Peshitta Forum
Camel or Rope? Matt: 19:24 - Printable Version

+- Peshitta Forum (http://peshitta.org/for)
+-- Forum: New Testament (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Aramaic Primacy Forum (http://peshitta.org/for/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Camel or Rope? Matt: 19:24 (/showthread.php?tid=1660)

Pages: 1 2 3 4


Re: Camel or Rope? Matt: 19:24 - Stephen Silver - 07-27-2008

Shlama Akhi Paul:
Thank you for your definitive lexical quote.

We have definitive lexical proof from LEXICON SYRIACUM by the author HASSANO BAR BAHLULE that [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]fmg[/font] "gamal" as well as meaning "camel" or "beam" is equivalent to the Aramaic [font="Estrangelo (V1.1)"]fbx[/font] "khawla" and this root is shared with the Hebrew lbx "khevel" * meaning "rope or cord" or "khibayl" * meaning "rig, rigging, ropes, stays, cables, standing (running) rigging".

* Reuben-Alcalay Hebrew-English Dictionary

[Image: bar-bahlul-gamla.jpg]

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


Re: Camel or Rope? Matt: 19:24 - Paul Younan - 07-27-2008

Shlama Akhan Stephen,

Stephen Silver Wrote:Thank you for your definitive lexical quote.

No problem. What a wonderful proof for Aramaic Primacy. The Greek "Kamelos" could only have come about because they translated from the Aramaic text, the word "Gamla" which could mean either "Camel" or "Rope."

Stephen Silver Wrote:We have definitive lexical proof from LEXICON SYRIACUM by the author HASSANO BAR BAHLULE ....

He also quotes from other lexicographers like Qurillos and Moshe bar-Kepha (d. 903). So the opinion is not only his, but as Akhan Dave said the testimony is set by the mouth of 2 or 3 witnesses.

Additionally, certain Greek manuscripts of Mark have "rope" instead of "camel."

So some Greeks got it right.

Again, a superb piece of evidence for Aramaic primacy.

+Shamasha Paul


Re: Camel or Rope? Matt: 19:24 - gbausc - 07-27-2008

Shlama Akhi Paul,

Please excuse me for seeming obtuse, but do we know that BAR BAHLULE is giving a meaning that was current in Yeshua's time? I can find no such usage in The Peshitta OT nor in the Targums. Wherever "rope" is referrred to, "Khavla" or "Shwaytha" is used. Certainly no such usage is found in The Peshitta NT either. Ropes are spoken of, even ropes to tie ships, but the word is "Khavla":
Acts 27:32 ayej hwqbsw apla Nm arwqrqd hylbxl ajwyjrjoa wqop Nydyh 32
Then the soldiers cut the boat rope from the ship, and let the boat go adrift.


Also, the 3 Gospel accounts record our Lord as saying: "This is impossible with men." Lamsa wrote that it was possible to put a "gmla" - "rope" through the eye of a large carpet needle:
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.
Lamsa contradicted the spirit of the passage by translating "gamla" as "a rope". He made it not only possible, but quite feasible to put a "gamla" through the eye of a needle.
The disciples were all the more amazed :
25.???It is easier for a camel to enter into the eye
of a needle than for a rich man to enter the
Kingdom of God."
26.But they were all the more astonished, and
they were saying among themselves, "Who
can be saved?
???
27.But Yeshua gazed upon them and he said to
them, "With the sons of men, this is
impossible
, but not with God; everything is
possible with God."

A camel entering the eye of a needle is impossible to us; a rope is not. The Jewish sages of Persia used a proverb about "an elephant passing through a needle's eye" to describe an impossibility. Palestine had no elephants; the camel was the largest animal. The very thing that commends "a rope" as the most fitting interpretation is what precludes it from being correct; it is fitting because it fits, though perhaps with much difficulty, but if it fits, it cannot be the correct word. It must seem an impossible task to men, or it does not work in the full context of the passage.

"If it fits, you must acquit.", is what I am saying. <!-- sSmile --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/smile.gif" alt="Smile" title="Smile" /><!-- sSmile --> We have got the wrong candidate for the job if we think "rope" is it. I think the full array of evidence demands that we reject "rope".

The three witnesses of Greek Matthew, Greek Mark and Greek Luke tell us that the word "gamla" as used in the analogy of a rich man entering the Kingdom of God is "kamelov"- "Camel". A couple of mss. of Mark cannot outweigh the thousands of mss. containing Matthew, Luke and Mark. How would three independent Gospel translators of those 3 Gospels all miss the correct meaning? Did none of them know Aramaic as well as Lamsa? I must assume they were fluent in both Aramaic and Greek, and especially the Aramaic and Greek of the 1st century, as used in Israel (Aramaic) and Syria (Aramaic and Greek).
Perhaps "gamla" came to refer to a rope later in the history of Aramaic, but if it were understood that way in the 1st century by the apostles, I see no evidence that it was. To the contrary, I see their shock and incredulity as evidence that what our Lord said was absolutely mind numbing, concerning salvation. "Who then can be saved?" I don't think a rope and a large needle would have had the same effect on them.

Maybe I am wrong. What seems essential to this passage is that we come away from it understanding that God alone can save a person, rich or poor, and that we are not to trust in our wealth or good deeds or anything as guarantees of our ultimate salvation. "
It is impossible with men, but not with God; with Him, all things are possible."

"Rope" does not work for me. "Camel" does. Maybe its just me.

I promise I will try to stop beating a dead camel with a rope after this; wait a minute;You guys are the ones beating a dead camel with a rope! <!-- sSad --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/sad.gif" alt="Sad" title="Sad" /><!-- sSad -->
I will try to stop beating a rope with a camel. <!-- sWink --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/wink1.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /><!-- sWink -->

Dave


Re: Camel or Rope? Matt: 19:24 - Paul Younan - 07-27-2008

Shlama Akhi Dave,

gbausc Wrote:Please excuse me for seeming obtuse, but do we know that BAR BAHLULE is giving a meaning that was current in Yeshua's time?

The very fact that some Greek manuscripts of Mark contain the "rope" meaning, should be enough to tell you that "Gamla" meant the same thing in Meshikha's time that in did in Moshe bar-Kepha's time.


bar-Bahlul, bishop of the Church of the East, live in the 9th-10 centuries. He quoted Moshe bar-Kepha, who lived in the 8th-9th centuries. If Moshe bar-Kepha gave this definition in his lexical work (now extant), during the 9th century, it must have been an established meaning for many centuries before he was around. Moshe bar-Kepha didn't make up the meaning.

What you're failing to realize, Akhi, is that Lamsa did not make a miraculous discovery here. Anyone familiar with Aramaic as an everyday spoken language knows the meaning of this word and uses it in a variety of ways. You keep bringing up Lamsa, I say big deal. It wasn't Lamsa's. Bar-Bahlul's lexicon was written a thousand years before Lamsa was born.

Back to your question: how do we know what any Aramaic word meant at the time of Jesus? A large body of evidence are primary texts such as the NT in its various forms and translations. Another way we know is secondary sources like lexicons written before or after the fact. A third way is by the testimony of a living, breathing community that continues to use this language as an everyday vernacular within homes, churches, synagogues and organizations (print media, television, internet), etc.

You seem to me to be narrowing the criteria that will satisfy you to only those witnesses directly related to the primary sources. That, in my opinion, is a rather dangerous approach to lexical study. There are many words the are only used once in the NT. If we were to rely on the NT alone, we would not know what that word meant.

Yes, Khawla is used in the NT to mean "rope." It is also used in Acts, where the Greek translator misread and translated it as "pains." Much in the same way most Greek translators misread Gamla and translated "camel" instead of "rope". You are willing to convict the former and forgive the latter, based on what seems to me to be your own preference for contextual meaning.

Does "camel" work in the passage? Sure, as would "elephant" or even "pig". But why on earth would we prefer "camel" to "rope" when referring to a needle?

Both meanings are equally impossible through a needle. I've never seen a needle eye that you could thread a rope used to bind bridges and ships. That's one hell of a needle. I don't know how you consider that a possibility. You could grind up camel flesh into patties and push them through that way, about as easily as you could do the thick rope thread-by-thread.

But alas, it appears your mind is made up and it's really not that important of a topic, except for the fact that in either case, it proves the NT was written in Aramaic and not Greek, otherwise you wouldn't have some manuscripts of Greek Mark containing the "rope" meaning.

+Shamasha Paul


Re: Camel or Rope? Matt: 19:24 - Andrew Gabriel Roth - 07-27-2008

Shlama to all and you Akhi David--

For the record, I agree with Shamasha Paul and also translate this instance of GAMLA as "heavy rope". I have been astonished as well David at how narrow you have been in assessing the objective evidence. The fact is, in addition to all the reasons Shamasha Paul stated, we do NOT use Greek as our guide nor is it the case that "heavy rope" doesn't work contextually.

One thing that you have totally failed to address is this idea. Y'shua is talking to a RICH man and saying "How hard is it for you to enter the kingdom!" He doesn't say "impossible" and the fact is that Y'shua had several weathly followers (Yosip or Ramtha, Niqodemus, Joanna, etc) that would to my mind strongly argue against "camel". If we have "camel" then it is IMPOSSIBLE and while with YHWH all things are possible, Y'shua was making a comment rooted in people's everyday experience, not an argument in expectation of miracles. His comment a few lines later "for nothing is impossible without Elohim" is with respect to His Father's ability to save men though they are flawed, but it is Y'shua's comment on how difficult (again not impossible) it is for rich men to enter the kingdom that causes the disciples to ask a question that elcits the "nothing is impossible" line. But prior to that, it is all coming from a non-miracle expecting paradigm.I know you can read this in the Aramaic as easily as we can, and this whole "it doesn't matter how fluent these others are I am right" tactic is not worthy of you my friend.

Staying on point here, a heavy rope CAN fit through a literal needle's eye IF, and only IF it is unraveled into the thinnest possible strands. That unravelling is a clear visual metaphor for the rich man "unravelling his fortune". I don't need to tell you how key a concept unravelling is in Aramaic though to "disslolving/destroying". This is true, for example, in talking about divorce as the unmaking/unravelling marraige. Is it easy? NO. But Y'shua's point is that in the real world of the everyday man (which is why he talks in parables of mustard seeds, sowing, fishing, etc) is that it can be done if the commitment is strong enough.

I think this is ironclad. "heavy rope" fits not only Y'shua's speech patterns but also the exact context of the actual event in the Gospels. Instead, what we have seen from you is that the Greek disagrees and my point back is, again, who cares about the Greek? Aramaic Primacy is NOT CONCERNED with what the LATER GREEK redactors did. If I were you I would not be so quick to dismiss the ancient Semitic traditons that Shamasha Paul refers to, nor would I devalue Paul's scholarship, my scholarship and yes, not even Lamsa's. The fact is Lamsa got this one right.

And finaly, you crossed the line with personal attacks. I think you owe Stephen Silver an apology.

Shlama w'burkate
Andrew Gabriel Roth


Re: Camel or Rope? Matt: 19:24 - ograabe - 07-27-2008

Many thanks for the scholarly explication of this issue.

Sincerely,

Otto


Re: Camel or Rope? Matt: 19:24 - gbausc - 07-27-2008

Shlama Akhi Andrew,

Wow, have I touched a nerve in you, or what?

If you are accusing me of personal attacks against Stephen, please be specific and cite the offending words. I will not respond to general emotional accusations on your part.

You wrote:
Quote:Y'shua is talking to a RICH man and saying "How hard is it for you to enter the kingdom!" He doesn't say "impossible" and the fact is that Y'shua had several weathly followers.
Yeshua was not talking to a rich man. He was talking to His disciples about the rich man, and about rich men in general. I know this topic is theologically and emotionally loaded up front, so it is very difficult to appraise it objectively. The poor tend to take sides against the rich, and the rich tend to justify their wealth, and it seems to matter little exactly what our Lord said. Our biases are more important! But we all have these biases, don't we? I can immediately tell from your post what your bias is. Need I say it? No; it is plain for all to see.
It seems your bias has blinded you to the plain words of scripture in the passage being discussed.You wrote:
Quote:He doesn't say "impossible" and the fact is that Y'shua had several weathly followers.
But He did say "impossible" , and it is in each of the 3 Gospels which record this account. How did you miss that? Must I quote this again? It seems I must:
Matthew 19:24-26
24 ???And again I say to you that it is easier for
a camel to enter the eye of a needle than for a
rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.???
25 But the disciples when they heard, they
were greatly amazed and they were saying,
???Who then can have life????
26 Yeshua gazed at them and he said to them,
???This is impossible with the children of men,
but everything is possible with God.??? -my translation

Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, for men this is impossible; but for God everything is possible. -Lamsa
Mr 10:27 And Jesus looked on them again, and said to them: With men, this is impossible, but not with God ; for everything is possible with God.
-Murdock
And he said, Things impossible to men are possible to God. Luke 18:27 -Murdock

"Impossible to men" is the key phrase in the passage, whatever He means by "Gamla", which is always translated "Camel in other contexts in the NT.

You wrote:
Quote:If we have "camel" then it is IMPOSSIBLE and while with YHWH all things are possible...
Exactly the point He was making! Impossible with men is possible with God, which is the whole point about salvation. If you think you should not expect a miracle to get you into the Kingdom of Heaven, you are sadly mistaken, my brother! If you think you can unravel your way in, you are deceived. You cannot take a penny through the gate! All you can get through is----nothing! God must make you and me a new creature by His power within us; it takes a miracle.Salvation is of YHWH ! Jonah 2:9
Jonah had to go to Sheol to find that out. See Jonah 2:2

Luke 14:26-33
26 He that cometh to me, and hateth not his father and his mother, and his brothers and his sisters, and his wife and his children, and his own life also, cannot become a disciple to me.
27 And he that doth not take up his cross and come after me, cannot become a disciple to me.
28 For, which of you, wishing to build a tower, doth not first sit down and compute the expense, whether he have the means to complete it?
29 lest, when he hath laid the foundation, and is unable to finish, all that see it begin to deride him;
30 and say: This man began to build, and was unable to finish.
31 Or what king, that is going to contend in battle with his neighbor king, doth not first consider, whether he is able, with ten thousand, to meet him that is coming against him with twenty thousand?
32 and if not; while he is yet far from him, he sendeth envoys, and sueth for peace.
33 So every one of you who doth not give up all his possessions, cannot be my disciple -Murdock

Are these words not for us all today? If they are not, then I would care nothing for them. They would be mere ancient history. But these are the words of the Gospel of our God and Savior, Yeshua Maryah! How can we be His if we do not what He says?

What He said to the rich man, he says to all of us: "Go, sell all that you have, and give to the poor; and you will have a treasure in heaven; and come after me."

The Greek and the Aramaic agree on this point.


Grace from our Lord,

Dave


Re: Camel or Rope? Matt: 19:24 - Paul Younan - 07-27-2008

Akhi Dave,

You haven't addressed my answer to your question: The very fact that some Greek manuscripts of Mark contain the "rope" meaning, should be enough to tell you that "Gamla" meant the same thing in Meshikha's time that in did in Moshe bar-Kepha's time.

Will you concede that this wasn't a later meaning?

+Shamasha Paul


Re: Camel or Rope? Matt: 19:24 - gbausc - 07-27-2008

Shlama Akhi Paul,

The difference between "camel" ("Kamelos") and "cable" ("Kamilos")in Greek is just one letter, so it would be very easy to misread or miswrite either one as the other. Given that the mss. in question are late and number very few, it would seem that they do not represent an early translation of Aramaic. I can see evidence of some revision among a few Textus Receptus mss. more toward Aramaic in some readings, yet they are a small minority which seem to come out of nowhere in the 10-12th centuries with Peshitta readings not found in any other Greek ms.. If there were a textual tradition, say among Alexandrian mss. for the reading of "cable" in one of the Gospels, I could see that as early evidence that "gamla" had that meaning in the first century. As it stands, I just don't see it.

Perhaps it will surface.

Burkta bythak,

Dave


Re: Camel or Rope? Matt: 19:24 - Amatsyah - 07-27-2008

WOW Paul!

I???ve been waiting for that lexical dynamite for a long time. Todah rabbah!

Dave ???..

Quote:If you think you can unravel your way in, you are deceived. You cannot take a penny through the gate!
But what about your -

Quote:Luke 14:26-33
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33 So every one of you who doth not give up all his possessions, cannot be my disciple ???Murdock
- or ???

Quote:What He said to the rich man, he says to all of us: ???Go, sell all that you have, and give to the poor; and you will have a treasure in heaven; and come after me.???
???????

This isn???t a matter of regeneration; it???s a matter of qualification. The verses you offer here actually negate your statement of not being able to ???unravel your way in???. Why? Well, try and see it this way:

Lk. 14:33
So every one of you who doth not [unravel] all his possessions, cannot be my disciple.

- or this way? -

Mt. 19:21 / Mk. 10:21
If you want to be perfect, go [unravel] your possessions and give them to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come; follow me.

Now, would this not be ???impossible??? for a rich man to ???do???, if it truly were impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven?

Yet if it is not impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, then how exactly can or does he enter? With or by his wealth? Of course not! Thereby, we are not arguing here about regeneration or any other theological ideas, other than a simple qualification for discipleship. Same thing you corrected me on one time before, concerning the true disciple who must hate his mother and father in light of his love for the Master! This is merely a qualitative feature of a true disciple. Y???shua???s disciples cannot serve two masters. They will either prefer the one and neglect the other, or love the one and hate the other. If a man has wealth, does this make him intrinsically evil? No! Only if he loves his mammon. Did Yosep of Arimathea love his wealth more than his Master? I don???t read the Gospels this way. It appears to me the reader, that he instead unraveled his riches to honor his Master, by providing a tomb worthy of his deceased Lord, along with fine burial linens which His less wealthy disciples could not have afforded Him. No?

Besides, accepting your otherwise good point of view of comparing living people with living camels instead something inanimate, only arises a stickier issue. What then would be our Lord???s definition of ???rich???? $50 rich? $500 rich? $500 million rich? Or perhaps 5 cents rich? It is too easy to then see mammon as being completely forbidden from use by a disciple of Christ at all. But I also read in our Lord???s Gospel where He charged His disciples to go to the sea, and collect something to be paid to this world???s system. To render unto Caesar was is Caesar???s. You accept donations to your ministry, don???t you? Why? Not only to provide your family, but so that WITH that currency, you may AFFORD the time and resources that it takes to translate the Peshitta, yes? And the ???richer??? you could become, the more I???m sure you could donate to the needy, the poor, the sick, the Peshitta-less world ???.. yes?

So isn???t [contextually] the issue over LOVE OF MAMMON? I???ve known some rich people. And my God, do they hate the idea of not being rich! It???s not so far fetched a concept to me that it is indeed difficult for wealthy men to be willing to not only sacrifice their wealth to God???s Will, but if He were to ask them, to actually sacrifice IT ALL. Alas, now that is not easier for them! It is then, that their true love would be revealed. This sounds awfully contextual to me. For Father Abraham, a rich Middle Easterner indeed, as well as Yosep and Nicodemus, wealth was more of a blessing from God ??? something that they could use to live comfortably as well as bless Him by, wasn???t it?

I believe Andrew was saying that Matthew 19:24 does NOT say ???it is easier for a gamla to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God (for which it is impossible)???.

Your contextual interpolation would work, only if it were in fact the teaching of Moses, the Prophets, Yeshua, and His Apostles, that it is indeed impossible for rich people to enter the Kingdom of God.

But is it possible to enter the Kingdom as a murderer? No. Yet I am taught that to hate my brother in my heart is to be guilty of murder! That would make me a murderer. Yet, I am so taught to hate mother and father, or I cannot be a true disciple. Alas, Moses taught, and Y???shua confirmed, to also love mother and father. So which is it?

I am to honor my parents in the Lord; my mother and my father; to love my neighbor as I love myself, etc. ??????. but in comparison to my love for MarYah ?????? this love should be as hatred [by comparison], yes?

44 ???And all those who believed were together and everything they had was communal.
45 ???And those who had a possession were selling it and distributing to each man according to whatever was needed.???
-Acts 2 in Plain English

7 ???But there was in that place a village belonging to a man whose name was Puplios, who was The Chief of the island, and he joyfully received us into his house for three days.
8 ???The father of Puplios had a fever and was ill with a disease of the intestines and Paulus entered his presence and prayed and laid his hand upon him and healed him.
9 ???And when this happened, the rest of those who were sick in the island were coming to him, and they were healed.
10 ???And they honored us greatly, and when we were leaving from there, they loaded us with provisions.???
-Acts 28 in Plain English

The examples would seem endless if looking at YHWH???s Israel in the Tanakh. Material wealth was actually part of the sign of being in His blessing. Land wealth, livestock wealth, food wealth, no lack of clothing, supplies of any sort; if fact, they were charged with spoils from Pharaoh while exiting Egypt, and while possessing the Promised Land. Great examples, also, for which we get to glimpse at the dire conditions of those Israelites??? hearts. Almost non-stop idol-making with their gold and precious metals; even Gideon the righteous judge became entrapped by his own pride of military victory, into the weight of the golden earrings that he requested to make an ephod (forbidden). The whole of Israel went whoring after it. Lessons to learn by, yes. But so are the ones where many riches were used to build the Tabernacle; the Ark; the Menorah; the commerce of Israel and its success throughout the Middle East as the prize nation among all nations. Very difficult for a rich man to rightly appropriate his wealth. Indeed. Yet not impossible.

If one isn???t willing to unravel their wealth for their King, then He isn???t their king. And His demand, we can all agree, is expressed through Yeshua as all-or-nothing. This is the quality a true disciple must possess, isn???t it? All-or-nothing. Yeshua definitely taught that lovers of mammon are not lovers of Him. It is impossible. One cannot serve two masters. But did He in fact teach that it is IMPOSSIBLE to both be rich and His disciple? Well, he certainly did teach

Quote:???Go, sell all that you have, and give to the poor; and you will have a treasure in heaven; and come after me.???
to at least one rich man. I???m sure that it was the test of his lifetime! Yet to Yoseph ben Yaakov ben Yitzak ben Avraham, who was suppressed for many years in the dankness of an Egyptian dungeon, YHWH saw fit to exalt him in trust to the very height of the Pharaoh???s empire! And in so doing, He ended up providing Yoseph???s entire family, the future kingdom of Israel, with good food and shelter throughout a famine. Very similar, I believe, to Acts 2 and 28, and numerous other examples, especially Yosep of Arimathea???s.

As Paul says, it???d have to be one hell of a needle for a thick rope to pass through, and then again, one could always make camel patties to squeeze it through as well <!-- s:lol: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/laugh.gif" alt=":lol:" title="Laugh" /><!-- s:lol: -->! Far better context, especially preaching to many fishermen intimately familiar with ship rope ???..

Quote:Yeshua was not talking to a rich man. He was talking to His disciples about the rich man
???.. to visualize the unraveling, string by string, of a thick rope in order to pass it through a needle. Granted, a rich man ain???t squeezing his money-threads through along with himself in heaven, but then again, all those threads should be spent by then on seeing to it that ???each man according to whatever was needed??? is communally provisioned. And this is where I believe the entire Kahal/Ekklesia of Elohim has seriously failed! We???re all running around like chickens with our heads cut off ??? perhaps we are insane from greed and selfishness?

Hopefully you can see the point that Paul, Otto, I think now Stephen, Andrew, as well as myself personally, are seeing concerning Gamla/Gamala as ???rope???. If not, well, I tried. Gotta go now.

Shlama w???burkate,

Ryan


Re: Camel or Rope? Matt: 19:24 - *Albion* - 07-28-2008

Shlama Dave,

I'm not sure that I should jump into this, but it seems to me that your ego is really what's driving all of this.

The ability to say "I'm wrong" is from Messiah Yeshua.

The human driven ego can become an almost manical thing, driven like the waves of a storm tossed sea. Destroying the one who clings to it, as well as those around that person.

The human driven ego is usually NOT the life preserver that it tries to pass itself off as.

In your case, it seems aimed at Stephen Silver and his knowledge, for some reason that is unknown to me.

This almost vendetta seems to have taken on a life of it's own in this thread.

And I agree with Akhi Andrew (Gabriel Roth), that you owe Stephen Silver an apology.

I would humbly ask you to please listen to the voice of reason that Paul Younan tried to serve to you with in his very educational post of this afternoon.

Please try to do the right thing, and for the sake of the list, who's needs are really more important than your own needs, please try to repent, and set this right.

"For the Kingdom's Sake".

Peace Be Unto You in Messiah, Albion


Re: Camel or Rope? Matt: 19:24 - gbausc - 07-28-2008

Shlama Akhi Albion,


You have proven by your words that our Lord was saying it is impossible for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.

Quote:Mt. 19:21 / Mk. 10:21
If you want to be perfect, go [unravel] your possessions and give them to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come; follow me.

Now, would this not be ???impossible??? for a rich man to ???do???, if it truly were impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven?

Yet if it is not impossible for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven, then how exactly can or does he enter?
He did not say unravel your riches; He said give them away. Can he remain a rich man who has given away all his riches?

Then it is impossible for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.

That is not to say anything about what he attains afterward. God may call him to attain great wealth, but he must start out as all His disciples do; he must forsake all that he has
and give up everything for The Master's Name's sake and His Kingdom.

If I am seeking my own glory, God knows and will deal with me accordingly.

Our brother Stephen and I communicated privately before anyone else expressed his opinion about what I have said. He is a big boy and can speak for himself and defend himself. He doesn't need you or Andrew to do that for him. I told him that I did not speak against him personally, but was referring to his arguments about "the beam" versus "the camel" only.

I am making lots of enemies here and few friends. I think I have said enough and should therefore take my leave of the web site for an extended time. I am in the midst of translating The Peshitta OT
and need to devote more time to it.

Over and out.

Nebrak kulcown Alaha (God bless you all)

Dave


Re: Camel or Rope? Matt: 19:24 - konway87 - 05-19-2010

Someone posted an interesting info from this website.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message512979/pg1">http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum ... 512979/pg1</a><!-- m -->

" The "needle" was part of a fishing vessel that the "rope" or (camel- incorrect english word) passed through to raise the sails. So bible thumpers like to view this scripture as saying it is impossible for a rich man to enter heaven. But in actuality, a rope can pass through a needle in shipping terms, but it is a snug fit and isn't an easy accomplishment."


Re: Camel or Rope? Matt: 19:24 - Stephen Silver - 05-19-2010

Shlama Khulkon:
The use of "gamal" is a play on words. First, it means rope. A thick rope cannot pass through the eye of a needle. Also the "camel" was a beast of burden and was used in caravans to transport heavy goods and valuables. The dualism of Greek chooses either camel or rope while the Aramaic "gamal" yields two meanings in one word. The statement of Jesus is both profound yet simple to understand.

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


Re: Camel or Rope? Matt: 19:24 - konway87 - 05-19-2010

Interesting. But I have a question. I may be wrong. But I thought the word for camel in Aramaic is "Gamel" and "Ghamle" is a rope used to tie up a boat. I know that Aramaic don't use vowels in their writings. So they write identical. So I was wondering if St. Matthew was referring to "Ghamle" (in speaking) when He wrote "Gamal."