07-26-2008, 11:16 PM
Shlama Akhay,
Context demands a living creature for the analogy : A rich man enering the kingdom of God is likened to a camel entering a needle's eye . That's the context. It also needs to be "impossible with men", according to our Lord, which a rope is not, as the needle could be a very large one; that's context.
A rope or a beam are not in any way like a man; neither can they perform action of any kind; they certainly cannot enter anything, and the verb is active (enter), not passive, as "to be pushed" or "be pulled" into something. This is context and grammar.
Sorry gents, the only meaning that works here is "camel".
And "rope" is not found in any Dictionary or Lexicon that I have seen, Lamsa's translation notwithstanding. He cannot singlehandedly outweigh every Aramaean authority compiled over the past 2000 years. The word may have come to mean "rope" since the 10th century in some places, but there is no record of it being so used before that, certainly not in the 1st century, at least that I can find. Please, if anyone can cite the reference to show otherwise, I will gladly retract that statement.
I will not bow to one man's opinion in this, no matter how fluent he is in Aramaic; neither should anyone else. Any number of opinions do not constitute authority. The meaning of scripture cannot be determined by opinion. We must have facts, and in this case, we do. They far outweigh Lamsa and Younan, and you and me, and all the opinion in the world.
Blessings,
Dave
Context demands a living creature for the analogy : A rich man enering the kingdom of God is likened to a camel entering a needle's eye . That's the context. It also needs to be "impossible with men", according to our Lord, which a rope is not, as the needle could be a very large one; that's context.
A rope or a beam are not in any way like a man; neither can they perform action of any kind; they certainly cannot enter anything, and the verb is active (enter), not passive, as "to be pushed" or "be pulled" into something. This is context and grammar.
Sorry gents, the only meaning that works here is "camel".
And "rope" is not found in any Dictionary or Lexicon that I have seen, Lamsa's translation notwithstanding. He cannot singlehandedly outweigh every Aramaean authority compiled over the past 2000 years. The word may have come to mean "rope" since the 10th century in some places, but there is no record of it being so used before that, certainly not in the 1st century, at least that I can find. Please, if anyone can cite the reference to show otherwise, I will gladly retract that statement.
I will not bow to one man's opinion in this, no matter how fluent he is in Aramaic; neither should anyone else. Any number of opinions do not constitute authority. The meaning of scripture cannot be determined by opinion. We must have facts, and in this case, we do. They far outweigh Lamsa and Younan, and you and me, and all the opinion in the world.
Blessings,
Dave