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.
2007-02-19 22:21:18 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Why would you serve a God like that, who would tell all your secrets?
You're supposed to have someone you can trust, not someone who will rat on you!
What if he told your life in a "Bible"?
2007-02-19 22:32:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow, you're completely incorrect in your assertion. First of all, the words "tender love" was translated from the Hebrew word racham, which means COMPASSION. Can compassion be interpreted as being physical love? Also, no reference to physical love can be found anywhere else in the passage. Daniel is refusing to partake in anything the king has to offer, because it's against his beliefs.
You are REALLY reaching.
As for the idea that David and Jonathan were homosexual lovers, it is not WIDELY believed. It's believed by a few people who are trying to justify that type of behavior. It isn't in the Bible, sorry.
Once upon a time, two men could love each other without anyone thinking anything of it. They could even kiss on the cheek without anyone reading any kind of homosexuality in it. Now, if two men even HUG their sexuality is in question.
The Bible does not condone homosexuality. Period.
2007-02-20 06:33:36 · answer #2 · answered by The_Cricket: Thinking Pink! 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If we regard evil in our heart, God will not hear us.
You know that, I am certain. So what you are saying is contradictory to this known information, and therefore must be regarded as incorrect.
What you have done is a perfect example of eisegesis.
2007-02-20 08:09:40 · answer #3 · answered by Jed 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Deja Vu?
2007-02-20 06:25:23 · answer #4 · answered by NONAME 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Must be the Brokeback Bible.
2007-02-20 06:25:00 · answer #5 · answered by great gig in the sky 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Stop hitting send.
2007-02-20 06:27:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
MAN PASTING REALLY WORKS HUH
2007-02-20 06:25:03 · answer #7 · answered by THE WAR WRENCH 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Are you gay?
2007-02-20 06:24:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋