IS THE BIBLE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALITY?
A scholarly response on what the Hebrew and Aramaic Bible says concerning LGBTI people.
Mobile or Tablet View: If you click on the Bible reference, just click on the back "button" on your Android phone or the back "arrow" on your Tablet to return to my website. (Sorry, I don't know what the button looks like on an iphone or ipad).
Transgender / Intersex
I believe the words "young woman (women) and woman (women)" referred to individuals that identified with that gender. "[Young-] women" consisted of anatomically heterosexual women, lesbians, trans-women, bi-sexual women and intersex women. The word "men" would consist of anatomically heterosexual men, gay men, trans-men, bi-sexual men and intersex men. Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek wouldn't sub-categorize or use the wrong gender for them. Gender variant "women" could also be called "girls, virgins, etc." and gender variant "men" could also be called "boys, virgins, etc." For the Hebrew language, the same spelling for the word "young man" also refers to a "young woman" in the Law. Additionally, the word na-shim "women" has the masculine plural spelling or ending. I think the reason for it is because the ancients didn't view "women" to be always anatomically female. For the Aramaic language, the word "women" also has the masculine plural spelling or ending. The word "women" is normally pronounced ni-she in the Peshitta Bible; except before numbers, where it is pronounced ni-shin (i.e. two women, etc.). (1st Enoch 7:1, etc.) normally uses the older spelling of ni-shin for "women." Both are masculine plural spellings or pronunciations. This is odd because the word "woman" is the very person of a feminine being. It should have a feminine plural ending if this word doesn't contain a broader understanding of "women." Lastly, for the Greek language, the word pais can refer to either a "boy, young man" or "girl, young woman." A feminine pronoun or other feminine word will let you know which gender is meant.
I will refute the following anti-trans, women, etc. verses below:
“The gear (or clothing) of a man shall not be on a woman, and neither shall a man wear the clothing of a woman ...” (Deut. 22:5 Masoretic Hebrew Text). The Hebrew word cli means "gear (such as a sword and shield or quiver and bow), weapon, tool, utensil, instrument, vessel, etc." and by extension “an outfit, armor.” Biblically, it mostly refers to things attached to the body or carried and vessels used for storage. "Clothing, armor or an outfit" aren't necessarily implied; even when you see the word "armour" or "armourbearer" in the King James Version. The Hebrew of 1 Samuel 14:1 literally says: "the young man carrying his gear (pl. sword & shield - armour [KJV]). Or just the last words "the one carrying his gear (pl. armor); translated as "armourbearer" (1 Sam. 14:7, 12-13, etc.). Nevertheless, the best way to see that cli also means "clothing" is by the Aramaic text. The Aramaic word ma-na or its plural pronunciation of ma-ne are the normal translations of the word cli in the Old Testament and also appears in the New Testament. Ma-ne also carries the meaning of "clothing, garments, armor" (Rev. 3:4; 16:15, etc.). The key words to hone in on are the words "woman" and "man." I've already discussed that the words "woman" and "man" also refer to "a trans-gender and intersex person." So this verse is also saying “The gear (or clothing) of a man shall not be on a trans-woman (or other woman sex) and neither shall a trans-man (or other man sex) wear the clothing of a woman ..." So we can conclude this verse isn't referring to trans genders who are wearing the clothing that matches the gender that they perceive or identify with. Since clothing is a part of identity, it would be unnatural for an identifiable woman or man to wear the wrong clothing under normal civil life. This begs the question of why someone would do this and hence why the LORD God abhors this deed. I don't believe God would be abhorring actors or actresses from doing this so I will discuss below some reasons on why individuals may do this, especially in a society where the sexes are separated. I believe there was a particular reason for the man or the woman to be disguising themselves. If someone was pursuing a soldier, that soldier could hide by pretending to be the opposite gender. Or someone may dress up as the opposite gender to get access to a gender restricted area to commit fornication or adultery. Idolatry would be another reason. An exchanging of garments could also happen between conspirators. A hetero eunuch could wear the clothing and veil of a woman to get into the king’s harem to try and sleep with his wives. One of the king’s wives could feign to be the eunuch soldier or guard to safeguard him. That woman could hide her hair inside the soldier’s helmet if she had long hair or didn’t cut it; thus appearing to be a male soldier.
Note: Cli (gear, weapon, clothing, etc.) is the modern Hebrew pronunciation; which doesn't always pronounce the sheva (short and rushed "e" sound), especially on the first letter of a word or preposition. James Strong gives this word's pronunciation as celi.
There is a possibility this verse is mistranslated and misunderstood. The word "on" also means "against" in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. And the word cli may not mean "clothing or armor" here; and hence could be a later meaning. There are also better words for clothing and armor in those languages. The text may read: "The weapon (tool, gear, vessel) of a man shall not be against a woman, and a man shall not wear the clothing of a woman. For the LORD your God abhors everyone [who] does these things." (Deuteronomy 22:5). Perhaps this verse is only meant in the context of war. Men were killed and women taken alive as booty (Deut. 20:13-16). So a man may want to disguise himself as a woman to escape death. "Is not instinct also teaching you that a man, when his hair is erect (qa-em standing), he has disgrace (or reproach)? And when a woman grows out (dam-rab-bai) her hair, she has praise (or glory); because her hair was given to her for (or in the place of) a covering (or veil). But if [any] one argues against these things, we don't have a custom like this, and neither [does] the churches of God." (1 Cor. 11:14-15 Peshitta). The Aramaic text says something quite different than the English translations and Dr. Lamsa's translation, which retained and polished up the KJV text here. The Aramaic text says that a man is not to have erect hair, NOT "long hair" (Lamsa, KJV). Qa-em means: “standing, erect and upright.” The next word after long is the word sa-ạra, meaning hair. The Aramaic text has two words here while the Greek text just has one word. Also, the Aramaic text of the next verse reads: , "And when a woman grows out her hair, she has praise (or glory) ..." Paul isn't relating a custom where a woman has to have long (Lamsa, KJV) hair; but that she should have hair, regardless of whether the length is short or long. Paul earlier had said that if a woman prays or prophesies when her head is unveiled, than she is equal to a woman that has her head shaved or shorn (1 Cor. 11:5). She shouldn't have a disfigured or bald head like a slave (Deut. 21:12). Gri-a "shaved or shaved one" has both an adjective and a noun meaning. It can refer to a monk; or contemptuously, to a slave. That is why Paul said: "...but if it is a shameful thing (or hideous) for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered [with hair]. (1 Cor. 11:6)." I want to reiterate that Paul is discussing a "custom" that is non-binding on women. It is an opinion that he had that was based on the times. Paul hinted others may not agree with his opinion and hence this custom isn't obligatory or a command from God. Not much else is known about this custom. I personally don't mind if a woman has a bald head if she wants that. It's her choice and it isn't hurting anyone.
(a) Bethuel is the trans-son of Naḥor and Milcah (Gen. 22:20-22). We know this because (Gen. 22:23) says this: "And Bethuel begot (ya-lad) Rivqah (Rebekah) ..." Moreover, (Gen. 24:15) says this: "... And behold, Rivqah was going out, she who was begotten by Bethuel, the son of Milcah, the wife of Naḥor ..." The Hebrew text says that a hypothetical male begot a daughter two times. It is women who begot (gave birth to) while it is men who "caused to be begotten (fathered)" [ho-lid]. However, translators often translate both those verb forms as “begot” for both men (i.e. Aḅraham begot, etc.) and women. So some English translations aren’t that accurate because they don’t give a distinction between them (i.e. the simple past tense/stem and the causative form). Nevertheless, Bethuel was born a biological female but identified as a man. He was a trans-man (i.e. a son). Naḥor chose to give his son the name "Bethuel;" which appears to be a common name or designation for a trans-person. You will see this when you continue reading below. Bethuel (MS) is the masculine pronunciation and spelling while the feminine spelling is Bethulah (FS) "virgin, trans-woman, etc."
1st Note: Since Bethuel begot Rivqah (Gen. 22:23), the Hebrew text of (Gen. 24:15) wouldn't say: "And behold, Rivqah was going out, she who was begotten to Bethuel, the son of Milcah, ..." (b) Some other trans-men who begot children are Cush (Gen. 10:8; 1 Chron. 1:10), Miẓrayim (Gen. 10:13; 1 Chron. 1:11), Cenaan [Canaan] (Gen. 10:15; 1 Chron. 1:13), Arpacshad (Gen. 10:24; 1 Chron. 1:18), Shelaḥ (Gen. 10:24; 1 Chron. 1:18), Yoqtan [Joktan] (Gen. 10:26; 1 Chron. 1:20), Yoqshan [Jokshan] (Gen. 25:3) and Bechorath (1 Sam. 9:1) [his name literally means: “firstborn female of”].
2nd Note: The Hebrew text is the only Shemitic text that preserves that "Bethuel begot (gave birth to) Rivqah," "Cush begot Nimrod," etc. The Aramaic Jewish Targums, the Samarian Targums, the P'shitta text and the Greek text all say that "Bethuel caused Rivqah to be begotten," etc. Apparently interpretive conditioning affected the correct translation of those verses. I don't believe the Hebrew text is corrupted because "he [a male] begot" appears too many times (i.e. the examples I gave). Also, it seems logical that the Hebrew word ya-lad “he begot” wouldn’t sometimes also mean: “he caused to be begotten.” People back then knew about transgender persons and her father Bethuel may have not totally looked or sounded male without modern testosterone injections. So someone may be curious to ask Rivqah who begot her. She would have had to say that her father begot her - NOT her mother Milcah. The Greek Bible also makes a distinguishment between e-te-ke(n) “she begot (bore)” and e-gen-ne-se(n) “he caused to be begotten [born] (generated, produced).” E-gen-ne-sen is mostly used of the father but is also rarely used in the New Testament to refer to a mother “who begot.” E-gen-ne-se(n) is in the 1st Aorist Conjugation, which is distinguished by the “e” at the beginning AND the “s” at the end before the 1st-3rd person ending (i.e. -en, etc.). The 1st Aorist can make the verb have the simple past tense and/or the causative meaning [i.e. = Hebrew Qal &/or Hiphil]; which is the case for this verb. This verb doesn’t have a separate causative verb form ending in -izo or -azo. However, the Greek Language developed and lets the reader know that e-gen-ne-sen has the simple past tense meaning when a woman “begot” while it has the causative meaning when a man “caused to be begotten.”
Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her and lay with her, and violated her. His soul was strongly attracted to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the young woman and spoke kindly to the young woman. So Shechem spoke to his father Hamor, saying, "Get me [this] young woman (girl) as a wife ."... "The soul of my son Shechem longs for your daughter. Please give her to him as a wife. And make marriages with us; give your daughters to us, and take our daughters to yourselves ... the land shall be before you. ... acquire possessions for yourselves in it." Then Shechem said ... "Let me find favor in your eyes ... give me the young woman as a wife." (Gen. 34:1-4, 8-12 NKJV). Dinah is called the daughter of Leah, given female pronouns and Shechem wants Dinah to be his wife. However, Shechem never calls Dinah a al-mah "young woman." He calls Dinah a na-ar, which can mean a "boy" or "(transgender-) girl," depending on the context. This Hebrew word is translated three times as "young woman" in regard to Dinah. However, na-ar means: "boy, child, young man and (pl.) children" elsewhere in the Bible. It's not likely that na-ar would have been pronounced na-a-ra; without the final h letter. That would perhaps make it the only word of its kind. Also, a Hebrew person is suppose to get the full meaning of a statement whether it is spoken or written. That is significant, because except for only one instance (Deut. 22:19) in the first five books of the Law, the following books started to always add the final "h" to na-ar; when the person was a female. Thus, the word came to be spelled and pronounced always as na-a-rah. Lastly, this Hebrew word was like the Greek word pais "young man, young woman, etc." It's a masculine word that can mean "boy" or "girl." Context such as the masculine or feminine definite article, pronouns and other words let the reader know which meaning is meant. The Hebrew of (Deut. 22:23) says this: "If a virgin girl (na-ar) shall be pledged to a man, and [another] man shall find her in the city and shall sleep with her." The Hebrew verb yih-yeh means "he shall be" in - "he [the virgin girl] shall be [pledged to a man...]" That tells us that the noun is masculine and should be pronounced na-ar (m.) NOT na-ara (f.). Certain masculine nouns can specifically include females; which this word is one of them. Na-ar was translated as pais (boy or girl) in the Greek LXX here. Proving that the word na-ar and pais are similar in meaning. Hence we see the mistake or lie of the 6th-10th century A.D. Masoretes (Jewish Scribes-Scholars) by changing the pronunciation of the Hebrew word na-ar to na-ara, when the person has the female gender. The interpretation I gave is correct. The Samarian Targum also reads "he shall be." The other Targums, Syr., LXX and Vg. read "she shall be," which is a good translation also. Trans-girls (women) can take the feminine pronoun also. One time, the Hebrew word yal-dah "girl" is translated in the New King James Version as "young woman." However, Shechem literally asks his father to "get [this] girl for me for a wife" (Gen. 34:4). Later, Shechem said to Dinah's father Jacob and her brothers: "Give me [this] boy (i.e. girl) for a wife" (Gen. 34:12). Everywhere else the word "daughter (female of any age, hence: "woman") and al-mah "young woman" are used for this and other similar statements. Also, I don't think the word na-ar, which literally means "boy, young man," would be the word used when asking for a wife (i.e. an anatomical female). Finally, the word "girl" and "boy" are more-so words of endearment for LGBT relationships in that culture.* Therefore, there is something female and male about Dinah. Dinah could be transgender, intersex or cisgender (if surgery was performed at birth to assign the particular gender). She is mentioned again at (Gen. 46:15) but is never ascribed as having children. That chapter lists the descendants of Jacob and his children. One verse mentions a daughter having children (Gen. 46:20). She is not listed in the Book of Chronicles as having children; even though that book sometimes lists the children of "daughters" and "sisters" (1 Chron. 1:50; 2:16-17). So, she very well could be trans-gender. Na-ar "boy" and yal-dah "girl" were translated those four times as tli-tha (girl) in the Aramaic translation. So an Aramean could see Dinah as possibly a "transgender-female." That's because the word "girl" is usually a term of endearment for a lesbian spouse (or girlfriend) and a transgender spouse (or girlfriend). Nevertheless, sometimes a female lover or wife can also be called a "girl" in heterosexual relationships (1 Ki. 1:2). The Hebrew word na-a-rah has a first meaning of a "girl" but can also mean a "young woman" in a supporting context. It could be understood as literally meaning a "girl" but a young woman" in meaning. So even though this word was translated as a "young woman" at First Kings 1:2 in the early translations, this same word was translated as "girl" elsewhere. So, sometimes the female in a heterosexual relationship can be called a "girl." The Greek translation used feminine and masculine words for its translation of the masculine word na-ar (boy). It translated the first two occurrences of na-ar as par-the-nos (virgin?) in verse three, and the third occurrence in verse twelve as pais "girl." The Hebrew word yal-dah was also translated as pais "girl" in verse four. Pais (nom.) / paida (accus.) is technically a masculine word that can mean: "boy" or "girl." Since the Greek text has the feminine definite article before pais, "girl" or "trans-girl" is meant. However, because pais can also mean a "servant," the Greek language adopted a couple diminutive forms (paidion [NS] & paidarion [NS]) to better and specifically refer to a "boy" or girl." So the Greek text looks like it is saying that Dinah was transgender; despite the feminine definite article. Also, I think the word par-then-os referred to a woman being "transgender" here and a "lesbian, etc." elsewhere in the Bible. Since Shechem already slept with Dinah, I don't think a Greek reader would consider Dinah a "virgin." Similarly, the Hebrew word be-thu-lah is usually interpreted to mean a "virgin or chaste woman." However, I believe it is a "collective word" because it is sometimes accompanied with masculine pronouns. I suggest it means not only "a woman who hasn't had sex with a man" (virgin) but also "a woman who doesn't have sex with a man" (lesbian), trans-woman, etc. One example of it not referring to a biological female is at (Judg. 19:24): "Look, [here is] my virgin (f.) daughter (f.) and his concubine (f.); Let me bring them [otham - (mp)] out now. Afflict (rape) ye them [otham - (mp)], and do ye to them [lahem - (mp)] [whatever is] good in your eyes; but to this man, don't you do a thing of this folly." The bethulah (virgin) and the concubine could have both been transgender, or one of them, for the masculine pronouns to be used. If they weren't, then the feminine pronouns would have been used. See also the bethulahs with the masculine plural (mp) pronoun at (Judge 21:12). Note: Certain words are usually used for heterosexual relationships and LGBT relationships. For example, the words man (husband), woman (wife) and" he took (married)" are usually used for heterosexual relationships. The words "boy" and "girl" are usually used for people in a LGBT relationship. That's to designate what type of relationship it is. Similarly, a slave-woman who is being slept with is usually called a "concubine;" to designate her status. However, we do know that she can also be called a wife (Gen. 25:1; 1 Chron. 1:32). Therefore, the Bible also shows that all of the sexual orientations can use the same terminology. At (1 Cor. 7:8-9) the Aramaic text has Paul saying that it is beneficial for arm-la-tha (lesbians?) "to take a wife than to burn with desire." So we see that a female spouse in a lesbian relationship can also be called a "wife." If a spouse in a lesbian relationship can be called a "wife," than a male spouse in a gay relationship can be called a "husband." The Hebrew word for "man" also may be interpreted as "husband," between men, in some of its occurrences in the Bible. I've also seen and suspect that the words "lovers, partners, yoked together (married), marriage-covenant, etc." are or can be used as designators and designations for persons in all of the sexual orientations. "[Oh] LORD, the God of my ancestor Shimon, to whom You put a sword into [his] hand [to use] for vengeance upon the foreigners, they who loosened [the belt around] the belly of the parthenos for a defilement, and they laid bare (uncovered) the thigh[s] for a shame, and they defiled the belly (womb) for a reproach. For You said it should not be thus (so); and they did [it anyway]." (Jud. 9:2 LXX). The Greek word parthenos is equivalent to the Hebrew word bethulah and can mean : "a trans-woman, virgin, etc." We know from Genesis that Dinah was both a trans-girl and a virgin. The Greek translation has the word metra here, which means: "belly (womb)." As you can see from its first occurrence in this verse, metra doesn't just mean "womb;" it also means "belly." Other occurrences where it means “belly” or “bowels” are at: (Num. 25:8; 1 Ki. 3:26; Ps. 22:10 [LXX 21:11]; 58:3 [LXX 57:4]; Jer. 1:5; Amos 1:11). It is often the translation of the Hebrew word be-ten “belly;” which I’m not convinced that it means “womb” in those places. A trans-girl and a man also have a "belly." The Aramaic text has the word marba; which has the same meanings as this Greek word. Otherwise, the original Shemitic word may have been the Hebrew word be-ten or the Aramaic word caŕ-sa / ca-sa (the "r" is silent in modern pronunciation); which are synonyms. They mean: "belly (womb, body, torso, etc.). A man's belly is referred to at: (Deut. 7:13; Judg. 3:21-22; etc.). The "belly" has the extended meanings of: "body (torso)" at (Job 19:17; Micah 6:7); i.e. "the sons of my body (torso);" etc. Or "the semen (seed) of your body [torso]" (Jub. 20:9 ). Sometimes the word pagh-ra "body" also refers to the torso (see 2 Macc. 7:5). Hebrew and Aramaic often address body parts in the singular even though there are two members (limbs). The statement: "they laid bare (stripped naked) the thigh[s]" isn't meant to carry only the literal meaning. That statement also means that they "uncovered her nakedness (private parts)" (P'shitta). The last part of the statement may say: "... and they defiled (violated) the belly (body, torso) for a reproach." I'm thinking that the Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew for "defiled (profaned, polluted)" also means "violated (dishonored, outraged, etc.); like the Latin equivalent of violo. Maybe they fondled her front private parts, paraded her (2 Sam. 10:4-5; 1 Chron. 19:4) and/or fingered her anus. That statement could cover that. For an adult female, trans or not, that statement could refer to either vaginal or anal penetration. Both the small intestine, which terminates at the vagina/penis, and the large intestine, which ends at the anus, are literally up in the belly. The 4th century Latin Vulgate translation of Greek Youdith doesn't have the words: "the belly (womb)" - for the last part of the statement. So they may be an addition to the Greek text. The statement also looks kind of odd and is different than other statements where the verb "defiled" appears. The statement may or may not have had the pronoun [her] instead. I.e "... they defiled [her] for a reproach. ..." It is interesting that the text says that "they [the Shechemites]" also defiled Dinah. They were all guilty of defiling (violating) Dinah - not just Shechem. (Gen. 34:27 KJV) "... they defiled their sister." and (Jub. 30:3-5 [4, 6, 8]) also supports that. Maybe they were all guilty of defiling Dinah because they gave her to Shechem to be raped. I don't think that all the other Shechemites literally defiled Dinah by penetration or deflowered her. That's hard to believe if she was only twelve years old (Jub. 30:2 ) or if Shechem wanted to marry her after that. They may have done some other inappropriate stuff but not that. Thus it seems that they at least took Dinah against her will, stripped her naked, handled (mouthed, kissed, etc.) her private parts, and gave her to Shechem, who then took her and raped her by himself. (Gen. 34:31) suggests that Shechem treated Dinah like a whore (prostitute). BETHULAH = LESBIAN [?]: There was a Latin text I read on the internet a while back, which I wish I had saved, but it stated that "virgins were having sex with virgins." That suggests that the word "virgin" does in fact also mean a "lesbian." There are at least a few verses showing that the so-called "virgins" were displaying masculine qualities. Hence, those be-thu-lahs may actually be "lesbians." (Lam. 2:21) says "... my lesbians and my chosen (young) men have fallen (died) by the sword .." Usually women were too scared or didn't fight. They usually didn't get military training and were spared in war. So, we see that these hypothetical "virgins" were fighting and fell alongside "chosen men;" who were selected because of their military training and expertise. Another example is at (Isa. 23:4)*, which says: 'Be ashamed, Oh Ṣidon; for the [Great] Sea has spoken, Oh Stronghold along the [Great] Sea, saying: "I have not labored (travailed), nor have I given birth, nor have I reared (brought up) chosen (young) men - I have raised (brought up) virgins (maybe: lesbians)." ' A third example of a "virgin" possibly being a "lesbian" is at (2 Ki. 19:21). It states that "a virgin (lesbian) of a daughter of Zion has despised you [and] mocked you. A daughter of Jerusalem has waved [her] head at you."
Note: The source Masoretic Hebrew text and the Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew Text, along with the Aramaic Targum, don't have the additional word [nor] before the final line of the Isaiah 23:4 verse. However, it's usually rendered along the line of "[nor] have I raised virgins" (Syr., LXX, Vg., etc.). This is an example of where we see that conditioning and tradition blind a translator's (interpreter's) eyes and affect an accurate translation. Thus, sometimes the majority interpretaton (witness) is wrong; which I believe is the case here. We have to go by the source Hebrew Text here, which is the original language reading and is confirmed by the Pseudo-Yonathan Targum.
THE TEN VIRGINS, TRANS-WOMEN AND/OR LESBIANS:
'Then the kingdom of heaven will be compared to ten virgins, those who took their lamps and went out to meet the groom of the bride. But five of them were wise and [the other] five were foolish. And those foolish women took their lamps but they didn't take oil with them. But those five wise ones took oil in the vessels with their lamps. But when the groom delayed, all of them slumbered and slept. And in the middle of the night, there was a shout: "Behold, the groom is coming; go ye out to meet him!" Then all of those (halen) virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. But those foolish ones were saying to the wise ones, "give ye to us from your oil, b/c behold, our lamps were extinguished (have gone out)." Those (halen) wise women answered and were saying, "Perhaps it will not be enough for us and you. But go ye to those (aylen) who are selling and buy ye for yourselves." And when they went to buy, the groom came, and those (aylen) who were ready entered with him into the house of the wedding (marriage feast), and the door was barred. But afterwards those other virgins also came and were saying, "our Lord, our Lord, open to us!" But he answered and said to them, "Truly, I am saying to you, that I don't know you." ' (Matt. 25:1-12 Peshitta). The words "virgins, wise women (ones) and foolish women (ones)" are all in the feminine form (i.e. they are feminine words). So the feminine plural word ha-nen "those" is often used to describe these virgins. Ha-nen is present in every those where I don't specify that it is the other words ha-len or ay-len. As already stated, the common word ha-len "those" is also used to describe these virgins. That means that there are some "males" among the female virgins. Some of the "female virgins" were/are "trans-women." Therefore, the Aramaic word b'thulta "virgin, chaste woman, lesbian" also means a "trans-woman" like the Greek word parthenos.
Note: The words ha-len and ay-len are both common (neuter) words that mean "those, these." Ay-len is used before the word "who" (i.e. aylen d). Ha-len is used when the word "who" isn't present and in other contexts, usually refers to "those things."
AḄISHAG THE SHUNAMMITESS:
Now King David was old, advanced in years; and they put covers on him, but he could not get warm. Therefore his servants said to him, "Let a young woman, a virgin, be sought for our lord the king, and let her stand before the king, and let her care for him; and let her lie in your bosom, that our lord the king may be warm." So they sought for a lovely (beautiful) young woman throughout all the territory of Israel, and found Aḅishag the Shunammite, and brought her to the king. The young woman was very lovely (beautiful); and she cared for the king, and served him; but the king did not know her. - So David rested with his fathers, and was buried in the City of David. - So she [Bathsheḅa] said, "Let Aḅishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah your brother as (for a) wife. (1 Ki. 1:1-4; 2:10, 21 NKJV). Bathsheḅa said this to her son Solomon: "Let Aḅishag the Shunammite be given to Adoniyah your brother for a wife." The verb she used is in the third masculine singular (3MS) Hofal Imperfect form. She literally said: "Let him (Aḅishag) be given (yut-tan) to Adoniyah your brother for a wife." Tut-tan is the Hebrew pronunciation for "Let her be given." So there is something "male" about Aḅishag. I think she was transgender (i.e. a trans-woman). Bathsheḅa, Adoniyah and others likely also knew this. Elsewhere she is given feminine pronouns and words. The Aramaic Targum and Greek LXX also support the 3MS Hebrew reading of "Let him (Aḅishag) be given to Adoniyah for a wife." So I don't believe the word is corrupted. It appears to be original; or a very old reading at the very least. Yet, there is a Targum Variant which reads "Let her be given" like the Peshitta and Latin Vulgate readings. However, trans-women can be given feminine pronouns, etc.; so I think the Aramaic and Latin texts just translated the 3MS word as a third feminine singular (3FS) word. Note: The Greek language (text) only has one way to conjugate "let him (her) be given [verb]" and "he (she) did [verb];" so that's how it can be representative of the Heḅrew reading: "Let him (Aḅishag) be given ..."
MISPAR THE EXILE:
Mispar (Mizpar - KJV) is genetically a male and was able to produce children (Ezra 2:1-2). The Bible also deliberately lists her feminine names. Mispar is also called Mispereth "number, account, narration" (Nehemiah 7:7). Additionally, Mispereth is also called Has-sophereth "the female scribe" (Ezra 2:55) or without the definite article as Sophereth "female scribe" (Neh. 7:57). Mispereth appears to have a non-conforming gender. Perhaps she was a trans-woman or unisex woman. She has three feminine names and only one masculine name in the Bible. All of her names imply she was a female scribe, writer or secretary.
POCERETH HA-ẒEVAYIM (Pochereth of Ẓeḅaim [KJV]):
"The descendants of Shephatyah, the descendents of Ḥattil, the descendants (children) of Pocereth Ha-Ẓevayim, the descendants of Ami" (Ezra 2:57). Pocereth Ha-Ẓevayim means: "The Bindress of the Gazelles" or "The Female who ties the Gazelles." This person has a feminine name and is a trans-woman who kept her private parts and had children. She is listed among the number of the men of the people (Ezra 2:2) who had children. The Hebrew word pa-car "he bound, tied," doesn't appear anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible. However, it appears many times in the Aramaic Bible. The Aramaic word pcar appears at (Gen. 22:9; Baruch 1:75; 2 Macc. 14:27,33; 3 Macc. 4:7,9; 5:5; Acts 22:29; 2 Tim. 2:4; etc.). TRANS-WOMEN CONCUBINES:
The Hebrew plural word pi-lag-shim "concubines" is a feminine word that has the masculine plural ending (-im) versus the feminine plural ending (-oth). That tells us that there are both males and females under the designation of "female concubines." We've previously seen the feminine word na-shim "feminine ones, effeminate men, women" include both genders because it ends in the masculine plural (it can also take masculine adjectives - see Hebrew of 1 Sam. 30:2). A masculine word can also end in the feminine plural if it can include both genders. The Hebrew word a-voth means: "fathers, ancestors, parents, etc." When it carries the meaning of "parents," it includes both genders (Jer. 47:3, etc.). The Aramaic word a-wa-he "fathers, ancestors, parents" can also include both genders (3 Macc. 5:42; 4 Macc. 2:10; Lk. 2:27; Heb. 11:23; Eph. 6:4; etc.).
(1 Chron. 3:9) talks about "sons of concubines (pilagshim)." So the word pi-le-gesh (concubine) is definitely a feminine word with a masculine ending. Those particular concubines were anatomical females. The Greek word pallake (nom. pl. pallakai, acc. pl. pallakas, etc.) is also a feminine word and differently has the feminine plural endings. The first part is significant because the surrounding Aramaic, Greek and Latin nations were copying each other in their languages regarding the gender of words and their meanings. "... and there was a Levite man living in the sides of the hill country of Ephrayim, and he took a woman (wife) for himself, a concubine from Bethleḥem, Yehudah." (Judg. 19:1). This verse suggests that not all concubines were biological females. The verse says that the Levite man gets married to his wife who is his concubine [a lower status term because she can’t produce offspring or was a maid]. She is from Bethleḥem, Judah. (Judg. 19:2) then says: “And his concubine committed fornication (prostitution) against him and went away from him to the house of her father …” It needs to be pointed out that his wife is addressed with a lower status term again. The text says that “.. his concubine fornicated …” versus “.. his wife fornicated …” As far as we know, she was his ONLY wife. So there was no need for the lower designation unless she had that designation by default; because she couldn’t bear children. That trans-wife probably had less fear of doing that because she didn’t have to worry about getting pregnant and exposed as an adulteress. Then (Judg. 19:3) says: “And her husband arose [after four months] and went after her to speak according to her heart (mind [desire, emotions]) [cf: 2 Sam. 19:7], to bring HIM back … and she brought him into the house of her father …” The Masoretic Hebrew Text actually has the masculine pronoun here and hence indicates that the concubine or wife was born “male.” I don’t believe there is a typo here like the edit (correction) that is given in the side margin (i.e. ah “her” versus o “him”). A vav “o” and a heh “ah” are not easy to confuse like the vav and yod commonly are; because the yod was written longer in the Dead Sea Scroll Script. Also, a masculine pronoun appearing with the feminine word “concubine,” which has the masculine plural ending to indicate it includes both genders, seems very plausible. The Aramaic P’shitta text wouldn’t be a good witness to what the original pronoun was/is. A trans-woman can be addressed with a feminine pronoun and the P’shitta OT has shown here and elsewhere that the translator would just translate the Hebrew word “HIM” as “HER” for trans-women. Later we are told that this trans-woman and the daughter of the man of Giḅeah (Givah) were given to the mob to be afflicted (mistreated, treated harshly, oppressed, raped). Maybe an actual wife, who is a biological female, would be less desirable to a mob that wanted to rape (ya-da) and a-lal abuse (mock) (Judg. 19:25) / em-pai-zo “play with [mock]” (GrkOT) because of the fear of being killed for adultery. Still later, it’s just odd that the raped and murdered female is addressed only once more as his wife by the story-teller and three times as his concubine by the husband (Judg. 20:4-6). That’s like a husband calling his wife his girlfriend.
The kings Shelomoh (Solomon), Akh-ash-ve-rosh (Xerxes), Rehoḅoam, etc. all had female concubines which could have been transgender (1 King 11:3; Song 6:9; Est. 2:14; 2 Chron. 11:21; etc.).
TRANS-MEN AND TRANS-WOMEN:
"In this way also, you women, submit ye to your husbands, that those (ay-len) who aren't being persuaded in word, by your beautiful conducts, you may win them without labor (difficulty). - For in this way also, holy women from the beginning, those (ay-len) who were hoping in God, were adorning themselves and were obeying (submitting to) their husbands." (1 Pet. 3:1,5). The common (neuter) word ay-len "those" is used as the personal pronoun for both the "husbands" and the "wives." That means that some of the "husbands" were born as "women" and some of the "wives" were born as "men," but identified as the opposite gender. If the texts were just referring to "biological males," then the masculine plural personal pronoun ha-non "those" would have been used. Additionally, if the texts were just referring to "biological females," then the feminine plural personal pronoun ha-nen "those" would have been used. Those verses also show that trans-men were called "husbands" and that trans-women were called "wives."
Note: ish-ta-baḏ-en doesn't just mean "submit ye." It literally means: "be ye made to serve" (compare Isa. 14:3). It's the past tense form of the causative Shapel form [i.e. sha-bid "make serve"] (Ps. 144:2; Jer. 30:8). From the literal meaning, we get the extended meanings of: "be ye obedient" or "obey ye" (compare Lk. 2:51) and "be ye subject" or "submit ye" (compare Gal. 4:9). "And a multitude of the people was coming (following) after him, and those (ay-len) women who were mourning and wailing over him - And all of the acquaintances of Yeshua were standing afar off, and the women who had come with him from Glila (Galilee), and they were beholding these things. - But those (ay-len) women who had come with him from the Galil (Galilee) were near, and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid [in it]. - And on the first day of the week, in the morning, while [it was] dark, they came to the tomb and brought those spices (fragrant herbs) which they had prepared; and there were with them other women." (Lk. 23:27,49,55; 24:1) Yeshua hung out with various women-gender persons (trans-women, intersex women, etc.). We are told that Mariam the Magdalene, Mariam the mother of younger (or short) Jacoḅ (James) and Yose - along with Shalom (Salome), were among those women (Mk. 15:40; 16:1). They were the ones who came to the tomb and brought the spices. Shalom could be either a trans-woman or a intersex-woman. There are two witnesses for that deduction. First, she is among those (ay-len) women listed as being gender-variant. Second, she has a masculine Hebrew name. Shalom is the Aramaic pronunciation for the Hebrew name Shallum; which is always a "male" name in the Hebrew Bible. The feminine form of that name is Shelomith (Lev. 24:11; 1 Chron. 3:19). Shelomith is an adverb that means: "peacably" and is derived from the masculine Hebrew word shalom "peace." Thus Shelomith is also a male name in the Bible. Nevertheless, for a female, Shelomith would have been the name for an anatomical female - not Shallum. Shallum (Shalom) would raise suspicions on whether Salome was born a male or not. This is how Shalom became Salome in the Greek language. There is no "Sh" sound in Greek, so that sound was transliterated simply as "S." Lastly, Greek feminine names and words end in -e, so that letter was just added to the end of Shalom. Shalom (Salome) was the mother of Zebedee's children (Matt. 27:56). I think intersex women can still have children. Otherwise the children may have been adopted. The name Salome is of Greek origin (i.e. salome) and means "a medicine." Josephus tells us that the name of the daughter of Herodias was Salome; who danced before Herod (Matt. 14:3-11). Just because she wasn't transgender doesn't mean that Shalom wasn't also. Luke, or whoever, had good intentions when he added the -e after Salom; to make the name agree more with Greek grammar. However, he should have just transliterated Shalom as Salom. It might have looked a little awkward because of the name Salome already being used and it also being a Greek word, but there are other feminine names that are irregular, one at least ends in -m (Mariam, Elisabet [Elizabeth - KJV], etc.). The Aramaic text clearly has the trans or intersex woman Shalom having a male name.
1st Note: Glila is the Aramaic pronunciation. The Hebrew equivalent of that word is "the Galilah" or "the Galil."
2nd Note: The name Mariam (Mary) or its Hebrew equivalent Miryam (Miriam) is the name that lesbians generally chose in Biblical times. It reminded them of Miriam, who was a midwife. Midwifery was an occupation of lesbians. Mariam the Magdalene (from Magdala [the Tower]) was perhaps a lesbian prostitute. Mariam the mother of Yeshua, Jacoḅ, etc. was possibly a lesbian who heeded God's call. That could have been a good choice by God because if Mariam was a lesbian, that would make it not likely that she committed fornication with a man to conceive Yeshua. It seems to me that the Bible teaches that Mariam and Yoseph had sex after Yeshua was born and produced more children. That is the most obvious and natural way to understand the references. Thus, if she was a lesbian who had more kids after Yeshua, then she would be like other LGBTI parents who had more kids so they would be taken care of when they got old or to have more workers in the family business or to pass on their property, etc. (Matt. 1:25) says: "And he [Yoseph] didn't know (sleep with) her until she begot her firstborn son .." Two things from this verse stand out which suggest that Mariam had more kids after Yeshua was born. First, Yeshua is said to be the firstborn son. Those words could infer that Mariam gave birth to a second, third, etc. son. Since Yeshua had half-brothers, that was the case. (Matt. 13:55) lists Yeshua's "brothers" as "Yaạqoḅ, Yose, Shimon and Yudah." Also, we read that Yoseph didn't sleep with Mariam until she begot Yeshua. The word until in the verse implies that he slept with Mariam afterwards. The first meaning for the Aramaic word ạ-dam-ma is: "until, as far as, up to, up to the time that, as late as." It can mean "unto" when it doesn't make sense to translate it as "until." Now, does it make sense for it to carry the meaning of "until" at (Matt. 1:25)? Yes, so that is its meaning! That statement is comprehensible, logical and makes sense with that meaning. So "until" is the correct translation for (Matt. 1:25). We know that it is humanly possible for Yoseph and Mariam to have sex and raise more children after the birth of Yeshua. Also, when ạ-dam-ma carries the meaning of "until;" there is a change afterwards. Consider (Gen. 29:8 P'shitta): '[But] they were saying to him, "We shall not be able until (ạ-dam-ma) all the flocks are being gathered together, and they are rolling the stone away from the well's mouth; then (wi) we shall be giving the sheep drink." ' Yudah (Jude) is said to be the brother of Yaạqoḅ [James] (Jude 1:1); who in turn is the half-brother and apostle of Yeshua (Gal. 1:19). The Aramaic word shli-ḥa means: an apostle, messenger, missionary (as sent out or away [by another]). It's a noun made from the verb shlaḥ "sent out (or away)." Just because James, the son of Yoseph and the brother of Yeshua was an "apostle;" doesn't mean that he was the Apostle James, the son of Khalpai [Greek: Alphaios]" (Matt. 10:3). The New Testament is clear that they had different fathers and were not the same person [i.e. "James"]. - Also, Yaạqoḅ, transliterated Jacob in the Old Testament, and James in the New Testament, was a common name for that time. Yudah (Judas) was also a common name. Anyone can be a shli-ḥa "sent out one [by another]" or "someone sent away [to a different place and/or person]." From those literal meanings we get the extended meanings of: "apostle, messenger, missionary." Usually a king, a captain of an army, the LORD, etc. would send a "messenger, person, prophet, spy (Josh. 2:1), etc." The Aramaic New Testament calls John the Baptist an apostle (Jn. 3:28) and also calls the initial twelve disciples Apostles. However, the other seventy disciples that were sent into every city and place were technically Apostles also (Lk. 10:1, 17). Nevertheless, in regard to who the New Testament specifically calls Apostles, Matthias technically became the fourteenth Apostle. However, he was numbered among the twelve because Judas Iscariot hung himself and made the number of the initial Apostles eleven. They had the specific mission of going into the cities of the lost sheep of Yisrael (Matt. 10:6) and later to other foreign places. Later, James, the Lord's brother, became the fifteenth Apostle but in actuality the thirteenth living Apostle. Finally, Paulus became an Apostle; and hence was the sixteenth one which the New Testament specifically names but the fourteenth Apostle still alive at the time. Paulus was given the title of an Apostle because that is what he was. Additionally, Paulus talks about false apostles (2 Cor. 11:13). Furthermore, Aquila and his wife Priscilla were also Apostles (Acts 18:2, 18, 26; Rom. 16:3). They just aren't specifically called Apostles in the New Testament. They also may have been among the seventy. There was such a thing as a "female apostle, etc." Shliḥ-ta would be the feminine form. The Hebrew equivalents would be: Shul-lakh (MS) and she-lu-khah (FS) - (Gen. 32:18 ; 49:21; Judg. 5:15). Furthermore, there are four Targums that speak of Apostles. (TargumJ Jer. 2:2), which has additional words, says "... & they went after two of My Apostles, even after Mosheh and Aharon (Moses & Aaron) in the desert ..." Yudah, the brother of James and Yeshua, who also wrote the letter Jude, is not the same as the Apostle Yudah [AKA Taddai (Thaddaios)]. The Aramaic text says that Yudah [AKA Taddai] is the son of (bar) Yaạqoḅ [James] (Lk. 6:16; Acts 1:13). In the Greek New Testament, the Greek word tou "of" can express that meaning but literally says "Yudah of James." Hence the KJV mistranslated that statement as: "And Judas the brother of James;" plus has in the side note: "Jude 1." So we see how the Catholic Church made the Apostles Yudah and Yaạqoḅ brothers when they had different fathers and can't be literally brothers. The pseudepigraphon (sing.) book, the Protevangelion, teaches that Mariam's other children were the children of her older husband Yoseph, which he had from a previous marriage. I'm not endorsing that belief but only that it is a possibility. (Matt. 1:25) can be made to teach that doctrine. If Yeshua was Mariam's only begotten son and she raised the children of Yoseph from another woman, then Yeshua could still probably be called her firstborn son. We would also have to conclude that no additional children from any sexual union materialized due to whatever reason (barrenness, etc.). The Bible doesn't give the age of Yoseph and Mariam when they were married. Additionally, we can't establish their age from pseudepigrapha (pl.); which often have heresies. An old Yoseph married to Mariam may be wrong based on the culture of the time. Plus, one would expect (or think) that the Evangelists would let us know that Yoseph was an old man (sa-wa) if the irregular situation of him marrying a young woman had occurred. Because of the lack of that detail, scholars have speculated contrarily and have given Yoseph's age-range from 18-20 years old and sometimes it's estimated to be as old as ~ 25 years old. Why? Well, married men were typically older than their wives because they had to take care of their wife, kids, learn an occupation, etc. Since Yoseph was already in his trade, as a carpenter; that fits with him being 18+ years old. If Yoseph was 25 at his marriage, he could still be dead by approximately 33 year old Yeshua's crucifixion because we know that some people in the 1st century died in their 50's. Tooth infections, etc. cut people's lifespan down back then.
Follow-up Note: The Aramaic word a-kha means: "a brother, sibling [of the same household], half-brother, step-brother and adopted brother." Hebrew and Aramaic don't sub-categorize or differentiate between those categories like the English language sometimes does. Those are the first meanings and what we should understand a-kha to mean in the New Testament unless we are given additional info to indicate otherwise. A-kha can mean a "relative" when it is obvious that the word doesn't refer to a "brother." Other meanings include a "brother (at arms)" because soldiers were known as "brothers." Additionally, homosexual lovers were known as "brothers" and a heterosexual husband was also known as a "brother." Furthermore, believers are known as "brothers" and "sisters." So different contexts and usually prior additional information determine its meaning. Aramaic has a specific word for a "relative;" which is the word khya-na (Mk. 3:21; 6:4; Lk. 14:12; Jn. 18:26; etc). That word is never used to describe Yeshua's half-brothers. - Additionally, "my nephew" can be stated as: "the son of my uncle." - "My niece" can be stated as: "the daughter of my aunt." So there are other words to refer to a "relative." Thus, the word "brother" shouldn't be assumed to have the meaning of "relative" unless there is more info that suggests that; such as the Evangelists could have told us that Yeshua was Mariam's only son or that Yoseph was pre-married with children, etc. - Since younger brothers can also meddle with and taunt their older brother (Mk. 3:31; Jn. 7:3-4); those verses aren't plausible references that prove (or suggest) that the brothers were older than Yeshua and hence his step-brothers.
Is the Bible Against Homosexuality? by Preacher Mattai © (Ɔ) 2016. All rights reserved.