Homosexuality in the Bible?

Question

The Bible endorses homosexual behaviour and we shall provide one such example which is exemplified in the story of the relationship between Daniel and the prince of the eunuchs.

The verse is:

"Vayiten ha-Elohim et-Daniyel leKHesed u'leraKHamim lifnei sar hasarisim" (Daniel 1:9)

[i.e., "Now God had brought Daniel into favor and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs" (KJV).]

The Hebrew words, which describe the relationship between Daniel and the prince of the Eunuchs, are "KHesed" and "RaHamim".

The first of these indeed means "goodness, kindness, faithfulness". The word "RaHamim", however, derives from the Semitic root R-H-M, which refers to a womb.1 The KJV's rendering of "RaHamim" as "tender love" would therefore entail and indespensible element of physical love, or love which is manifested through physical contact.

Now, look at our two characters: The prince of the eunuchs is of course an eunuch. Daniel, in the opinion of the Jewish commentators, was also an eunuch.2 Hence an affair between them involving physical love would correctly be termed as a homosexual affair (i.e., between an eunuch and another eunuch).
Of course there is no "twisting" done to the sense or material of the verse, which are presented as they stand. Some may object that it is quite impossible for an eunuch to have any sexual contact. I would like to highlight this argument by pointing out an even more elementary matter: the deprivation of the testes or external genitals in a man or boy does not result in the change of sex of the same to a woman or girl. Hence the "tender love" between Daniel and the prince of the eunuchs would nonetheless remain a homosexual affair.

Secondly, the terms "eunuch" and "castration" are invariably spoken of male subjects; the correct corresponding term for females is "spaying".

Thirdly, why should one entertain the possibility that the eunuch (as in Daniel's "prince of the eunuchs"), would have to be the active sexual partner, when the common sense assigns to him the passive role?

Fourthly, it is also abundantly clear that this is not the only homosexual affair from the Bible. It is also believed that Jonathon and David too (according to the Biblical account) were more than just the "closest of friends"; they were passionate homosexual lovers.3

Hence from this brief exposition, it is inconceivable that the "word of God" would condone such a horrible and unnatural sexual act, as the Bible obviously does.

Answer 1

sorry - I don't look to the KJV as authoritarian - since King Jimmy was homosexual = and the guys translating for him were under fear of death

I'll take the New American Standard version

9Now God granted Daniel (V)favor and compassion in the sight of the commander of the officials,

So I guess that blows you theory out of the water

Answer 2

The Bible never endorsed homosexuality either in the Old Testament or the New Testament.
The verse you are referring to has nothing to do with Daniel being homosexual. The eunuch was sympathetic to Daniel because he was not eating food which Jews considered unclean. If you read the whole story you will interpret verse 9 properly.
Peace and every blessing!

Answer 3

Daniel 1:9===SYMPATHY

NOW go back and READ this for yourself instead of Copying and Pasting something that you have read from the Internet.

YOU MUST READ WITH UNDERSTANDING before you can Transliterate the Subject. I DID NOT SAY ---TRANSLATE. You also CANNOT take ONE VERSE and make it fit what you want it to be. YOU HAVE to READ ABOVE and BELOW the verse to PICK UP the SUBJECT. If you need more help please let me know and I will be more then happy to help you understand Gods Word. You are only talking about the first nine (9) verses of Daniel and have not EVEN got to the MAIN Subject. Starting way back in Genesis God CONDEMNED homosexuality and Gods Word DOES NOT CHANGE.

Answer 4

You are simply doing as many do who are trying to discredit the Bible and promote their own teaching, just adding your own opinion to the text with no real justification. The Bible teaches clearly that Daniel was a Godly man and obeyed the law of God which would have meant that he was not involved in immorality of any kind let alone those that were an abomination to God. The court officials sought to find something to accuse Daniel before the King, and could find nothing after a thorough search. They concluded that they would not find anything unless it was something involving his relationship to his God. If you want to understand the Bible stay in it, not add your own ideas, and then condemn it based on your idea which is pure speculation.

Answer 5

Check the verse before that one, Daniel 1:8 But Daniel resolved that he would not defile himself with the king's rich food, or with the wine which he drank; therefore he asked the chief of the eunuchs to allow him not to defile himself. You are pouring things that are not there, if Daniel is not defiling with food nor wine it would be illogical to think that he would defile himself with an abomination such as homosexuality in that case the Holy Spirit of God would depart from him and the Scriptures shows that the Holy Spirit was always with Daniel.

Answer 6

First and foremost... given your description, being eunichs... a sexual relationship would have been impossible.

But most importantly is what the original text says. Not what King James translated it as. The relationship was far from sexual when viewed in the origion language.

Further, one verse does not define the nature of God, the entire nature of God must be considered and overwhelmingly throughout the Bible, Homosexuality is considered sinful behavior.

Answer 7

Yo S.W., just a little obsessed with this subject eh? Deepseated feelings maybe or just a touch curious eh? Dude, you're not the first person to twist Bible verses to make a point but you sure are the most lame at it. Wrap a towel around your head & do your best Carmen Miranda, I'm sure some guy out there will wink at ya.

Answer 8

until eventually now 1946 they have been Sodomites, and Lesbians, called Amazons, in derogatory slang Dikes, and the masculine counterpart for that insult become *** or *****, so there have been descriptions, yet none of them have been superb, different than for what become implied each and every so often with "previous Bachelor" or "Spinster"/"previous Maid", with human beings choosing to no longer marry the choice intercourse, as become to no longer their flavor, they might incredibly proceed to be single(each and every so often implied no longer continually a gay nature). Homosexuality is as previous as devil, as he orchestrated it to offend God suitable from the commencing up alongside with Rape, Bestiality, Sacrificing Newborns, Orgies(Gamorrites, or civilly defined Hedonists), Peor god worship(Oral intercourse), and Temple prostitution to soothe the "gods", and their followers, Druidism(alongside with all witchery), none of those issues are new under the sunlight, Homosexuality is likewise Biblically called "the giving and taking of many marriages as in Noah's day" which meant no person had any regard for the classic marriage of a guy and woman. The Bible additionally speaks of girls human beings shouldn't costume up and act like adult adult males, that's yet differently of conversing approximately Lesbians pursuing women human beings as "man made adult adult males", no longer a strict costume code like some denominations have confidence. Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 Romans a million:26 1st Corinthians 6:9-11 1st Kings 14:24 15:12 2nd Kings 23:7 Deuteronomy 23:17-18 Revelation 22:15(implied) and Genesis 19:4-5 Jude 7 Judges 19:22(Gilbeah) are some passages that cope with Homosexuality/Prostitution the two recognized "fake god worship" like I stated by using fact the very commencing up, no longer long after Cain, and mutually as we are translating sin "looking upon a father's nakedness" is incestuous kin with the mum(father's nakedness loosely translated decrease back to Hebrew), there is countless words that desire translation to their Hebrew/Greek understanding to be suitable understood. i'm hoping this does not crush you donkey, Peace to you and yours.

Answer 9

Nope, don't see it, not in those places. Try the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (see Genesis 18:16-33, Gen. 19:1-29, Deuteronomy 23:17)

Answer 10

What answer are you looking for exactly? Are you hoping someone will say that it's okay to be homosexual? If you are, you are in the wrong section. Besides, in the scheme of things, does it really matter? Let it go. How have homosexuals hurt you? You definitely have a problem with them. Either that or you are afraid to come out of the closet, and are hoping someone will say it's okay.