Leonardo was a Christian. But the fact that he wasn’t a theologian is irrelevant given that your view of perspicuity places the interpretation of the lay reader on the same authoritative level as that of the theologian.
Nevertheless, here’s a list in response to what you wrote.
Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519), as noted previously.
Walter Raleigh (1614), regarded the flood as global but noted that “many have disputed the universality of it”. He cited Josephus and a number of earlier Greek and Christian historians and commentators as evidence for the antiquity of the local flood interpretation, which he acknowledged could be traced all the way back to the first century.
4.Thomas Browne (1643), protested against Christians who interpreted the flood as local, indicating it was already a well known position in his time.
Claude Saumaise (1588-1653), a French classical scholar, interpreted the flood locally on philological grounds.
Edward Stillingfleet (1666), an Anglican bishop, interpreted the flood locally on philological grounds.
Isaac La Peyrère (1596-1676), a French theologian, interpreted the flood locally on philological grounds.
Matthew Hale (1609-1676), an English jurist, interpreted the flood locally.
Matthew Poole (1624-1679), an English theologian, interpreted the flood locally.
Isaac Vossius (1685), a Dutch theologian, interpreted the flood locally on philological grounds.
John Ray (1692), an English naturalist, interpreted the flood locally.
Robert Plot (1696), an English naturalist, interpreted the flood locally.
Note that it was well known that the local flood interpretation dated back to the first century, and could be found cited in Christian literature as early as the second century.
I note you still haven’t explained how you know when your interpretation of the Bible is correct. How do you know, for example, that when the Bible speaks of the earth being on four pillars, and the earth not moving, that we’re supposed to interpret those passages figuratively rather than literally? How do you avoid making the same mistake Bellarmine made in his confrontation with Galileo?
Ok, I’ll just take your word for it, then? As I showed, the deists have a whole page dedicated to claiming he was not a Christian. In any case, I don’t really care to debate that as it’s not central to anything here.
The authority comes from the Scriptures themselves, not the authority of any theologian or any lay reader. I simply believe that God has inspired his Word in such a way that you don’t need to be an expert to get the most important points by reading it. That in no way precludes that many people will nonetheless get things wrong.
I’d like a citation on this, because this is news to me. I don’t believe a non-global interpretation of the Flood goes back to the 1st century, but if so I’d like to know who said it and if they were a Christian, for example. And it’s also news to me that Josephus allegedly denied a global flood.
Yes, I have. I use the historical-grammatical hermeneutic and allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, as is laid out in the Chicago Statement.
Just skimming through the article gave me irony overload.
The very same thing could be said of evolution and old earth geology. There are absolutely amazing predictions that the theory of evolution makes, such as predicting the pattern of differences between the human and chimp genomes:
In geology, we can predict the ratio of 238U/206Pb in zircons by measuring the ratio of 235U/207Pb. The ratios won’t be the same, by the way. Instead, we can use the observed and measured decay constant for each U isotope to make those predictions. If those decay chains acting at those rates did not produce those ratios, then how are we able to so accurately predict what those ratios will be?
No, you can exercise some of that famous critical thinking. You could start by doing some proper research instead of hastily Googling and grabbing the first page you could find which suggested he wasn’t a Christian.
So what? If you’d actually read it and exercised some of that famous critical thinking, you would have seen that not only were their arguments devoid of evidence and full of logical fallacies, you would have seen them quoting statements by Leonardo that explicitly affirmed doctrines of the Catholic faith, such as the existence of the saints.
So stop appealing to theologians.
Of course it’s news to you, because you’ve never done the research. You’ve uncritically accepted what you were told. You didn’t even try to follow this up after reading my post. Behold, here’s Raleigh.
CHAP. VII. Noah’s Flood, the Vniversality of it, and Noah’s memory of Antiquity.
§. 1. Moses’s Divine Testimony of Noah’s Flood, natural Men regard no farther than Reason can reach, and therefore many have disputed the Vniversality of it; and Iosephus citeth Nic. Damascen, who reports, that many were saved on the Mount Baris in Armenia; and the Talmudists held the same, saith Annius.
This really isn’t difficult to find.
You could start by reading my post properly, then you would know that the only two first century sources I cited were both Jewish, not Christian. Naturally it’s news to you that Josephus denied a global flood, because you just don’t know very much about this topic at all.
Here’s Philo.
‘Since the deluge of that time was no trifling infliction of water, but an immense and boundless overflow, extending almost beyond the pillars of Hercules and the great Mediterranean Sea , since the whole earth and all the spaces of the mountains were covered with water; and it is scarcely likely that such a vast space could have been cleared by a wind, but rather, as I have said, it must have been done by some invisible and divine virtue.", Charles Duke Yonge with Philo of Alexandria, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 824.
Note that Philo saw no difficulty in using the phrase “the whole earth” in the same breath as statements describing clear geographical limits to the flood which indicate he believed it did not extend beyond the Mediterranean basin.
Josephus.
‘Hieronymus the Egyptian, also, who wrote the Phoenician Antiquities, and Mnaseas, and a great many more, make mention of the same. Nay, Nicolaus of Damascus, in his ninety-sixth book, hath a particular relation about them, where he speaks thus:— “There is a great mountain in Armenia, over Minyas, called Baris, upon which it is reported that many who fled at the time of the Deluge were saved ; and that one who was carried in an ark came on shore upon the top of it; and that the remains of the timber were a great while preserved. This might be the man about whom Moses, the legislator of the Jews wrote .”’, Josephus, ‘Antiquities’, 1.94-95, in Whiston, ‘The Works of Josephus: Complete and Unabridged’ (updated ed. 1987).
There are two indicators that Josephus believed the flood was local. One is his description of Noah’s prayer, in which Noah refers to those who had survived the flood despite not being in the Ark. Josephus didn’t just think they were people who climbed high enough to escape the waters, he believed the flood didn’t cover the entire earth because there were still some people who were sufficiently righteous not to be killed.
“Josephus takes it that there were more survivors of the Flood, namely, honest people besides Noah, who were also judged fit to survive.”, Tessel Marina Jonquière, Prayer in Josephus (BRILL, 2007), 59.
The second indicator is that Josephus cites an earlier source, “Nicolaus of Damascus”, who recorded a flood with a Noah figure called Deucalion, in support of his own interpretation of the flood. Josephus believed the flood was local, and as evidence for this he cites an extra-Biblical historical source which wrote of the flood as local (he did not see this as a contradiction of the Genesis record).
Deucalion’s flood was also cited by Christians who defended the local flood interpretation. In the second century, the Christian writer Theophilus actually objected explicitly to Christians doing this.
“Theophilus also, we may note, inveighs against those who had said that Noah’s Flood was as locally limited as Deucalion’s ( Ad Autolycum 2.19).”, Louis H. Feldman, Studies in Josephus’ Rewritten Bible (BRILL, 1998), 20.
So we know that even as early as the second century there were Christians arguing that the flood was local.
Scholarly commentary.
“Similarly, Josephus tells us that Noah asks God in his prayer that the people who were rescued may found cities and build up new lives.”, Tessel Marina Jonquière, Prayer in Josephus (BRILL, 2007), 1.
Early Syrian Christians.
“Some Syrian fathers shared this view, among whom was Mar Ephrem who said it only reached the outer confines of Paradise; see A. Levene, op cit., p. 84.”, Jack Lewis, A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and Christian Literature (Brill Archive, 1968), 143.
Early rabbinical writers recorded in the Talmud.
“Debates over whether the flood reached as high as the garden of Eden are found in rabbinic literature: Gen. R. 33. 6; Lev. R. 31. 10; Cant. R. 1. 15. § 4; 4.1, § 2; cf. PRE. 23. Of the Syrian fathers, Mar Ephrem said it only reached the outer confines of Paradise; see A. Levene, op cit., p. 84.”, Jack Lewis, A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and Christian Literature (Brill Archive, 1968), 39.
"Resh Lakish (PA. 2) and R. Johanan (PA. 2) differ over whether the land of Israel was included, for JR. Johanan insisted that it was not.1) R. Levi (PA. 3) agreed appealing to Ez. 22:23, “a land… not rained upon in the day of indignation.”2) Some authorities insisted that the flood did not reach as high as the Garden of Eden.3)’, pp. 142-143; the footnotes 1, 2, and 3 say ‘1) T.B. Zeb. 113b. 2) Gen. R. 33. 6; PRE. 23. 3) Gen. R. 33. 6; Lev. R. 31.10; Cant R. 1.15. § 4; 4.1. § 2; cf. PRE. 23 and Nachmonides, Gen. 8:11. Some Syrian fathers shared this view, among whom was Mar Ephrem who said it only reached the outer confines of Paradise.’, Jack Lewis, A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and Christian Literature (Brill Archive, 1968), 143; in these footnotes, PA is the Palestinian Amora, PRE is Pirke de R. Eliezer, TB is the Talmud Babylon, and R after a book name refers to a Midrash; Genesis Rabbah, Leviticus Rabbah, and Canticles/Song of Solomon Rabbah are all cited.
“The source from whence the dove obtained the olive branch brought controversy. R. Abba bar Kahana (PA. 4) insisted she brought it from the young shoots of the land of Israel. R. Levi (PA. 3) contended for the Mt. of Olives which had not been submerged.”, Jack Lewis, A Study of the Interpretation of Noah and Christian Literature (Brill Archive, 1968), 146.
Philo and Josephus may have been influenced by the fact (long recognized), that the flood narrative identifies the Nephilim as a people who were on the earth both at the time of the flood and afterwards, indicating they were not wiped out, so the flood was not anthropologically global. Later reference to the Nephilim in the book of Numbers demonstrates the same understanding by another writer; the Nephilim were a people who survived the flood.
“Although in Numbers 13 the inhabitants of Canaan are considered enemies of the Israelites, both the use and co-ordination (LXX) or derivation of the designation (MT) in an allusion to Genesis 6 betrays an assumption that one or more of the Nephilim must have escaped the great deluge .”, Christoph Auffarth and Loren T. Stuckenbruck, The Fall of the Angels (Brill, 2004), 92.
“From Numbers 13 we learn that the Anakites are said to be descendants of the “Nephilim.” If the Nephilim of Num 13:33 and Gen 6:4 are taken as the same group, the verse indicates that the Nephilim and their descendants survived the flood .”, K. A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26 (vol. 1A; The New American Commentary; Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 336.
“Indeed, there is a note in the text of Genesis 6:4 which explicitly points to the continuity of Nephilim pre-and post-Flood : “The Nephilim were on the earth in those days - and also afterward”” (my italics), a note which of course poses the problem rather than resolves it.", Stephen C. Barton and David Wilkinson (Rev Dr.), Reading Genesis After Darwin (Oxford University Press, 2009), 12.
Research, don’t leave home without it.
That is not an answer. Leaving aside the intellectually impoverished “historical-grammatical hermeneutic”, you have not explained how you verify your interpretation is true. You haven’t even explained what “allow Scripture to interpret Scripture” means. How does that work with understanding the meaning of Daniel 8? How does that work with understanding the meaning of Ezekiel 8:14 and Ezekiel 13:18-20?
In other words, you are saying that the way to know if these passages of Scripture should be interpreted literally or figuratively, is to use science. Go thou, and do likewise. So much for using Scripture to interpret Scripture.
By the way, the “exegesis” of the rāqîya‘ in that article is woeful. Apart from the awful lexicography (which doesn’t once cite a single standard scholarly lexicon on the meaning of the word, and instead relies heavily on the personal opinion of two creationists), it willfully misrepresents Seely with this quotation.
Indeed, Seely admits that his historical etymology of rāqîya‘ and rāqa “does not absolutely prove that rāqîya‘ in Genesis 1 is solid.”[14]15
That’s a quotation from Seely’s initial paper back in 1969. It’s also a quote mine. Look at what he says next.
This historical etymology of “raqia’” and “raqa’” does not absolutely prove that "raqio’ in Genesis 1 is solid, but it does give an initial presumption to the idea that “req ía’” is solid.
More directly, we find it only logical that the firmament be hard or solid in order to fulfill its purpose of serving as a divider of the primeval ocean (Gen. 1:6), carrying the water above on its back (Gen. 1:7). It is impossible, by the nature of air and water, for an empty, airy, evercontinuing expanse to serve as a divider for a body of water. A part of a primeval ocean may be made to settle above or beyond a solid wall, a solid dome acting as a divider; but, place a part of a primeval ocean “above” or “beyond” (that is the Hebrew word) a gaseous or vacuous expanse, and you find that the ocean immediately makes itself at home “in” the expanse, not “beyond” it.
It doesn’t address any of the evidence in Seely’s 1969 paper, or his later 1991 paper, or his later 1992 paper, or his later 1997 paper.
Excuse me but what someone chooses to do in their private life is no business of mine.
This approach is often used like a trump card by those who take a “holistic-er than thou” approach to Bible interpretation.
I would agree with the “utterly lays waste” part but not quite in the way you intended.
@PDPrice still ignores the fact that sometimes a person’s interpretations of God’s revelations in the Bible contradict that person’s interpretations of God’s revelations in creation.
@Jonathan_Burke and most of us here care about evidence. Evidence is a wonderful thing. Please look into it.
Yet another Genetic Fallacy Argument. (After all, if “the deists” have such a webpage, then surely the idea must be wrong. Most deists affirm Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation. Does that make it wrong?)
Then why do even devout and prayerful, born-again Christ-followers hold to conflicting positions on important points in some Bible passages? Is it possible that the doctrine of scripture perspicuity which came out of the Reformation covers far less of the “important points down to fine details” spectrum than what you claim?
I use it too, and I allow scripture to interpret scripture—yet I disagree with you on some of your Bible interpretations.
Do you too have a pile of broken drywall outside of your home? (This past week on PS was very hard on my property value. No interior walls remain undamaged and my head hurts a lot.)
Yes. One would think so.
That’s probably because Creation.com doesn’t know much about this topic at all.
My bumper sticker dates my generation: “Evidence: Try it. You’ll Like it.”
By the way, @PDPrice obviously ignores all of my posts—but I mostly write for the benefit of the silent readers who find these discussions on Google. Many of them who come from a Young Earth Creationist background similar to mine have never heard the arguments against what they read at websites like CMI, AIG, and ICR. So I like to make sure that they learn about other perspectives.
But at least he’s not swerving between thanking you for correcting him on his mislabeling of evidence presented to a lay audience, then 2 days later claiming that everything you’ve written on the subject is 100% wrong.
It’s problematic only if one does not know the point of the narrative.
There is no altar because it’s not the place that is significant, but rather the event itself. And the event is remembered through a change in diet-
[32 ]Therefore the children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he touched the hollow of Jacob’s thigh in the sinew that shrank.
How do you avoid taking it literally when the Israelites stopped eating the sinew in the hollow of. The thigh because God touched Jacob there?
Why do you view this portion of scripture as problematic? It’s strange, however the meaning that is conveyed is clear. If our sense of incredulity motivates the interpretation of scripture, then why should anyone believe Jesus rose from the dead?
What, pray tell, is the point of the narrative? The Bible does not state. Commentaries have no consistency regarding the meaning. All handle it awkwardly, because it is an incredibly awkward passage. But, it seems that you know, so please share.
It was very common in the OT to build an altar to recall encounters with God. Compare your statement with Joshua after crossing the Jordan, for instance. Encounters with God are celebrated for the event, at a location.
I realize that the Jews would not eat this part any longer, but this too is problematic. As you know, the Jews tended to eat or not eat because something was clean or unclean. This is completely out of character in light of your explanation. It is much more in character if they stopped eating it because “a god” touched the location and harmed Jacob in doing so. Either way, there’s no clear narrative. You are welcome to your opinion, though.
I said so already. God asked Jacob who he was. God wrestled. God struggled. God cheated. God needed to be gone before sunrise. Nothing about this story is NOT problematic.
Ridiculous statement.
Thanks for this non sequitur. If we ask legitimate questions about scripture that is problematic, it puts the entire Resurrection in jeopardy! If there is any event in the Bible about which the narrative and purpose are, in fact, clear, it is the Resurrection. Whoever it was wrestling with Jacob is at the other end of the spectrum.
Also, this statement sounds surprisingly similar to assertions that if one does not believe in a literal seven day creation, then all of the rest of the Bible is in question.
What really stands out in this thread is that the fundamentalists contributing lack any kind of rigorous systematic process for examining Scripture and testing their interpretations. No, the “historical-grammatical method” doesn’t count, nor does “using Scripture to interpret Scripture”.
God asked Jacob his name: that doesn’t indicate he didnt know his name. But rather highlights the next verse which involves God renaming him to "israel’.
You are reading ignorance into the part of the person asking Jacobs name.
God wrestled, God struggled- is this impossible for God to do? Didn’t Jesus struggle to carry the cross and even fall down in the way?
The incarnation is proof that God can limit himself such that he feels hunger, thirst etc.
Do you think this is beyond God’s ability?
God cheated: Where did you get this idea?
God needed to be gone before sunrise: this is intriguing. But how did you come to the assumption that God “needed” to be gone before sunrise?
How do you know it’s a need as opposed to a want? Maybe sunrise signified the end of the time that Jacob could be alone with God in this struggle.
You are assuming a lot here.
It’s not a non sequitur. Similar arguments could be made against the ressurection and the deity if Christ. For example I could ask questions like -
a) How is it possible for God to die?
b) How can Jesus be sinless and still die?
c) Why should a sinless man be punished for the sins of others?
d) Why did God need to ressurect Jesus body in the third day as opposed to the fifth or seventh or second day?
The Muslims resolve these questions by claiming that Jesus actually never died on the cross and God replaced him with someone else. Christians look to the whole of the bible to find answers and they do find them while continuing to opt for a literal interpretation.
You can’t have different standards for the incarnation, ressurection etc on one hand and accounts like that of Jacob on the other. If Jacobs incident needs to be reinterpreted in a non literal manner because of the questions you have, then the same logic can be applied to the ressurection also.
Again, you are assuming things. Jews had clear laws about what was unclean.
However, that doesn’t mean that all Jewish traditions which involve abstaining from food is because of “uncleanness”.
The text doesn’t say anything about clean and unclean food in this portion. Since this narrative is hundreds of years before the food laws were introduced, your argument makes no sense.
It seems that you are looking for problems in the narrative because you don’t like something about it.
The context is that Jacob was promised by God that he would bring him back to the promised land safe and sound. He was extremely worried that Esau would kill him and his family. I.e that God’s promise would fail.
Jacob has an encounter with God which assures him of God’s blessing and assures him that he has overcome his tribulation. This is conveyed by two events -
Jacob is able to hold his own in the wrestling match with God.
Jacobs name is changed to Israel… because he contended successfully against God and man.
Ashwin, your analysis of the story is very good and makes sense. But I still see the events (the wrestling match) as being far outside the nature of God as we understand, from scripture. I think that you’ve done a very good job of articulating meaning from an incredibly awkward story. But the story of a supposed encounter with the creator of heaven and earth runs contrary to every other encounter in scripture. Again, you’ve done a great job of making sense of it, but it still does not make good sense. Because of this, many theologians have wrestled with what this means, to the degree that chapter headings, instead, often say Jacob Wrestles with an Angel. So, while it may be 100% clear to you, it is not so for others.
But the point for bringing it up in the first place was to suggest that there are some stories in the Bible about which the literal narrative belies the purpose behind the scripture. I feel that you have made this point very well. Especially here:
If this is in fact the context, then the narrative involving him (Jacob) being attacked and injured by him (God) does not convey that this was the intent. At best it is a very strange way to bring someone back “safe and sound.”
You will have to be more definite than that. The fact is that we have many similar events in the bible, such as God visiting Abraham and having food with him, God meeting Samsons father Manoah etc.
The Angel of the Lord is often called the Lord himself. Such events in the bible are called christophany or theophany.
It makes a lot of sense to me because of the incarnation. Jesus,i.e God who took on flesh, is the greatest revelation of God to us human beings. If God was willing to take on flesh and reveal himself to us, then it’s entirely reasonable for God to meet Abraham or Jacob in the form of a human being.
And the reason I am countering you is because we often allow our own presumptions and assumptions to come to a conclusion that a literal interpretation is impossible or wierd.
Your reasons for looking at this portion of scripture as non literal is very weak and frankly more to do with inbuilt assumptions/prejudices.
That’s upto Jacob to confirm isn’t it? We have Paul’s example where a “thorn” in the flesh serves the purpose of helping him experience God’s grace better.
Adverse situations could turn out to be a blessing in disguise. The end result is that Jacob gave rise to a nation that belonged to God. Abraham had more than one child, but only one received God’s promise. Isaac had two children, and again only one received God’s blessing/promise.
Jacob had twelve sons, all of whom inherited the blessing of God. It’s not strange for God to have encountered him in a unique way. He is a very unique person in the bible narrative.
Thanks, Ashwin, for you response. As I said, above, your explanation is compelling. I wholeheartedly disagree with you that this encounter that resulted in a seemingly many-hours-long wrestling match is at all similar to other encounters with “God”… I’m glad that you are able to see it that way and be so satisfied. I do not and struggle with your analysis of the narrative resulting in the “message” that you see in the text. As I’ve mentioned, many theologians also struggle and the variety of ways in which this story is handled in commentaries is evidence to such.
Everyone is guilty of having presumptions and making assumptions. That doesn’t mean that we suspend the analytical process and assume that something means what it literally says.
I’m not at all certain that this passage is not literal. It may very well be literal. My question has to do with the way that elohim is translated in this passage, which, whether you accept it or not, can be quite difficult to reconcile. And my reasons are not at all weak to me. To simply assume that they are literal, as translated, is also an assumption, which you have made.
I don’t know. I have heard it suggested that there was a Mesopotamian river god who only came out at night (hence the need to be gone before sunrise.) That’s a possible explanation that fits with the personal objections that I have to the story being sensical to me. But I do not have sufficient understanding, knowledge or training in which to present a compelling case for anything. But this, as I’ve said, was not my intent for bringing up this example. My intent was to say that sometimes our face-value literal interpretations can be problematic. The literal seven-day creation and global flood are also examples.
I love and respect God’s word. As I said, your suggestion as to the timeless truth that is intended to be conveyed by this story is very good. It’s, honestly, one of the best I’ve heard. But I also believe that you are glossing over problems that I’ve presented. To me, it seems clear that “the man” did not know who Jacob was, and that, when he saw that he could not win, he cheated. The entire issue of wrestling for hours in a creekbed is equally unnnerving. These are struggles that I have with the story. Some people, like you, are able to see past them. For me, it is not so easy.
Are you suggesting Jacob was fighting with a mesopotamian river God? Or that the story is a myth that found it’s way into the bible as a part of Jacobs story? Both have grave implications on how one reads scripture.
Are there other places where local dieties fight with biblical saints? Is that a regular event in the bible? I am asking because you seem to put a lot of stock in whether something happens often in the bible (like an alter being established whenever God visited the patriarchs).
Like I have said, the text does not say the man didn’t know Jacobs name or that he cheated (were there rules of wresting involved?). You are reading that into the text. Why would a random stranger who doesn’t even know your name then change it from Jacob to Israel.
And why would Jacob cling to such a stranger and ask him to bless him? Wasn’t Jacob blessed by Yahweh? Why would he need a mesopotamian river God to bless him? And Abraham, Jacob and Isaac had a clear understanding of God’s blessing. Jacob has promised to have no other God than Yahweh… so how does a mesopotamian river God fit in?
You are disturbed by the wrestling. However that’s a personal opinion with no corroboration from the bible. However, if we identify the visitor as anyone other than God, then we need to explain why Jacob was so desperate to receive a blessing from this person.
Edit: we also need to note that this narrative is the first time the name Israel pops up… So if it’s a mesopotamian river God that changed Jacobs name… then that would mean that God’s people/nation was named by said river God.
Okay, this is my last reply. Feel free to follow up, but I do not wish to get into a protracted argument with you or anyone.
Yes, I am guilty of reading into the text. As are you. The text does not supply enough information to make the story palatable, as is, for me at least. You may be happy with it. I’m not. In my eyes, there’s clearly enough strange behavior that is not normally associated with Yahweh that I, and many commentators, are confused.
Good questions. All to my point. Jacob asked who the “man” was and the man refused to answer.
All of your assumptions have underlying assumptions. All of your questions have underlying questions. For you it may be crystal clear. For me and many others, it is not.
You can assert that a literal understanding of this or any other text is sufficient. I do not find that to be the case.
This is my last post on the subject too. It’s obvious that the only alternate explanation proposed by you has large implications on the inerrancy of scripture and you have refused to look at these implications.(atleast in this conversation with me).
Not being able to fully understand a portion of scripture is not an excuse in my opinion to make up explanations that treat scripture as less than inspired.
Edit: lastly, this portion from the bible might convince you that the “man” that Jacob met was Yahweh.
Hosea 12: [ 2 ] The LORD accuses Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; he will repay him for what he does.
[ 3 ] He circumvented his brother in the womb, and as an adult he fought with God.
[ 4 ] He even fought the angel and won; he cried and prayed to him. Then at Bethel he found him, and there he spoke with us—
[ 5 ] the LORD God of the Heavenly Armies— the LORD is his name.
If we believe in the inspiration of Hosea, then matter is closed. The man who wrestled with Jacob was God himself.
