to convince us that what was here granted to Noah was not equally granted to his sons.His original words are as follows: "As for this community that Mr. Selden wanted to give to Noah and his sons ("Genesis" Chapter [-], verse [-]), it is not found in the original text of the "Bible". Based on." If these simple and clear biblical texts, which cannot be interpreted in other ways, do not satisfy our self-professed to be completely based on the Bible, it is hard to imagine what he wants. What kind of basis do you want.The original text says: "God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them".

According to our author, it should be "said to him", for our author says, "Although in the blessing the sons are mentioned with Noah, this is best explained by the subordinate meaning , or interpreted as an inherited blessing".For our author, that is the best interpretation, which is most conducive to his purpose; but for others, that which is most consistent with the simple structure of the original sentence, and which derives from its obvious meaning, is the best interpretation. is the best explanation.Therefore, it is not the best interpretation of our author to interpret it as implying subordination or blessing of succession, when God said nothing of this meaning or reference to any such restriction in the process of bestowal. of.But why is such an explanation the best?Our author has other reasons.He says: "If the sons enjoy a personal dominion under or after their fathers, this blessing can indeed be fulfilled." Saying "put them all into your hands"), is best interpreted as implying subordination or inheritance, since this right is only available in cases of subordination or inheritance.This is equivalent to saying that a gift of anything now possessed is best construed as a gift of inheritance; for one may perhaps live to enjoy it in the future.If it is true that this gift is promised to a father and his sons, and the father is so gracious as to allow the sons to share it with him at once, it may indeed be said that the two cases do not differ in this matter. What difference, but it would be absolutely incorrect to regard "future inheritable" as the best explanation for the expressly granted joint right of possession.The result of all his reasoning boiled down to this: God did not give Noah's sons the world to share with their father, on the grounds that they might have it under or after their father - a very different thing from the Bible. Beautiful argument against the original text!But even God's own words must be disbelieved when he says that what he himself will do does not fit Sir Robert's hypothesis.

33．It is evident that, however much our author excludes them from this passage, that part of Sir Robert's wish to be interpreted as inheritance must be read as promised to the sons, and never to Noah himself.In connection with the context, it can be seen that the words "You will multiply and fill the earth" in this blessing of God have nothing to do with Noah himself, because we have never read the story of him having children after the flood. Nor is it mentioned in the enumeration of his descendants in the next chapter.Based on this premise, this blessing of succession would have to take place after 350 years. In order to save the monarchy in our author's fantasy, the reproduction of human beings in the world would have to be postponed for 350 years.Hence also this part of the blessing is not to be understood as implying subordination, unless our author holds that the sons of Noah could live with their wives only with the permission of their father.

On this point, however, our author, who is consistent in all his writings, is concerned only with the existence of a sovereign in the world, and not so much with the people.Therefore, his ruling method will never allow the world's human beings to reproduce.So, to this great and primary blessing of Almighty God: "Be fruitful and fill the earth." (which also includes improvements in the arts, sciences, and amenities of life) How exactly can absolute monarchy help to achieve it Woolen cloth?This can be seen in the present condition of the vast and fertile countries which have the good fortune to come under the Turkish government.If the reader compares the present population records of those places with the ancient historical records, it is easy to see that the present population there is less than a third of the ancient population, and that many if not most of them are less than One-thirtieth, I can even say that some are less than one percent.But I will return to this soon.

34．It is more evident from this oration or other parts of the bestowal that "they" must be understood as belonging to Noah's sons, not only in no sense of subordination or succession, but in the same extent and equal as to Noah himself of.God said, "I have made all the beasts dread and dread you. . . . " Has anyone but our author claimed that the beasts feared Noah alone, without Noah's permission or as long as he He is not dead, so they are not afraid of his descendants?Is God's next statement, "I deliver them all into your hands," to be understood, as our author says, to wait until your father pleases, or to wait until later? How about delivering them to you?If this is the argument from the Bible, I don't know what else can't be proved from the Bible.Little do I know how much this argument differs from fiction and fantasy, and I hardly see any ground for it any more than that of the philosophers and poets whom our author denounces in his preface. To what extent can it be more reliable.

35．But our author goes on to prove it, saying: "It is best understood as implying subordination, or as a blessing of succession, for that which God gave to Adam, and for Adam by his gift, designation, or alienation. It is impossible to abolish the personal dominion of the sons, and it is not possible to grant everything to Noah and his sons in common. Noah was the only heir of the remaining human beings. Why should anyone think that God would deprive him of his birthright, and make him the sole proprietor, equal to his sons and grandchildren among all men in the world?"

36．Whatever we may call the possibility of our own prejudices for which we have no sufficient basis, does not entitle us to understand the Scriptures contrary to the immediate and plain sense of the original.Here I concede that it is improbable that Adam's personal dominion should be abolished, since it exceeds impossibility in itself, and we cannot at all prove that Adam ever had any such personal dominion. Some similarities in the Bible are the most likely to let us know how to understand it, so here, as long as God gave Noah and his sons after the flood, the blessing words that God gave to Noah and his sons after the creation of the world are the same. A comparison with the blessing given to Adam (Genesis, Chapter 1, No. 20, verse [-]) will convince anyone that God did not give Adam such personal dominion.

(End of this chapter)