Replies

פּנים

vayikra Ya'akov shem hamakom p'niel ki-raiti ekohim panyim el-panyim vatinatzel nafshi

And called Jacob name the place sides of Ek because I perceived/saw/sensed Ekohim sides to sides and rescued/preserved my soul.

The sentence as you post it makes no sense...

And called Jacob name the place sides of Ek because I perceived Ekohim sides to sides and rescued my soul...

That's what it really says, eh???

pânı̂ym
paw-neem'
Plural (but always used as a singular) of an unused noun (פּנה pâneh, paw-neh'; from 6437); the face (as the part that turns); used in a great variety of applications (literally and figuratively); also (with prepositional prefix) as a preposition (before, etc.): - + accept, a (be-) fore (-time), against, anger, X as (long as), at, + battle, + because (of), + beseech, countenance, edge, + employ, endure, + enquire, face, favour, fear of, for, forefront (-part), form (-er time, -ward), from, front, heaviness, X him (-self), + honourable, + impudent, + in, it, look [-eth] (-s), X me, + meet, X more than, mouth, of, off, (of) old (time), X on, open, + out of, over against, the partial, person, + please, presence, prospect, was purposed, by reason, of, + regard, right forth, + serve, X shewbread, sight, state, straight, + street, X thee, X them (-selves), through (+ -out), till, time (-s) past, (un-) to (-ward), + upon, upside (+ down), with (-in, + stand), X ye, X you.

With this translation of the word for 'face', sides doesn't occur one single time...And then I see in your reconstruction of the Hebrew, to was added to the second face instead of having it's own definition while the original Masoretic text has them separate...

Well, it isn't "my" Hebrew source. It is from the Mesorah - where 95% of all Bibles get their Hebrew Scriptures, but here you go, transliterated in a literal, mechanical translation:

The KJV translators had the same access to the Masorah as you do but decided to stick with the written Hebrew instead of the Masorah...I suspect many others did as well since I don't recollect seeing 'sides to sides' in the verse in other translations...

Without looking, I'd bet that the Douay Rheims says 'face to face' and not, sides to sides...I'd bet that most translations say face to face...

I'll stick with 'face to face'...The man in the verse is clearly the Angel of the Lord, which is the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ...

And if you've seen the Angel of the Lord, you've seen the face of God...

That's what it really says, eh

Yes. Do you speak any language other than English? Surely you know what a mechanical translation is, right? What I wrote is what it LITERALLY says. Period.

With this translation of the word for 'face', sides doesn't occur one single time

All that means is that at no time did the translators every translate the word as "sides" but when you look at the shoresh, the root, that is precisely what it means. Remember, the debate here is what the word "panyim" LITERALLY is, not what it is translated as. LITERALLY it is "sides."

The KJV translators had the same access to the Masorah as you do but decided to stick with the written Hebrew instead of the Masorah

When I say "Mesorah" I am referring to what is called the "Masoretic text" - the one the KJV translators used. But, in case you don't know the KJV translators were exceptionally good with scribal notes that are present in the Mesorah's margins. It case you still misunderstand: I USED THE SAME HEBREW TEXT AS THE KJV TRANSLATORS. The same translators that translated 1John 4:12 as "No man hath seen G-d at any time."

I'd bet that most translations say face to face...

You are correct, and that may be an acceptible translation. However, as I have tried to show on this thread, you CANNOT say emphatically that the text "literally says, 'face to face'" - because it DOES NOT. It LITERALLY says, "sides to sides." Period.

When people draw theological conclusions from the text, that is fine. What is not fine is to discount alternate conclusions that the text does not rule out. Theology should be informed by the text, but most often it is informed by the tradition of how the text is read. That makes the tradition different from the literal text - which should give us all pause before we start accusing others of "blasphemy" for having a different tradition. Let the text speak for itself. You or I are free to assume that the "man" being wrestled is a "preincarnate Jesus Christ" but the text does not SAY that - so being dogmatic about it is not only immature, it is unscholarly. Claiming the text LITERALLY says what we read in English is short-sighted if there are those that can read the original language present.

Love demands that where there are differences of tradition, we permit what the text permits. The text of Genesis 32:30 (32:31 in Hebrew) permits those who do not agree with the idea of a "preincarnate Jesus Christ" to have a firm footing. At least as firm as yours or mine.