For those people who are suffering with sins related to the homosexual lifestyle:

For those people who are suffering with sins related to the homosexual lifestyle:

I have often talked to people in the gay lifestyle and told them my understanding of the Christian’s Faith perspective about the subject of homosexuality. I have told them that God does not approve of the gay lifestyle.

A frequent response to my POV of the matter is that the gay person loves another person of the same sex.

Here is my reply:

“Of course you love another person of the same sex. You should. God wants you to love other people. He wants you to love your family, your neighbors, your enemies, and every one you meet, male or female. God wants you to love him. God loves you. God wants everyone to love you. I love you as well. Let me introduce you to God. He will show you what loves really means and the proper ways to love different people.”

It is this last sentence that is the key for those of us in the Church to communicate. We should love all but true love means loving people in the proper way. To love someone in an improper manner is doing that person either harm or injustice.

For examples:

We are called to love the Lord with all our hearts. This is the most important love.
We are called to love our neighbors as ourselves. This is the second most important love.

However, if we love another human being more than God, we do an injustice to God, to the person, and to our selves. That is not love.
If we love another more than ourselves, we do injustice to them and ourselves. This is not love.

Furthermore, there are many ways in which we express our love to various people in our lives. Family members, spouses, children, friends, co-workers, anyone we meet. Yet we do not express that same love in the same way to every person. How we express love to our spouses is different than how we express love to our family and friends. To do otherwise is not love.

Thus, while I appreciate and applaud the love gay people have for their significant others, I do believe you are not expressing your love in a loving manner. There is a more loving and more fulfilling way. I would be more than happy to introduce you to him. His name is Jesus.

Stumbling Blocks for the Glory of God

Do you ever recall those times when Christians are talking about some particular new cultural fad? It’s usually a fad that some conservative evangelical Christians do not like but either which the Bible has nothing to say or which (even better) the Bible actually approves.

Conservative evangelical Christians, of course, believe that the Scriptures are the authority on almost all matters that the individual believer will experience. Thus the conservative evangelical Christian knows that drunkenness, fornication, adultery are wrong because the Bible says so. Thus conservative evangelical Christian can find a basis for the sins they dislike: homosexuality, greed, gossip, etc. All well and good, right?

But, as mentioned above, sometimes conservative evangelical Christians dislike something of which the Bible is either silent or approving.

You know the kind of stuff I’m talking about? Alcohol consumption, men wearing hats in church, women wearing pants, private prayer language, open communion, women pastors, contemporary or emerging churches, married couples choosing to not have children, single people, tattoos and body piercings, women teaching Hebrew, women working outside of the home, that sort of thing.

Now there some of these topics are expressly approved in the Scriptures and some are not mentioned. But if one is a conservative evangelical Christian and doesn’t like one of these practices, what then is one to do?

Now the spiritually mature thing to do is to remain silent and pray to God for greater tolerance. Once could also recognize that simply because we do not like something then God must automatically agree with us.

One could be that Christ-like but then people would be going around doing things one does not like. And one certainly can’t have that!

I have noticed two ways in which many conservative evangelical Christians seek to ban those things which they dislike but on which they cannot find any Scriptural basis.

The first way in which many conservative evangelical Christians seek to ban those things which they dislike but on which they cannot find any Scriptural basis is to designate that thing as a stumbling block for some people and then apply this verse:

“Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak.” (1 Corinthians 8:9)

And no one better disagree or they have just argued against God! Oh, yes, alcohol consumption is a stumbling block for some people so NO ONE is allowed to consume alcohol EVER even in the privacy of their own home despite what Jesus and the Scriptures say to the contrary. The same goes for women wearing pants, private prayer language. Although the Scriptures

But what else can be a stumbling block? Sex for one thing. “Alright, no more sex, even with your spouse in the privacy of your own home. Why? Because sex can be a stumbling block for some people.” Food. “We have too many overweight people in this country. Your body is a temple. No more sugar, fats, or caffeine. Why? Because food can be a stumbling block for some people.” Video games. Money. Sports. Cars. Careers.

Isn’t it the case that EVERYTHING COULD become a stumbling block? Really, is there anything that could not cause some one to sin?

Are we thus obliged to not to anything? No, because not doing anything might be a stumbling block for someone guilty of the sin of sloth.

You see my point.

And this is the most well known example of people attempting to get their own selfish way despite what Scriptures teaches. There is another method by which many conservative evangelical Christians seek to ban those things which they dislike but on which they cannot find any Scriptural basis.

The first way in which many conservative evangelical Christians seek to ban those things which they dislike but on which they cannot find any Scriptural basis is to ask the question of whether or not this thing brings glory to God. Here is an example I find hilarious:

“In relation to tattoos and body piercings, a good test is to determine whether we can honestly, in good conscience, ask God to bless and use the particular activity for His own good purposes. "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31). The Bible does not command against tattoos or body piercings, but it also does not give us any reason to believe God would have us get tattoos or body piercings.”

So if it does not bring glory to God then we shouldn’t do it.

“Should I wear my shirt tails out or tuck them in?” Which brings glory to God?
“Should I have my salad with ranch or blue cheese dressing?” Which brings glory to God?
“Should I watch football or basketball?
“Should I get a latte or a white chocolate mocha?” Which brings glory to God?
“Should I watch Lost or 24?
“Should I listen to contemporary Christian music or “classical” Christian music?
“Should I read John Piper or should I read the Bible?” Which brings glory to God?

I gave seven examples instead of six because I thought seven examples would bring glory to God more than six.

Of course, whenever someone does anything we do not like we can always mention another option for the person to so which could “bring God more glory”. Hence, “don’t read John Piper’s book; read the actual Word of God which will bring more glory to God.” Where does it end?

And what is so amazing about this use of legalism is that those things which do not bring glory to God for those who do not like that thing, yep, it also doesn’t bring glory to God for those who do like those things. What a coincidence? What are the odds?

You see the point of such a Scriptural position? Those who employ it can employ it can do so for ANYTHING but keep themselves exempt. They can argue that anything of their own choosing causes “another to stumble” or “doesn’t bring glory to God” and anyone who disagrees with them is sinning and disobeying the Word of God. Monstrous!

But then how else can someone who personally dislikes alcohol consumption, men wearing hats in church, women wearing pants, private prayer language, open communion, women pastors, contemporary or emerging churches, married couples choosing to not have children, single people, women teaching Hebrew, and women working outside of the home ever argue against them when the Scripture teaches the exact opposite?

This is how cultural traditions are raised to the level of Scripture.

And for those in the traditional churches who look down upon contemporary churches ...

this is how one “waters down the Gospel” and presents and “easy” Christ.

Or, rather, YOU are a stumbling block for people by setting a standard for discipleship higher than that advocated by Christ. Thus, YOU are the one not bringing glory to God.

Not so nice, is it?

Global Warming

Let it be known: I, PC, believe that the average temperature of the planet Earth is warming. Furthermore, I, PC, believe that human beings are contributing to Global Warming.

Having stated the above, let us consider the findings of the IPCC U.N. Panel Report on Global Warming.

Over the last century, the average temperature of the earth has risen 1.33 degrees.

The earth’s temperature could rise by 8 degrees if the levels of CO2 double over pre-industrial levels. The pre-Industrial level of CO2 was 280 ppm. The current level of CO2 is 380 ppm. Over the past 200+ years the CO2 level has risen by 100 ppm. For the temperature of the earth to possibly rise by 8 degrees, the C02 level must rise by 180ppm.

Global Warming has caused the oceans to warm and thus has caused them to expand, which accounts for 60-70 percent of the 0.07 of an inch per year rise in global sea levels seen in the years between 1961 and 2003. The rest of the rise is accounted for by shrinkage of the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland.

Thus, over the past 50 years the oceans have raised 0.07 of an inch. This means that at the current level, the oceans could rise to the level of 1.4 of an inch in the next 1000 years. The highest prediction of sea-level increase by the end of the century now advocated “reputable” scientists is now of up to 23 inches, substantially better their own earlier predictions of 29 inches -- and light-years away from the 20 feet predicted by former Vice President Al Gore (not reputable). Even then, 20 feet is substantially less that which is perpetuated by other Hollywood science fiction fantasy films: Waterworld, A.I., and The Day After Tommorrow. It’s getting better all the time. However, I recall Roger Ebert’s review of Vice President Gore’s film in which he stated his honest position that he was supporting the film for political reasons … even though he himself knew that Gore’s predictions were obviously exaggerated. Hey, it’s more honesty than we get from “Creationist Scientists”.

Over the next 100 years the temperature of the earth could rise by 2.5 degrees.

And yet, while the CO2 levels are continuing to rise above previous predictions by U.N. Panel Report from the early 1990s, the high end estimates of the impact have dropped by halves and thirds.

Now let us consider the facts as they are generally agreed upon by the scientific community of climatologists.

The General Consensus Concerning Global Warming

- Global Warming has been occurring for 10,000 years.

- Global Warming has occurred numerous times before (followed by Global Cooling) and will probably continue as long as the Earth exists.

- The “problem” of global warming would exist even if man did not exist and no CO2s were released into the atmosphere.

- Moreover, even if we ceased emitting CO2 today, the current “problem” would continue to exist.

- Man’s contribution to global warming is minor if not insignificant. An apt analogy would be thinking of man’s contribution to Global Warming as like a man throwing a charcoal briquette on an already raging fire place fire.

- There is NO evidence that we are currently feeling the effects of global warming.

- There is NO proof that this “problem” of global warming (either the man-made factor or the natural factor) will lead to problems (either major or minor). Indeed, there is no general or even significant consensus among climatologists on what will be the effect (if any) on average global temperatures.

- Even if we assume that this “problem” of global warming is indeed a real and true problem, by the most exuberant, fringe predictions, the problem will not reach dangerous proportions for 1000 years.

- Furthermore, the “problem” of global warming in the Western world will disappear in a 100 years even if the current situation if not addressed.

- Indeed, the problem of global warming as advocated by its most ardent political and environmental supporters is not necessarily focused on current CO2 levels as it is focused on future CO2 levels.

So, if Global Warming is really no big deal as I claim, then why is the whole world up in arms about the issue and so many people completely terrified of “apocalyptic destruction”?

1) There are many climatologists and other scientists who realize that the human contribution is minimal at best, but they nevertheless desire that this “problem” be fixed. Unfortunately, like so many people in this world (both good and bad), too many climatologists appear to be willing to allow errors of exaggeration, polarization [no pun] and general disinformation to permeate as long as they think such errors will benefit their goal.

I’d also add that too many climatologists (like too many other scientists) see the Global Warming “Problem” as a means of gaining grants and further support for their studies of this phenomena.

2) People in general have an inclination towards fear and pessimism. Too many people have had various experiences in their lives that cause them to expect the worst. They tend to live their lives in perpetual fear of the world.

Furthermore, too many people have too many axes to grind. There are a lot of people in this world who hate America and other highly developed nations. They hate the Western-European world. They hate capitalism. They hate corporations and businesses. They hate wealthy people in general (even if they themselves are wealthy in particular). They hate both history and progress. They just hate and only love hating. Global Warming has been a great focus and excuse for their hate.

3) Closely related to the previous reason, it appears that the motives of too many global warming advocates (both political and environmental) are mostly if not purely economic.

A) Nations where both citizens and governments agree that global warming is a reality and a problem that must be dealt with are still not doing anything. Indeed, NO government signed the Kyoto Protocol except Romania. All the nations which are blaming the United States, Australia and others for global warming are not altering their CO2 themselves.

B) The “threat” of global warming has been highly advocated by various communist groups and former communist leaders.

C) Global warming advocates want the “developed” nations of the world to dramatically and drastically alter our lives on the basis of an uncertain hypothesis.

D) They appear to give no thought whatsoever to the consequences their demands would produce. Allow me to play Ford’s advocate here if I may: isn’t it possible that their proposed solution to the problem of global warming would be the cause of a problem worse than that which is predicted from global warming? Perhaps not but the lack of consideration is troubling.

E) There appears to be no interest in solving this “problem” apart from CO2 cuts or even apart from CO2 cuts that do not involve economical resolutions.

F) Why are they so sure that there is ONLY ONE solution to this “problem”? If their only goal is to save the planet then why are they so determined to do so only by one particular method? Should they not be interested in other solutions? Especially, if this solution could draw a greater consensus of support?

G) Furthermore, (and this is the one which no one in liberal politics is yet considering) what are the Western nations going to do about the rest of the world? Unfortunately, if global warming is a serious problem in our future then the real problem lies not in the developed nations of the world but in the developing nations. Let us be realistic: the developed nations of the Western world have been progressing away from CO2 emitting resources for decades. Indeed, the desire of nations and businesses to find alternative sources of fuel for industry predates advent of global warming hysteria. To be sure, the move towards cleaner and safer fuels will occur and would be occurring even if global warming were not a headline grabbing news story. Indeed, a hundred years from now the developed nations of the Western world will not be using very many CO2 emitting resources just as they did not use very many CO2 emitting resources a hundred years ago. But what about the developing nations of the world? They are just now reaching their potential for serious industrial economies. A hundred years from now it will be the developing nations of the world who will be the major emitters of CO2. Are the developed nations of the Western world, still guilt-ridden and reeling over previous centuries of “third-world” colonialism, prepared to severely halt the economic development of the poorest nations of the world? How do you think those nations will respond? What will they think of the former colonial powers who built their empires partly by the use of CO2 emitting resources now attempting to stop nations they once dominated from using wealth-creating resources? What will these developing nations believe to be the motive of the Western world?

Now the major question that needs to be answered is this: why am I interested in this topic?

I have two great loves in my life (apart from God in Christ and my beautiful wife, Lisa). These loves are art (mainly literature) and theology. If you trace back through my life at all of my interests, you will find that they all interweave around my love for literature and my love for the Christian Faith. Thus, the issue of Global Warming falls into these two great loves.

1) Two of the novels that I am writing touch upon the issue of Global Warming (one directly and the other indirectly) at least in terms of the apocalyptic-“doomsday” theme that accompanies modern environmentalism. Thus I am studying the issue in order to write about it with some modicum of intelligence.

2) My second interest in this issue as it pertains to theology and studies of the Christian Faith is the apocalyptic-“doomsday” theme. I am quite interested in the similarities between Global Warming doomsday scenarios and Dispensational doomsday scenarios. I am further interested in the irony of so many “educated” secularists and even some “progressive” Christians who mock the doomsday scenarios of Christian Fundamentalists and Dispensationalists but then turn around and proclaim that the environmental “end is near”. There is some further irony in the fact that so many of these “intellectuals” will roll their eyes at the thought of a universal Flood in Genesis but then turn around and warn the world against the coming flood the rising oceans! Amazing.

For the purposes of this article, I am limiting my in-depth comments to the similarities between the intolerant mentalities of too many Global Warming advocates and the mentalities of too many Christian Fundamentalists.

Naturally, Fundamentalism is not a specifically Christian religious phenomenon. Islam, Hinduism, even Radical Liberal Christianity have developed the Fundamentalist mindset. I think “mindset” is a very good is a good designator for “fundamentalism,” at least in its worst and too often stereotypical form. See here. I know many many “Fundamentalists” who are quite loving, tolerant and educated. They are the very disciples that God has called his followers to be in Christ. They just express their faith in a highly traditional and cultural manner.

There are many moderate to liberal Christians (even some conservatives like myself) who have been witnessing and studying the rise of fundamentalism in the world, both in its mildest and most radical forms. We have seen this in the SBC and in the Middle East. But, as I have noted before, even liberalism and liberal groups are not immune from fundamentalistic tendencies.

Allow me to give a few interesting characteristics of (post-?) modern fundamentalism:

1) Fundamentalism targets and develops out of “minority” groups that feel disenfranchised or persecuted.

2) Fundamentalist groups (particularly those on the wane) often attach themselves to rising popular movements. The purpose of such attachment is to ride the coat tails. Modern examples of this include the Christian religious fundamentalist attachment to secular political and economic conservatism in the 1970s and 1980s, the Islamic religious fundamentalist attachment to Pan-Arabism and the response of developing nations to Post-Colonialism. I would also add the current movement among Communist groups to attach themselves to environmental activism.

3) Because fundamentalism almost always feeds upon minority disenfranchisement, a greater feeling of rigid conformity and intolerance of alternate opinion exists than would be apparent than if the group was in ascendancy.

Thus, when I look at Global Warming issue, I see some obvious similarities with Christian Fundamentalism. And these similarities are red flags indicating to me a serious problem.

1) There is an extreme intolerance of skeptics and other opinions, even of those who agree with the basic position but doubt the severity of the problem. This intolerance reaches the point where dissent is intimidated, forced into silence and removed from positions of public correspondence. Forced silence is always a major red flag. Really, if these Global Warming advocates are so sure that they are correct, if they are so sure that they have the evidence on their side, if they are so sure that their position is the only one that could ever reasonably be possible then, why are they so scared to have anyone publicly criticize their Global Warming position? They should jump at the chance to publicly debate this issue and prove their opponents and other skeptics wrong. We can only look at the past 30-40 years of the SBC and the Conservative Resurgence for ample examples of these characteristics.

2) There is an obvious tendency towards exaggeration among Global Warming advocates. I’ve already mentioned the use of worst case scenario figures. Too many global warming advocates promote hypothetical scenarios which use the highest possible numbers with the greatest presumed catastrophe that those who hold these highest possible numbers can envision. Such irresponsible abandon is not only borders upon criminal negligence but it is detrimental to any real problem that may exist. Who will believe the actual evidence when the exaggerated figures and scenarios prove to be false? I have already noted that while the CO2 levels are continuing to rise above previous predictions by U.N. Panel Report from the early 1990s, the high end estimates of the impact have dropped by halves and thirds. Thus the general consensus among scientists interpreting the data that is the basis of the Global Warming issue is that the “problematic” situation is diminishing. Yet while the data shows a diminishing problem, the response to this data from Global Warming advocates is an increase in predictive “doomsday” hysteria, a shriller call for absolute action and a swelling intolerance to all dissent. Again, we can only look at the past 30-40 years of the SBC and the Conservative Resurgence for ample examples of these characteristics.


3) There is an obvious tendency among Global Warming advocates to express their concern with “doomsday” predictions. I am always suspicious of theories and worldviews that resemble the apocalyptic. Let us be honest: the behavior and apparent mentality of too many global warming advocates resembles and reeks of that which is so commonly found in the more extreme versions of religious fundamentalism. Such unthinking, emotional hysterics (especially when the basis of their claims diminishes) should make you question the validity of those claims. Always beware of such nonintellectual and ignorant assertions. It always leads to blind obedience to particular philosophies that cannot stand up apart from such rigid conformity. What is worse, such blind conformity creates followers that are completely unable to either defend or even express their view. Perhaps such a scenario is appropriate for philosophies, religions and movements that we as Christians would otherwise prefer to go away, but it is not a situation we’d appreciate amongst our own ranks and with positions we believe to be true. With regards to the SBC … uncanny.

Thus, if there actually is an approaching problem related to Global Warming, its advocates have preceded with methods that are counterproductive. The same can be said for Christian Fundamentalists.

So from observations and study, I think we can learn much about human nature and religious fundamentalism from the Global Warming phenomenon.

How is it going to end? With a whimper. For the next several decades the scientific data will continue to slowly out and the “problem” of Global Warming will become less and less of an important issue amidst public consideration. Oh, it won’t be phenomenally and publicly refuted. There are too many people who have invested too much capital to see themselves publicly embarrassed. And those who have publicly criticized the Global Warming hysterics do not need vindication; they simply want the issue to go away. Thus one day our children, grand children, etc. will wake up one morning and ask themselves, “Hey, what ever happened to that Global Warming problem thing?” Yes, by that time, there will be another doomsday issue that we MUST solve and with which NO dissension must be allowed.

The same can be said of the Conservative Resurgence.

The Unopened Box

Let us consider scenario in which one comes upon an unopened box. You are told that the contents of this box might hold either an important gift or perhaps the answer to the question one most desires to know. Regardless to whether or not the contents of the box is what one wants or needs, one is given absolutely certainty that the contents are absolutely not harmful in the least.

Given this above scenario, would you open the box?

...

Now explain to me why it is that so many people will not even attempt to just see if God in Christ is what it claims to be?

A Quick Question on the Sufficiency of the Scriptures

Did you ever notice that the doctrine of the Sufficiency of the Scriptures breaks down with the Church’s doctrine of the Trinity?

Friends with the President

Let us consider scenario in which one is given the opportunity to be friends with the President of the United States of America (whoever he or she may be). Let us also consider that in this scenario, you are given access to the President’s private phone number. With this friendship and this phone number you have access to the President and he or she will always take your call and do what can be done to help you with any problem you could possibly be having.

Given the above scenario ...

Would you want to be the friends with the President?

Would you want to have such access to the President?

Would you want to have the ability to make requests and then have him or her answer them to the best of his or her ability?

Would you want to be in the position of having the President listen to you?

Again, would you want to be the friends with the President?

...

Now take the above scenario and subsequent questions and replace the designator President and replace it with the designator God.

Now explain why people do not want to a relationship with God.

I have a friend ...

I have a friend who recently moved to Fort Worth. She is an ordained Presbyterian minister who teaches Preaching. She has taught at a few universities and divinity schools, including Duke Divinity. My friend who is an ordained Presbyterian female minister who teaches Preaching asked me whether I thought there were any faculty positions open for her at MY seminary.

...

I swear, I almost couldn’t catch my breath from laughing.

The Dance

How did dancing begin?

I beleive that dancing began when a more speculative person observed another individual walking or moving. At some point in the person’s observations of the other’s walk, there occurred a particular movement which caught the attention of the more speculative observer. This attention-grabbing movement could have been anything from a slight gesture to extreme gesticulation, but it had to be so novel that the observer or observers attempted to mimic the movement they had observed.

As other people attempted this movement, their differentiations and interpretations created new novelties that others attempted to mimic. Before long it began to occur to those who tried to mimic this novel movement and to those who watched the attempts at mimicking and aping the movement that there were those who were better at recreating the movement than others. Soon both subjective and objective opinions began to emerge as to whom best copied the movement.

It quickly became evident to all that particular types of movers were better than others. Particular groups of movers and observers arose and began to openly identify and make firm declarations about what constituted best performed movement or dance and what particular interpretation of the dance movement was best. Those groups which felt unduly fringed by their own performances and interpretations of the dance began to create their own separate groups totally devoted to a specific way of performing the dance.

Language, Culture, and Mythology Concerning Jacob Wrestling with an Elohiym

Your thoughts on the following regarding the 'elohiym? As far as I'm aware, there are only 4 ways 'elohiym is used: 1)as meaning God - the God of Israel (YHWH), 2) meaning the god or gods that were the false idols and statues, 3) as an angel, or 4)a man with the status of judge, who has been given God's authority to exercise judgement here on earth. #4 is easily ruled out simply due to the text and context. #2 is ruled out by the fact that any man who would wrestle with a statue all night is crazy, and to be injured by it is just sad.

There are other ways in which this term is used. But even within these 4 there are various meanings.

Elohiym is a generic term for “god”. It can refer to the true god (Yahweh) or to false gods (Baal, Astarte, Dagon, etc.). It can also be used to refer to “angels” that are often called “sons of God”.

Thus we could divide these particular brands of elohiym into two groups: “good elohiym” (“angels” if you will) and “bad elohiym” (“angels” or “demons” if you will).

For instance, in Job 1:6, “there was a day when the sons of god [ben 'elohiym] came to present themselves before the LORD, and the Satan came also among them.”

The Satan is probably of the same kind as the “sons of god” bit quite malicious.

Another instance is in Genesis 6:1-7, where “the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose …There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.”

The result of this inter-deistic coupling is the Flood to cleanse the earth.

And just as “good elohiym” (“angels”) are not necessarily tied to specific places and objects so also “bad elohiym” (“demons”).

Now the context of Genesis 32 is in the Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) idea of
“pagan gods” and “false gods”.

The way in which Canaanite (ANE) idolatry worked is that the idol was an object by which people could petition their gods. Not all pagan gods were connected to idols and even those that were connected to idols were not always with the idol.

Recall 1 Kings 18 when Elijah and the prophets of Baal went to Mt. Carmel to petition their respective gods. There was nothing there except an altar to Baal and an altar to Yahweh.

“High places” were hills and mountains (there are a lot of them in Palestine) where pagans went to sacrifice to various members of the Baal pantheon.

Worship of Yahweh worked in a similar way but the meaning was far different. People also went to high places to commune with Yahweh (Mt. Carmel, Sinai, Zion, etc.) The Tabernacle, the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple were objects and places where the Israelites went to commune with Yahweh. God was not tied to these objects (any more than he is tied to Jerusalem of the Jewish people in general) but they were places that helped people of the time commune with him. A modern version of this is the local church.

One notable difference is that making an idol with image of Yahweh was strictly forbidden.

All this is to say that Jacob could wrestle with a malicious elohiym and it not be an idol. It could be a bad “son of God” (“fallen angel”, “demon”), like the ones from Genesis 6, Job 1, or even one possessing another human (like the demons possessing the man and then the swine herd of Matt 8, Mark 5, Luke 8).

To say that the "god of that statue" would be his competitor, you would first have to show evidence that Jacob believed there actually existed any other gods that were not man-made. We know this to be the opposite as Jacob claims many times to follow the God of his fathers Abraham and Isaac. This is YHWH.

One can mistakenly believe in existence of other gods and still follow the one true God Yahweh.

Again, the term elohiym used to refer to gods (little “g”) is a generic term that applies to all supra-human beings (angels, “demons”, pagan gods, and the one true God, Yahweh). In our terminology it is equivalent to the term “spiritual being”.

I myself believe in one true God who is a spiritual being, but I also believe in the existence of other spiritual beings (angels, demons, the Satan, cherubim, seraphim, etc.). I also believe that these various spiritual beings can take a physical form and a part from idols. This does not contradict my belief that there is one true God, Yahweh.

Do men make idol gods? Yes. Do men recognize as gods those malicious spiritual beings that pose as gods? Unfortunately, yes.

This leaves us with two possible answers. #1, the 'elohiym is YHWH, or #3, the 'elohiym is an angel.

Again, a fallen angel is an angel none the less.

Being that we first look to scripture for interpreting scripture, we would need to see what three key passages say. First, we have Gen. 32:28-30. The 'elohiym claims that Jacob has striven with "God and men", Jacob names that place Peniel-Face of God- because he had "seen God face to face, yet [his] life had been preserved (This would not have been a concern had he simply seen an angel or demon.

Again, elohiym can mean “God” or “god”. Context makes the determination.

While many biblical characters fell down as dead men in fear upon seeing an angel, there was no reason to assume you were lucky to be alive after the fact.

True, both Abraham and Lot did not fall down having seen angels in Genesis 18 and 19. Of course, Abraham did not fall down when he met and talked with Yahweh face to face in Gen 18.

Why? because the angels always started with "fear not" and gave a mission to do.

They do not always say “fear not” (Genesis 18-19).

The ONLY reason for Jacob to be thankful his life had been preserved is because for sinful man to see YHWH face to face they believed meant death.

Nope, Genesis 18 proves you wrong.

This is echoed throughout scripture, especially the OT.) This passage gives us our first hint that Jacob would believe he had seen YHWH not an angel, certainly not a malicious one, but it's not enough to conclude....

If he had indeed seen Yahweh and believed it to be true then it is odd that he did not say “Yahweh.” Everywhere else in Genesis where God takes physical form he is referred to as “Yahweh” and not just “God”. Furthermore, Jacob has seen angels several times already, including earlier in the seen, yet he does not refer to the person as either “Yahweh” or “angel”.

Next we must look in Gen. 48:15-16 "He blessed Joseph, and said, 'The God before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked (meaning YHWH), the God who has been my shepherd all my life to this day, (meaning YHWH), The angel who has redeemed me from all evil,'" The Angel here is synonymous with the previous mentionings of YHWH. Why would Jacob have reason to say an Angel had redeemed him from anything? Because he had striven with that Angel (used here meaning the same as YHWH) back in Gen. 32. In Hebrew the term is: hammal`'ak used in conjunction with 'elohiym being used for YHWH. This is the second time we get the impression that Jacob meant YHWH, but it still needs one more...

And that is the thing: Genesis 32 does not call the elohiym either “Yahweh” or “angel”.

But it is interesting and an example of what I am stating: not every use of the word “angel” designates a typical “angel” as “Son of God” and not every use of elohiym designates either “God” or “good angel”.

If Jacob (or the writer) meant “angel of the Lord (Yahweh)” neither of them said it. If they meant ha-malak elohoym (“angel of God”), then they still didn’t say it. We know Jacob knows about ha-malak elohoym (“angel of God”) because he uses it in the prior chapter in Genesis 31:11: “And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream.”

No, both Jacob and the writer know that this figure was neither Yahweh nor “good angel”, but something quite vicious.

Hosea 12:2-5 "the LORD (YHWH) also has a dispute with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; He (YHWH) will repay him according to his deeds. In the womb he took his brother by the heel, and in his maturity he contended with God (YHWH). Yes, he wrestled with the angel (the disputed term) and prevailed; he wept and sought His (from the text this is YHWH ref in Hebrew)favor. He found Him (YHWH) at Bethel and there He (YHWH) spoke with us, even the LORD (YHWH), the God of hosts (YHWH), the LORD (YHWH)is His (YHWH)name.

Okay, first this is Hosea using the character of Jacob (Israel) to speak about his contemporary Israelite generation. Hence, verse 4: “he found him [in] Bethel, and there he spake with US.” Hence, verse 2: “The LORD hath also a controversy with Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways; according to his doings will he recompense him,” which refers to the divided kingdom of Judah and Israel during the time of Hosea. “Jacob” is often a poetic name for Israel used by the writing prophets and points back to the historical and literary figure of the Jacob of Genesis. This is what Hosea is doing here (see Hosea 11:12).

Now the text:

“He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and by his strength he had power with God:” (Hosea 12:3)

Okay, all good here. Jacob wrestled with Esau and got the birth right with power from God.

“Yea, he had power over the angel, and prevailed:” (Hosea 12:4)

Again, Hosea identifies the figure as an angel and not Yahweh. But really, how could Jacob prevail over Yahweh?

“and showed pity [chanan] unto him:” (Hosea 12:4)

How can Jacob show prevail against Yahweh and then show Yahweh pity? No.

Sorry, the behavior of the elohiym in Genesis 32, including Jacob’s response, and Hosea’s description of the event shows that it really, really cannot be Yahweh.

Now so far, we've had the hint it COULD be YHWH from Gen. 32, we've had Jacob himself interpret this as YHWH from Gen. 32 and Gen 48, and now Hosea will add his own interpretation. Hosea is in the middle of the passage talking about YHWH's disposition towards Jacob and his descendents, and in comes the word, 'elohiym, into the mix. Now if it stopped there, we might be left wondering, but Hosea tells us who this 'elohiym is in 2 big ways. First he uses the same Hebrew as in Gen 48 and in conjunction with 'elohiym being used for God (YHWH) uses mal`ak. This is the same wording, and right in the middle of a discussion about God (YHWH) and Jacob. But then Hosea qualifies his comment on 'elohiym by vv 5: "Even the LORD, the God of hosts, the LORD is His name." Taken together we have little conclusion other than the use of 'elohiym referenced in Gen. 32 is in reference to YHWH. Not an idol, a man, or an angel, and certainly not a malicious angel.

Yes, sorry. See all above.

Remember there are not divisions in the Hebrew sentences and paragraphs. These are interpretations by contemporary translators. Just as Hosea 11:12 should go with Hosea chapter 12 so also verse 3a “he met him at Bethel” starts a new paragraph.

Need proof?

“Therefore turn thou to thy God: keep mercy and judgment, and wait on thy God continually. He is a merchant, the balances of deceit are in his hand: he loveth to oppress.” (Hosea 12:6-7)

Obviously, verse 6 is about God and verse 6 is not. Here is the next example.

“And Ephraim said, Yet I am become rich, I have found me out substance: in all my labors they shall find none iniquity in me that were sin. I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt will yet make thee to dwell in tabernacles, as in the days of the solemn feast.” (Hosea 12:8-9)

Again, obviously, verse 8 is about Ephraim/Israel/Jacob and verse 9 is not.

Context, context, context. Yahweh does not lose “battles” and no one shows “pity” upon him.

It is because Yahweh was with Jacob that the latter prevailed over Esau and the elohiym. It is because of Yahweh that Jacob could show “pity” to the malicious angel.

This chapter in Hosea shows that early interpreters of the Genesis 32 story understood the elohiym to be something or someone other than Yahweh.

One last point to make is that if what you say is correct about the mythology, then you would be arguing that anyone who has tried to interpret Genesis without a thorough understanding of Canaanite mythology would be wrong due to ignorance. This would make centuries worth of brilliant men and women, and brilliant preachers, theologians, and expositors, wrong. Also, it would be a flawed hermeneutic which you wouldn't continue using into the NT. Or would you? Would you tell me that I couldn't understand the book of Romans properly if I didn't fully understand the Roman pantheon? The message has nothing to do with the pantheon or the legends associated with it, it has everything to do with the gospel of Christ. Mythology has never been needed to understand scripture, and doesn't in this case any more than any other. Of course mythology was rampant in that day. That's why God had the Israelites drive out the pagan "idolotrous" nations when they cleansed the land. But just because the pagan nations believed in and worshipped the idols, doesn't mean that Jacob did, or would have even considered that catching an evil spirit would grant him wishes. Nonsense! Jacob followed YHWH as did Abraham and Isaac his fathers. To claim differently, you really need to prove differently.

Let me ask you: have you ever changed your interpretation of a Scriptural passage after you learned a little bit about the culture in which the passage was written?

Why do we have newer translations? We are continually finding better manuscripts which give us a better idea of what the original document stated.

Brilliant men and women, and brilliant preachers, theologians, and expositors are often wrong. Take Augustine: he had a bad translation of Romans 5 and developed a particular but incorrect view of original sin which is still held by most of the Christian world.

Heck, for 1300 years almost all of Christendom held to the ransom view of the atonement. Now almost no one believes that view is correct.

Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Edwards, Moody, Graham, and every other great Christian leader have been wrong with some things and we are no different. Everyone always is getting some theology wrong. By grace, we are given enough of the right theology in order to be saved and grow as a Christian.

But with regards to ANE mythology, one does not need to know the local, historical mythology to understand the point of the passage: Jacob has struggled with men and gods and has prevailed. One does not have to know that the “Sons of God” are “angels” to know that they are spiritual beings. One does not have to know that an elohiym can also be interpreted as a “bad angel” to understand that the “god” here is malicious. However, if one does not Hebrew then they are at the mercy of the errant translator: “Do I interpret elohiym as ‘God’, ‘god’, ‘angel’, ‘judge’, ‘idol’ or ‘gods’?”

One does have to know Hebrew to interpret Genesis, right? I mean, the story was written in Hebrew. We have to know Hebrew in order to understand it. Thankfully, God has raised people up throughout history to learn the language and translate it into various languages (Greek, Latin, Middle English, German, and modern English, etc.). Anyone who reads the original Hebrew and does not have the best knowledge of it will be wrong due to ignorance, right? Again, Augustine had a bad translation of Romans 5 and developed an incorrect view of original sin.

Not “wishes”, but a “blessing”. “Blessing” is a specific act like that of “curse”. One can bless another and curse another. One can bless man and God just as one can curse man and God.

I am not claiming that Jacob, Isaac or Abraham did not follow Yahweh (though Abraham did follow false gods in his former life). Again, the belief in the existence of other spiritual beings does not exclude the sole worship of the one true God, Yahweh.

Do you believe in the existence of angels, demons, the Satan, cherubim and seraphim? If you do not then it doesn’t make you an apostate believer or unfaithful to God. I know lots of believers who think that angels and demons are mythological and not based in reality. I disagree but understand how and why they think so.

This has been a very good and helpful discussion for me. I am currently reviewing my Hebrew grammar. It's not very easy but this exercise is helping.