Daniel / Transgender

IS THE BIBLE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY?

DANIEL CHAPTER 1

In Daniel 1:3-4 (Lamsa), the Bible states: "And the king spoke to Ashpaz the chief of the eunuchs, that he should bring some of the children ba-nim of Israel, of the royal families, and of the Parthians; Boys yela-dim in whom was no blemish, who were handsome in their appearance and skillful in (an aptitude for) all wisdom and cunning in (possessors of) knowledge and understanding of science, those who were able to stand in the king’s palace to minister to him, and whom they might teach the learning and the language of the Chaldeans.” The word yela-dim denotes children of the age range from birth to puberty. In order to get an estimate of Daniel’s age, we need to look at the Aramaic text of Daniel 13:45; which states that Daniel was twelve years old. The Greek text at that place states that Daniel was a “young child.” This is understandable since the Greek Bible deletes information from both the Hebrew OT and the Aramaic NT. The details in chapter 13 are believed to be before chapter 1 because chapters 1 and beyond have a royal setting. The chapters of Daniel are not in chronological order. Daniel was probably a child of thirteen to fifteen years old that the chief of the eunuchs gave love to.

The boy Daniel was given love by the chief of the eunuchs (Dan. 1:9). The plural Hebrew word ra-kha-mim (sing. ra-kham) is underlining the Aramaic word translated as mercy here. The Semitic word meaning “love” (or literally “loves”) is actually the same word in either the Hebrew or Aramaic text; but the pronunciation is a little different. The defining of ra-kham as a “love” that refers to attraction and sex is best seen in the Aramaic Bible. The Aramaic word rakh-ma is the translation of the Hebrew word ra-kham. Rakh-ma is also the translation of the Hebrew word a-hav and its other pronunciations, particularly a-ha-va; which is translated as love in the Bible (See Song. 1:3-5,7; 3:5,10; 5:8; 7:6; 8:4,6-7). Rakh-ma also translates the Hebrew word re-a, which is translated as friends and lovers in the English Bible. In the book of Judges 5:30 KJV, ra-kham is translated as a noun here; as a damsel. It says: “Have they not sped? have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel ra-kham or two;..” These men of war were getting a female to love.

The Bible does give examples of pederasty (with or without consent) that were committed by the Gentiles. Yal-dah (female child) is translated as “girl” at Genesis 34:4 and Joel 3:3. Ye-led (male child) is translated as “boy” at Joel 3:3. I don’t know of any reference of the Bible condoning this behavior among literal or spiritual Israel. I personally see pederasty as abhorrent and I don’t believe a child is mature enough to give consent.

I also want to state that there is another Hebrew word (Na-a-rah) that can mean “girl” or “young woman.” Its masculine form of Na-ar, can mean a “boy” or a “young man.” Both na-a-rah and na-ar are used as terms of endearment in the Bible. The Aramaic OT translated Na-ar and Na-a-rah two different ways when those words were referring to persons and not servants. Na-ar was translated as tal-ya (boy) and Na-a-rah was translated as tli-tha (girl) when a child was meant from the context or cultural setting. Na-ar was translated as lay-ma (young man) and Na-a-rah was translated as laym-tha (young woman) when a young person was meant from the context or cultural setting. James Strong defined Na-ar and Na-a-rah as a child from infancy to adolescence. This is, however, only partly correct. Those two words also refer to young persons as well. The Aramaic translation is one witness to prove that. A second witness is the Bible; which has those words referring to male and female servants. Additionally, ne-a-rim (plural pronunciation) is used of young men that fight in war. The Bible states that a male needs to be at least twenty years old to fight in Israel’s Army (see Num. 1:20).

Separately, the final conclusion is that the love that the chief of the eunuchs showed Daniel was attraction and intimacy. This certainly sounds like a homosexual situation. Also, the mention of the wanting of men that were handsome would be something that a male with homosexual desires would want.

Note: The word ra-kham can also refer to the love that parents give their children. Along that definition, it is also the mercy love that parents show their children when they do something wrong. Since believers are called children of God, God also uses this word, ra-kham, toward us. We are the children of God and this is the love and mercy that God shows us as our parent Father.

TRANSGENDER:

“A woman shall not wear any garment that pertains to a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garments…” (Deut. 22:5 Lamsa). The Aramaic literally says: “The armor (pl. ma-ne) of a strong man shall not be upon a woman; and a strong man (gaw-ra) shall not be clothed with the armor (pl. ma-ne) of a woman. The LORD your God abhors all those doing these things.” By armor, I’m referring to the outfit and the weapon. Ma-na (singular) is the normal translation of the Hebrew cli, which means: an outfit, armor, weapon, and vessel. Cli is underneath the first Aramaic word ma-ne; which Dr. Lamsa translated as “garment” above. Cli (or ma-na) means instrument or weapon (KJV) at Numbers 35:18 and armor at 1 Samuel 14:1. There are other Hebrew words that mean garment, clothing or apparel.

The second word “armor” is from the Hebrew word sim-lah. Going from the way the KJV translated this word, an English speaker would think that sim-lah only refers to “clothing” or a “cloth.” However, sim-lah does refer to armor in a minority of occurrences (2x) in the Bible. The first occurrence is here at Deut. 22:5, and the other is at 2 Sam. 12:20; both of which were translated as ma-ne. At 2 Sam. 12:20, King David is said to have changed his garments (ma-ne). It is reasonable to believe that King David was wearing at least armor because kings did wear this (See 1 Sam 17:38-39). David may have been wearing his sword also since we know he did have a sword that he used when he was a warrior. Plus, a king can also be given a sword (see 1 Kings 3:24).

A distinguishing word or context needs to surround the word ma-ne for it to refer to garments. This is because it is not its most obvious meaning. It usually means a vessel, instrument or weapon of some type. Ma-ne carries those meanings over three hundred and thirty times in the Aramaic Old Testament. Since the original Hebrew text has cli (armor) at this verse, it is reasonable to believe that the Aramaic translator meant “armor” for his translation of cli. Also, the Aramaic translator could have translated sim-lah as lwu-sha (garment), nakh-ta (a long outer garment) or a few other Aramaic words that are the normal translation of sim-lah if the Hebrew text strictly has sim-lah meaning “clothing.” The translator would have known that a native Aramaic speaker would interpret this verse wrongly if the “clothing” sometimes didn’t mean “armor.” Based on this assessment, I believe the Aramaic translator meant “armor” for his translation of the Hebrew words cli and sim-lah. Additionally, the Hebrew and Aramaic text have the word “strong man” in the sentence. I don’t believe the text is saying “…a strong man shall not be clothed with the garments of a woman.” It would make more sense for the normal word for man (na-sha or Hebrew ish) to be used if the text was saying that a man shall not wear woman’s garments.

The Aramaic word gaw-ra is the same as the Hebrew word ge-ver (or Strong’s pronunciation ge-ber). Gaw-ra literally means a “strong man” or a “strong one” in certain contexts. Gaw-ra is from a verb root meaning “to be strong.” Gaw-ra can also refer to an ordinary “man.”

The meaning that I am getting from the text is that the armor of a man weighed more than the armor of a woman. God is forbidding a man to exchange his armor for a woman’s armor to make her suffer; thus despising her.

“Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man have long (qa-em erect) hair, it is a disgrace to him? But if a woman have long (dam-rab-bai) hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given her for a covering.” (1 Cor. 11:14-15 Lamsa). The Aramaic text really talks about women having long hair. The Aramaic text says something different in regards to the hair of men. The text says that nature teaches us that a man is not to have erect hair. Qa-em means: “standing, erect and upright.” The next word after long is the word sa-ra, meaning hair. The Aramaic text has two words in Dr. Lamsa’s hypothetical translation of “long hair.”

The Greek text has the conjugated word ko-ma, which was translated as “long hair” when talking about the hair of both men and women. According to James Strong, ko-ma-o means: “to wear tresses of hair.” The Latin text says this: “Doth not even nature itself teach you that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him?” (latinvulgate.com). The interpretation of ko-ma-o as “long hair” is an English interpretation.

Note: I am still going through the Aramaic Old Testament. More information about transgender people and the Bible will be posted as that information is brought to light.