"The poem"? It wasn't a poem! It was simply an announcement whereby he informed his wives of what had happened.
It is a poem. Did you not read the post on the first page where I explained to you how it is poem? If it has the literary form of a poem, it is a poem. Because you are not reading it in the Hebrew, you are unable to appreciate this fact.
"the man who struck"? Not true! There was no altercation.
They are just stating what the text itself says...he says a young man "wounded" (l-pts'y) me and "welted" (l-chbrty) me. On what basis do you say this is not true? These two words occur together in Exodus 21:25 ("burn for burn, wound for wound [pts' ]", bruise for bruise [chbwrh]"), Proverbs 20:30 ("Blows [chbwrwt] and wounds [pts' ] cleanse away evil, and beatings [mkwt] purge the inmost being"), and Isaiah 1:6 ("From the sole of the foot all the way to the head there is nothing sound in it, only bruises [pts' ], welts [chbwrh], and raw wounds [mkh tryh], not closed up or bandaged". The use of these two words together clearly shows that physical injury is what is meant. Your suggestion that the word "blow" in Genesis 4:23 is merely emotional (by using the English expression "dealt a blow") is not supported by the Hebrew at all, which uses two distinct words of physical injury to describe what happened to Lamech.
It looks like you have redefined the Hebrew word along the lines of an English expression, and then on that basis, you call the Insight article's reference to Lamech's injury an "error" tho that is plainly what the expression actually means.
"his attacker"? Not true! The young man never laid a hand on Lamech.
Again, you have not given any compelling reason to prefer a figurative bruising and welting over what is plainly stated in the poem (i.e. giving someone a physical welt or a bruise). How can you say "the young man never laid a hand on Lamech" when the text says this? Why are you so convinced of your preferred redefinition of the words that you say that the plain meaning is not possible at all?
I would say tho that "attacker" goes beyond what is stated. The poem gives no background information and so we don't know who was the "attacker", if the young man "welted" Lamech in self-defense, etc.
