Peshitta Forum

Full Version: Camel or Rope? Matt: 19:24
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
THE NEEDLE AND THE ROPE

???And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.??? Matt. 19 : 24.

The Aramaic word gamla means camel, a large rope and a beam. The meaning of the word is determined by its context, If the word riding or burden occurs then gamla means a camel, but when the eye of a needle is mentioned gamla more correctly means a rope, There is no connection anywhere in Aramaic speech or literature between camel and needle, but there is a definite connection between rope and needle. Eastern women when purchasing thread often say, ???It is a rope, I cannot use it???, which means it is too thick. Then again, there are ropes in every Eastern home, used to tie up burdens on the backs of men and of animals. When not used, the rope is hung on the wall or laid in a corner of the house.

The discussion about the rich man probably took place in the house. Jesus pointed to the rope in the house to illustrate what he was saying in condemning the greed of Eastern rich men, who had acquired their wealth unjustly. He said, ???It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.??? Then again there are different kinds of needles in use in the East: the tiny needle for fine embroidery, the common needle for sewing which is larger, and the big needle about five or seven inches long, which working men often carry fastened to their garments or attached to the rope. A good sized cord could easily be passed through this needle, which is used chiefly for sewing large bags, rugs and tents woven of goat???s hair.

Biblical students have suggested that when Jesus referred to ???needle eye??? he meant the little gate on the wall. As there is no such gate in any oriental city called ???needle eye??? where camels could pass through, this interpretation is incorrect. Some of the ancient walled cities in the east still remain the same as in the ancient days. They have several large entrances at various parts of the wall known as ???gates.??? Men, camels , and all animals enter and leave through them. They are the only possible place a camel could enter. The Gospel says nothing of such a gate and plainly refers to the eye of a needle. Dadlil lgamla lmeal bakhrora damgata au atira dneaol lmacootha dalaha means ???It is easier for a rope to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.???

The word gamla is also used in Matthew 23 : 24, but here it means camel because Jesus was talking about baka, gnat, and contrasting it with camel. In this case, both objects were alive and the hyperbole was justified, as it would not have been in Matt. 19 : 24 which would have made no sense. Everybody in the Orient knows that a camel could never pass through a needle???s eye, but that a rope might at least be forced through the eye of a large needle.

Such expressions as rope and needle, camel and gnat, are common in Eastern usage, but the comparison or contrast must have some connection, otherwise the illustration would be meaningless. The repetition of some Aramaic words in widely different contexts is largely due to a limited vocabulary. Aramaic is an ancient language, and the Gospels were written at a time when languages did not require a large vocabulary and new ideas were not prevalent. The art of writing was practically recent and printing was invented in Europe fourteen centuries later. Mark 10 : 25; Luke 18 : 25.

Gospel Light, George M. Lamsa, pp, 115-116, A.J. Holman Company, Philadelphia, 1935,
Shlama Otto,


Lamsa's own words prove that he is wrong about his rope theory:

Quote:Everybody in the Orient knows that a camel could never pass through a needle???s eye, but that a rope might at least be forced through the eye of a large needle.
Matthew 19:24
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
25 When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

The disciples would not have been incredulous at the idea of a rope going through the eye of a needle, as Lamsa himself admits, but they said,"Who then can be saved?"
Then our Lord said,"With men this is impossible!
Why would He have said that if He were talking about a rope? That is not impossible with men!

But a camel is impossible for men to get through the eye of a needle; that is the point. It is impossible (except with God, of course).

Let's see you exegete yourself out of that conundrum.

Dave
Shlama,

I'm no Lamsa fan so what I'm asking and saying here is not in his defense.

1. Do we know what type of needle is being spoken of here?

2. Have you ever seen needles of ancient times, especially used in the Middle East?

3. Why is it difficult to believe the Apostles and Disciples would not be surprised to hear Yeshua speak of a rope going through a needle?

I believe Paul Younan has translated this particular verse correctly when he uses "rope". Since a rope can't easily go through a needle, the same principle of anything is possible for God, applies. That's just my opinion.

Needle of ancient Israel

Eastern Mediterranean needle and other such tools

Middle Kingdom Egyptian needle and tools - netting needle used for fishing nets

Ya'aqub
Shlama Akhi Yaaqub,


Quote:Why is it difficult to believe the Apostles and Disciples would not be surprised to hear Yeshua speak of a rope going through a needle?

Who said they were not surprised to hear of a rope going through the eye of a needle?

They were surprised, but a rope going through the eye of a needle was not the surprise, and I contend Yeshua never spoke about ropes anywhere.
The fact is they were surprised to hear that it was easier for "gamla" to enter the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God and they said:"Who then can be saved? ", as if what our Lord was saying were inconceivable. Yeshua then said,"With men this is impossible." Lamsa said it is quite possible with men, so he contradicts our Lord's statement.

Please let Otto answer, since he was the one who posted this topic.

Blessings,

Dave
You know Dave, your trying to do to Otto, what you've done to me in the past.

FORCE HIM INTO YOUR WAY OF THINKING.

This is "a Forum", the last time that I looked, and while I don't have a great love for George Lamsa's writings, I do have respect for Otto.

If he wants to believe a certain verse says a certain thing, if this works for him, who are YOU to try to imply that this particular verse HAS to be translated the way THAT YOU SAY?

I know that you actually think that Alaha gave you the Perfect Peshitta Translation, but this is only in your own mind.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

There are a lot of voices here, and each one of them is EQUAL, in my mind, but perhaps as George Orwell once wrote, you believe "that some are more equal than others".

i.e., Dave Bauscher.

Stand firm Otto, you have every right to your opinion!

Albion
Are we having fun yet, Albion?

If I weren't here stirring the pot, what would you do with yourself? You really love this, you just won't admit it. I am the guy you love to hate, and who else is there on the forum who can serve that need in you? So I am happy to oblige.

Am I not allowed to disagree with Otto? Must respect dictate that I simply comply with every Lamsa article he throws out there?

The fact is that you and I both disagree violently with Lamsa on many points and yet you seem to have an even bigger ax you are grinding for me, so you don't want to admit when we might agree.

How about this is simply about the meaning of a verse of scripture? Is that a legal topic of discussion, Albion, especially on the New Testament forum?

Everything has to be personal and emotional with you.

And where is all that anger and hate coming from, Albion?

Quote:You know Dave, your trying to do to Otto, what you've done to me in the past.

FORCE HIM INTO YOUR WAY OF THINKING.

What! Are you saying I forced you into my way of thinking? It sure sounds like that's what you're saying. I have no idea what that is about. You seem to disagree with every breath I take, my brother. How can I force anyone into my way of thinking? Does pressing keys on a keyboard do that?

Howbeit, if presenting strong argument based on scripture can change someone's mind on a particular point, does that constitute brainwashing? If it does, then I plead guilty as charged!

Blessings, my angry brother.

Dave
No problem Dave - I wasn't aware this was an "Otto and Dave Only" thread. <!-- s:eh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/eh.gif" alt=":eh:" title="Eh" /><!-- s:eh: --> I saw nothing indicating that.

gbausc Wrote:Please let Otto answer, since he was the one who posted this topic.
LOL, by the way... nice closing argument. <!-- sConfusedigh: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sigh.gif" alt="Confusedigh:" title="Sigh" /><!-- sConfusedigh: -->

Have a nice day.
July 4, 2008, God Bless America

There are two parts to Lamsa???s statement. One is about the meaning of the sentence in Aramaic, his native language. The Second is about Lamsa???s personal view of how to interpret the Messiah???s statement.

Part 1: Concerning ???rope??? versus ???camel,??? it is important to remember that Lamsa was a native Assyrian who thought in Aramaic. He did not translate the Peshitta, per se. Rather he created an English version of the Peshitta based on his native understanding of the Aramaic text. I know of no one on this forum who has these credentials. I talked with Lamsa about his view of his work, and he firmly believed that God lead him and that God was responsible for making it possible. I have no doubt that "rope" is the correct meaning. It makes perfect sense.

Part 2: Lamsa was not a theologian, to my knowledge. However, in his commentaries he does state some personal views that might be considered to have a theological context. Lamsa was trained at Anglican schools and his overall theology was quite orthodox, but some side issues were personal views. One such issue is the business of the possibility of a rope passing through the eye of a needle. I disagree with Lamsa???s view that there is a loophole in the Messiah???s statement since some rope might squeeze through some large needle. The context and statements are clear, that is impossible for a large rope to pass through a sewing needle.

I think it is important to separate these two parts. Lamsa???s statement about the context of the statement leading Aramaic speakers to hear ???rope??? rather than ???camel??? stands firm. His loophole to salvation is unlikely.

Otto
Shlama Akhi,

So Lamsa was right, but you are "righter"!

Your statement ,
Quote:His loophole to salvation is unlikely.
makes Lamsa's translation equally "unlikely". If Lamsa thought the rope could pass through the eye of a needle, it shows that the statement about rope is ineffective. The illustration was to demonstrate an impossibilty, not an unlikelihood. The camel illustration does that very effectively. The rope illustration does not; it leaves doubt and creates confusion. Even you say his loophole for salvation is "unlikely", not "impossible", so the "rope" wording is not unequivocal and certain.

I challenge you to find this word in any Aramaic literature before the 10th century used to mean "rope".

You are plainly wrong about
Quote:he created an English version of the Peshitta based on his native understanding of the Aramaic text. I know of no one on this forum who has these credentials.
Paul Younan is a native Aramaic speaker, as I understand his claims, and I have no reason to doubt that, but that in itself does not give Paul Younan or George Lamsa the authority to throw every Aramaic Lexicon ever written overboard in favor of an extremely questionable and relatively modern translation of an ancient Aramaic word which is never translated "rope" in any place whatsoever in any Aramaic text anywhere written before the 10th century.
Every synoptic Greek Gospel has "Camel" for this saying; only one Greek Uncial ms. (10th cent.) has "kamilov" -"cable" in Luke 18:25.

Mt 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Mr 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Lu 18:25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle???s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

How is it that 3 different Greek translators of Matthew, Mark and Luke all got it wrong? These Gospels are all very different in their Greek style and quality.

The Diatesseron of Tatian from the Arabic version, which came from the Peshitta text and agrees with that text extremely closely (practically identical) reads "easier for a camel to pass...".

The following are taken from BiblicalHebrew.com

Quote:Just as the apocryphal Acts of Peter and Andrew3 refers the saying to a literal camel and needle, so we are not meant to reason away the apparent difficulty of getting a camel through a needle's eye. For the difficulty is not apparent it is real, and not be solved by textual trickery but by taking the ludicrous language at face value.

What we have instead then, I believe, is a beautiful Hebrew hyperbole, as in the tree sticking out of one's eye whilst one is removing a speck in another's eye! Indeed, Jewish Talmudic literature uses a similar aphorism about an elephant passing through the eye of a needle as a figure of speech implying the unlikely or impossible:
"They do not show a man a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle."4
This first instance concerned dreams and their interpretation and suggested that men only dream that which is natural or possible, not that which is unlikely ever to have occurred to them.
"??? who can make an elephant pass through the eye of a needle."5
In this case, the illustration concerns a dispute between two rabbis, one of whom suggests that the other is speaking "things which are impossible".

The camel was the largest animal seen regularly in Israel, whereas in regions where the Babylonian Talmud was written, the elephant was the biggest animal. Thus the aphorism is culturally translated from a camel to an elephant in regions outside of Israel.
The aim is not, then, to explain away the paradox and make the needle a huge carpet needle for, elsewhere, the Jewish writings use the "eye of the needle" as a picture of a very small place, "A needle's eye is not too narrow for two friends, but the world is not wide enough for two enemies."6 . The ludicrous contrast between the small size of the needle's eye and the largest indigenous animal is to be preserved for its very improbability.

Jesus' hearers believed that wealth and prosperity were a sign of God's blessing (cf. Leviticus and Deuteronomy). So their incredulity is more along the lines that, "if the rich, who must be seen as righteous by God by dint of their evident blessing, can't be saved, who can be?". Later Christians have turned this around to portray wealth as a hindrance to salvation, which it can be ??? but no more so than many other things, when the message is that salvation is impossible for all men for it comes from God alone.

But beyond impossibility is possibility with God for, elsewhere, a Jewish midrash records:
"The Holy One said, open for me a door as big as a needle's eye and I will open for you a door through which may enter tents and [camels?]"7


Footnotes:

Mainly 11th century or later, and in one 9th/10th century manuscript, however all early manuscripts and quotations in the church fathers from the 3rd through to the 8th centuries have 'camel' not 'rope'.
The New Testament according to the Eastern Text, George M Lamsa, 1940, p.xxiv and note on Matthew 19:24.
"13 There was a rich man named Onesiphorus who said: If I believe, shall I be able to do wonders? Andrew said: Yes, if you forsake your wife and all your possessions. He was angry and put his garment about Andrew's neck and began to beat him, saying: You are a wizard, why should I do so? 14 Peter saw it and told him to leave off. He said: I see you are wiser than he. What do you say? Peter said: I tell you this: it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Onesiphorus was yet more angry and took his garment off Andrew's neck and cast it on Peter's and haled him along, saying: You are worse than the other. If you show me this sign, I and the whole city will believe but if not you shall be punished. 15 Peter was troubled and stood and prayed: Lord, help us at this hour, for thou hast entrapped us by thy words. 16 The Saviour appeared in the form of a boy of twelve years, wearing a linen garment 'smooth within and without', and said; Fear not: let the needle and the camel be brought. There was a huckster in the town who had been converted by Philip; and he heard of it, and looked for a needle with a large eye, but Peter said: Nothing is impossible with God rather bring a needle with a small eye. 17 When it was brought, Peter saw a camel coming and stuck the needle in the ground and cried: In the name of Jesus Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate I command thee, camel, to go through the eye of the needle. The eye opened like a gate and the camel passed through; and yet again, at Peter's bidding. 18 Onesiphorus said: You are a great sorcerer: but I shall not believe unless I may send for a needle and a camel. And he said secretly to a servant: Bring a camel and a needle, and find a defiled woman and some swine's flesh and bring them too. And Peter heard it in the spirit and said: O slow to believe, bring your camel and woman and needle and flesh. 19 When they were brought Peter stuck the needle in the ground, with the flesh, the woman was on the camel. He commanded it as before, and the camel went through, and back again. 20 Onesiphorus cried out, convinced and said: Listen. I have lands and vineyards and 27 litrae of gold and 50 of silver, and many slaves: I will give my goods to the poor and free my slaves if I may do a wonders like you. Peter said: If you believe, you shall. 21 Yet he was afraid he might not be able, because he was not baptized, but a voice came: Let him do what he will. So Onesiphorus stood before the needle and camel and commanded it to go through and it went as far as the neck and stopped. And he asked why. 'Because you are not yet baptized.' He was content, and the apostles went to his house, and 1,000 souls were baptized that night." (Acts of Peter and Andrew vv.14-21, The Apocryphal New Testament, M R James, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1924, p459).
Babylonian Talmud, Berakoth, 55b
Babylonian Talmud, Baba Mezi'a, 38b
Source not traced but cf. Midrash Rabbah, Genesis 1.3

Dave
Shlama Forum:
We all understand the illustration of a "camel/beam" passing through the "eye of a needle". Some bring up the "camel's gate" hypothesis, but most appreciate the elegant simplicity of the illustration in Aramaic. Historically, there is no camel's gate, where camels had to pass through a wall on their knees. That argument is without historical foundation. If "gamal" can mean "beam" or "camel" and the illustration speaks of passing through with "great difficulty", then it's just "thick" through "narrow". The thick "beam" is a simple object and a "camel" is not, nevertheless the illustration works with "camel" but clumsily. The illustrations of Jesus were simple, not head scratching. A "beam" is inanimate and a "needle" is inanimate. The illustration of straining out gnats and swallowing camels, is comparing two living things. (Matthew 23:24) A gnat and a camel are both unclean for Jews to eat. The illustration deals with hypocrisy; allowing a huge faux pas while meticulously "straining the gnat" through a sieve. Jesus is not comparing a "gnat" with a "beam", even though the word "gamal" can mean "beam". It's a simple illustration of blindly allowing a huge personal error while "gnat picking" (pun intended).

The illustration of "beam and eye of the needle" is a classic example of "light and heavy", Hillel's first of seven hermeneutic laws, called "kal v'khomer". If X is true, then how much more is Y true? If it's with great difficulty, yes impossible for an "overhead house beam" to pass through the eye of a needle, how much more difficult is it for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
It's tedious to park on the "rope" just as it is to sit on a "camel" or "beam". Though "rope" is pliable and "beam" is rigid, "gamal" means "beam", not "rope". Now if someone can show me a reliable Aramaic lexicon where "gamal" means "rope or cord" then that would be definitive. However if one wants to use "rope" it's OK by me. A "rope" is thicker than the eye of a needle just as an overhead beam is. After all, if the illustration of "a camel passing through the eye of a needle" has worked as an illustration for nearly 2000 years then we're not going to lose our salvation if that "thread" continues. Notwithstanding, as I am a conservative Aramaic Primacist, I like "beam" as is, because it's "rigid", not "flexible" like a "rope" or a "camel", but I don't know evrything. God doesn't give us much "wiggle room" does he? The LAW is the absolute indictment of sin in the flesh, is it not? A "rich arrogant man" is not as spiritually flexible as a "poor humble man". The poor don't eat as well as the rich, and they are often gaunt/thin and undernourished. "Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven". (Matthew 5:3)

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Shlama Akhi Stephen,

Its a good try, but the Aramaic verbs "l'meal" and "d'neul" are active and interchangeable, as Mark 10:25 has them reversed from the Matthew 19:24 order. Both are from the root "al', -"to enter".
A rich man is animate, a living being; so is a camel. A camel is pictured as going under its own power, as a man would enter the gate of a kingdom under his own power. That is the picture, not one of pushing a rope or a beam through something, any more than one would push a rich man through a gate. If He were talking about pushing, He would have made the rich man the object instead of the subject ("to push a rich man into the kingdom").That is not how salvation works, nor is it how our Lord would illustrate it. It is a miracle, but it also is a work within a living soul which makes one willing and desirous to enter into the kingdom of God. It is not a work of forcing something or someone into something.

I think this precludes both the rope and the beam hypothesis, asdoes the fact that Greek Matthew and Greek Mark both have "camel" and were translated very definitely in the 1st century by different translators, as their very different Greek styles and vocabularies show. I know of no Greek ms. with either "rope" or "beam" in either Gospel.

Dave
From my earlier post on this subject:

Quote:Every synoptic Greek Gospel has "Camel" for this saying; only one Greek Uncial ms. (10th cent.) has "kamilov" -"cable" in Luke 18:25.

Mt 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Mr 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Lu 18:25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle???s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

How is it that 3 different Greek translators of Matthew, Mark and Luke all got it wrong? These Gospels are all very different in their Greek style and quality.

The Diatesseron of Tatian from the Arabic version, which came from the Peshitta text and agrees with that text extremely closely (practically identical) reads "easier for a camel to pass...".

Dave
gbausc Wrote:From my earlier post on this subject:

Quote:Every synoptic Greek Gospel has "Camel" for this saying; only one Greek Uncial ms. (10th cent.) has "kamilov" -"cable" in Luke 18:25.

Mt 19:24 And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Mr 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Lu 18:25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle???s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

How is it that 3 different Greek translators of Matthew, Mark and Luke all got it wrong? These Gospels are all very different in their Greek style and quality.

The Diatesseron of Tatian from the Arabic version, which came from the Peshitta text and agrees with that text extremely closely (practically identical) reads "easier for a camel to pass...".

Dave

Shlama Akhi David:
In retrospect I want to be flexible here. Also, I slightly revised my previous post. Either "camel", "beam" or "rope/cable/cord" are correct. There are interesting things that happen when one word has multiple meanings.

A man never spoke like this man.(John 7:46)

I marvel at the elegant simplicity with which Jesus spoke about the kingdom of God. If you or I were present on that day and hearing the words of Jesus, what mind picture would we see? Perhaps there was laughter interspersed with awe as "camel", "beam" and "rope" were pictured in the mind, simultaneously, like the Spirit of God later moved on Pentecost and at Cornelius' conversion. (Acts 2:6, 10:44-47)
In western culture, Greek and Latin prevail. The wonderful literary elegance of Hebrew and Aramaic are not as well understood in the west. Yet these two languages were chosen as the "autograph" of God's Word. Split words and divided tongues seem to radiate outward from the "autograph" of the Word of God and the hungry human soul is nourished thereby. What a blessing to humanity that the "autograph" can be translated into all of the languages of the human race. <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Stephen
Shlama Akhi Stephen,

Lots of English words have many meanings, as well. The word "run" has 81 meanings. The word "see" has 17 meanings. "One" has 14 meanings. We cannot simply throw the dictionary at someone when asked what a word means. You have just thrown the dictionary at us and have said, "take your pick".
Quote:Either "camel", "beam" or "rope/cable/cord" are correct. There are interesting things that happen when one word has multiple meanings.
What sense is there in that?

Come on, Stephen. That is mere confusion.

The verse in question is found in 3 Gospels, not just one. The 3 Greek Gospels, Matthew,Mark,Luke have "camel" . The semitic Arabic translation of the Diatesseron, which is word for word in agreement with Peshitta, has "camel".
A camel is a living being, analogous to the rich man, a living being; Both are pictured as attempting to go through an opening. Both are the subject of the same verb "al" to enter. A subject performs the action of a sentence. A rope cannot perform action; a beam cannot perform action; certainly neither can "enter" anything. A camel can perform action; it can move on its own power.

Which of the above points do you disagree with?


Burkta,

Dave
gbausc Wrote:Shlama Akhi Stephen,

Lots of English words have many meanings, as well. The word "run" has 81 meanings. The word "see" has 17 meanings. "One" has 14 meanings. We cannot simply throw the dictionary at someone when asked what a word means. You have just thrown the dictionary at us and have said, "take your pick".
Quote:Either "camel", "beam" or "rope/cable/cord" are correct. There are interesting things that happen when one word has multiple meanings.
What sense is there in that?

Come on, Stephen. That is mere confusion.

The verse in question is found in 3 Gospels, not just one. The 3 Greek Gospels, Matthew,Mark,Luke have "camel" . The semitic Arabic translation of the Diatesseron, which is word for word in agreement with Peshitta, has "camel".
A camel is a living being, analogous to the rich man, a living being; Both are pictured as attempting to go through an opening. Both are the subject of the same verb "al" to enter. A subject performs the action of a sentence. A rope cannot perform action; a beam cannot perform action; certainly neither can "enter" anything. A camel can perform action; it can move on its own power.

Which of the above points do you disagree with?


Burkta,

Dave

Shlama Akhi David:
In my honest opinion it doesn't matter which English word is used in this passage. The definitive word in the Peshitta is "gamal". Also it doesn't matter to me that three or ten or one hundred extant Greek manuscripts use "beam, cord, rope, cable or camel". A translation must choose a synonym. No two extant Greek manuscripts agree more than 80%. If it's not Matthew 19:24 it will be something else.
Now it's different when doctrine is at stake and the choice of a synonym contradicts another verse in the Bible, thus rendering confusion. However the sense is retained in this illustration because the literal understanding is given coupled with the illustration of "gamal" and the eye of a needle, namely "the difficulty of a rich man entering the kingdom of heaven". One of the major reasons that there are so many different denominations, is because many are looking for a definitive where no definitive exists. Paul the apostle spoke against factionism in the Body of Christ. (I Corinthians 1:12) The only reason that a choice is given in the case of Matthew 19:24 is because of the multiple meaning of "gamal". If Jesus meant to be very specific he would have chosen a more narrowly defining word or phrase. He didn't so it's open for interpretation using any of the useful definitions. If the sense was more specific the choice of definitions would be narrowed. The only thing satisfied by a narrow choice in this case, is one's personal opinion. You are entitled to your opinion Akhi David and so is everyone else here. <!-- s:| --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/neutral.gif" alt=":|" title="Neutral" /><!-- s:| -->

Shlama,
Stephen
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">http://www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- m -->
Pages: 1 2 3 4