>>>This is a very good example, because this statement *proves* that you have not read the context. You have read a commentary or an explanation about this particular text in the Bible, but you have failed to study the text itself. I have seen this theory mentioned multiple times and most people fail to apply the detailed context that is in the text.
>
>Nobody has a monopoly on understanding, dude, unless he can read texts in the original language to avoid loss of context in translation or even better, was around at the time. ;-)

It would not help you if you could read texts in the original language, because there is no original text in the original language in the first place to read. All that is available are copies of copies. But my point is if they redefine the needle then they have to redefine the word "impossible" at the same time. Failing to do so makes their explanation useless and illogic.


> In this case, perhaps passing the eye of a needle was an old established description of something unlikely. Aramaic translation: "They do not show a man a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle" and Midrash's version often is quoted by modern literalists. But my reaction is that I am allowed to prefer my interpretation and unless you're prepared to delve into the original texts or claim that you were there so you know better, I can prefer my own interpretation.
>
>>>If the eye of the needle can go through the eye of the needle in theory, then what would have been the reaction been of the by-standers? And why was the reaction of the by-standers as it was and what was the response of Jesus?
>
>The bystanders would have accused you of not knowing what you are talking about because nobody except you said that the eye of the needle can go through the eye of the needle. See, I can do it too.

Obviously I don't read my own texts :)