H1341 ge^ ‘gay’ For H1343; haughty: – proud.
Interesting isn’t it? The Hebrew term for ‘haughty or proud’ is GAY, the very term the homosexuals use to designate their sexual preference and life style! Is this just some strange coincidence?
Most ‘gays’ I’ve met are very ‘haughty’ and BOAST of their sexual perversions whenever possible.
The word “gay” seems to have its origins around the 12th century in England, derived from the Old French word ‘gai’, which in turn was probably derived from a Germanic word, though that isn’t completely known. The word’s original meaning meant something to the effect of “joyful”, “carefree”, “full of mirth”, or “bright and showy”.
However, around the early parts of the 17th century, the word began to be associated with immorality. By the mid 17th century, according to an Oxford dictionary definition at the time, the meaning of the word had changed to mean “addicted to pleasures and dissipations. Often euphemistically: Of loose and immoral life”. This is an extension of one of the original meanings of “carefree”, meaning more or less uninhibited.
Fast-forward to the 19th century and the word gay referred to a woman who was a prostitute and a gay man was someone who slept with a lot of women (ironically enough), often prostitutes. Also at this time, the phrase “gay it” meant to have sex.
With these new definitions, the original meanings of “carefree”, “joyful”, and “bright and showy” were still around; so the word was not exclusively used to refer to prostitutes or a promiscuous man. Those were just accepted definitions, along with the other meanings of the word.
Around the 1920’s and 1930’s, however, the word started to have a new meaning. In terms of the sexual meaning of the word, a “gay man” no longer just meant a man who had sex with a lot of women, but now started to refer to men who had sex with other men. There was also another word “gey cat” at this time which meant a homosexual boy.
By 1955, the word gay now officially acquired the new added definition of meaning homosexual males. 
How I arrived here was by looking up the definition of ‘Barabbas’ in Luke 23:18 — the meaning of his name is of Chaldee  origin H1347 and Gk (G5 Strong’s). When you go to H1347 in Strong’s Concordance, you also see another term from where ‘geh’ (pronounced ‘gay-eh’) is taken! The Gk ‘gay-eh’ also means; LOFTY, arrogant, and PROUD!
In the Greek, Barabbas is only rendered as “son of Abba” meaning, son of a father or master . Could that master be Satan in his case? Could it be that Barabbas was a TYPE of the AntiChrist, or the Son of Satan? While there have been and are now MANY antichrists in the World, there may be ONE final, major Antichrist, who will be none other than the Incarnation of the Devil in human form who inhabits a human body – alluded to as The AntiChrist, whom the Lord will destroy supernaturally with the Spirit of His mouth when He comes . This same AntiChrist will set himself up as god in the last Jewish Temple built, and will speak vain words against the one, true GOD and His people, and will lead the disbelieving multitudes into perdition along with him and the fallen angels .
Barabbas was a thief and a murderer  and one ‘who stirred up trouble’ – a trouble maker, a rabble rouser. Read Luke 23:13-25 for the full account. All terms easily identified with any antichrist, or the AntiChrist whom Scripture defines as “a man of lawlessness,” “proud,” “arrogant,” and maybe GAY? There’s a bit of an enigmatic verse in the book of Daniel about his attitude towards women – Daniel 11:37, “Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the DESIRE OF WOMEN, nor…..”
“regard” H995 – understand, attend, consider, perceive, regard, feel, etc.
“desire” H2532 – delight: desire, goodly, pleasant, precious; that which is desirable.
What this seems to be saying is that he won’t have regard for women’s needs and feelings – he won’t be ‘attentive’ to them. Thus, he’ll treat them harshly being insensitive to their needs and desires. He’ll be seriously lacking in ‘understanding’ of their delicate natures. It may be saying that the Antichrist will greatly disrespect women just as the adherents of Islam behave today towards them. Many Islamic women are treated like slaves, denied of basic human rights. The United Nations should be outraged, but is it?
According to biblical scholar Stephen Miller in his commentary on Daniel, the phrase has never had consensus in its interpretation even as early as Montgomery in his 2nd century commentary on Daniel. Miller states that the phrase could be interpreted in either of four ways:
“the one desired by women”
“the desire of women”
“that desired by women”
“the desire for women”
If we consult a Hebrew lexicon, the word that is translated “desire” in 11:37 is “hemdah” (transliterated). Of course, as with many words in Hebrew, the interpretation is made difficult because the same Hebrew word can have varied meanings, and often context is the primary determining factor for the translator. In none of its varied meanings, however, does “hemdah” refer to sexual desire. The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words states:
hemdah is a noun found twenty-five times, with the primary sense of “that which is pleasant, or valuable.”
“If it was God’s intent to so hide the beauty of woman, He would have given Eve her “eye covering” burqa on her way out the door. It seems that Islam has found a way to veil what God never intended to cover.
Islam fits the profile. It has no regard for the desires, the precious things, of woman.” 
….the grammatical construction disallows changing “desire of women” to “desire for women” (13). In parallel instances, such as Haggai 2:7 and 1 Samuel 9:20, the noun following “desire of” is the source and not the object. What the prophecy is clearly saying is that the Antichrist will disregard something that women desire.
At last we come to the only convincing interpretation. It recognizes that since “the desire of women” appears in a list of deities spurned by the Antichrist, the name must refer to another object of worship that he refuses to honor. To be precise, the name might signify either a god (or gods) that women desire or the desire of women to be gods. Of these two possibilities, the second is a better fit both to the context and to modern reality. It is the desire of women to be gods that the Antichrist will slight.
The context. The angelic messenger has just predicted that the Antichrist will speak marvelous things against the God of gods (verse 36). As we argued, he was alluding to the tragedy in the Garden, where Satan used the same lies to corrupt Eve. He succeeded by exploiting the woman’s desire to be godlike in her knowledge of good and evil. Although the result was downfall of the human race, that desire has never been extinguished. The fire of self-worship still burns in the hearts of all women who refuse to worship the true God.
Yet while recognizing the pride of women, we should not minimize the pride of men. The male heart is also prone to divine aspirations. After all, the future pretender to supreme deity will be a man, not a woman. But the Book of Daniel is concerned not to leave the wrong impression. To avoid suggesting that men are worse than women, the book adds a little reminder that apart from the grace of God, every woman is also an incorrigible egotist with a lurking desire to take over command of the universe.
Modern reality. In recent times, the desire of women to be gods has resurfaced in an especially pronounced form: the drive for so-called women’s liberation. At issue between feminists and Christians is not whether women are equal to men. The Bible says that in Christ “there is neither male nor female” (Gal. 3:28). At issue rather is whether a woman ought to be like a man, whether she should be seeking to exchange a woman’s God-ordained role in the home and church for a man’s role.
Imagine what feminists will think when the Antichrist sets himself up as the supreme god and denies equal billing to any goddess! They will regard the exclusion of women from the highest flights of conceit as discrimination. Whatever hope he offers them of attaining a lesser degree of godhood will hardly satisfy their ambition. Yet he will ignore their objections. That is, as the oracle says, he will not regard the desire of women. 
Some have interpreted that scripture as, ‘he will not understand nor have regard for the delight which a woman can give a man from having relations with a woman. A homosexual would have no desire for a woman, nor take pleasure in having sexual relations with a woman. Still others say Daniel 11:31, has nothing at all to do with the sexual preference of the AntiChrist. Another opinion is that the phrase, “desire of women” is speaking of Jesus Christ since all women wanted to be His mother, the vessel through which Christ would be born into the world, but where this fanciful interpretation came from I can’t tell, since I’ve not found one scriptural reference that supports it.
The traditional interpretation is that he will not be married, or be a homosexual. Even if we were to understand its application in this manner there are other alternatives to consider. For example: He will have no regard for women, practically speaking can mean to allow abortion. This certainly makes one have no regard for woman. He will disrespect the most basic function of woman, not caring for the unborn or the scars he will leave on young women. To not regard woman may mean he is against her role in marriage and childbearing (promoting abortion) denying the function God gave to women. He will divide the family unit and the woman’s role in it, reverse the roles of men and woman. Thus, No regard for women does not necessarily mean he must be homosexual or unmarried. He may promote same sex partnership other than traditional marriage. Many have pointed out that in the religion of Islam men have no regard for women, which will be of no consequence since it also says, “he will show no regard for the gods of his fathers.” So even if he is a Muslim he will not have the respect of the religion he was brought up in. 
When you put the Greek definition along with its Chaldee origin, you have the incarnated son of Satan – a proud, arrogant, boastful man speaking vain words against the true God; defiant of all laws and gods, who might also be ‘gay’ or sexually perverted in some manner. He may not be specifically homosexual, but may lead a sexually immoral life style, or promote it in general.
The Greek ‘diastrepho’ From G1223 and G4762; means to distort, that is, (figuratively) misinterpret, or (morally) corrupt: – perverse (-rt), turn away. G4762 means ‘to twist, turn around, or reverse.’ This is interesting since the general plan of Satan for the World is to twist, reverse, pervert, and turn upsidedown, God’s ORDER of all created things. Men become as women and vice versa is one example where God’s natural ORDER of things is being REVERSED and perverted!
A phrase often applied to the AntiChrist, “son of perdition,” is a curious one. The term, “son of perdition” isn’t limited to a MALE person! Look at the following Scriptures and definitions —
G5207 uihos; Apparently a primary word; a “son” (sometimes of animals), used very widely of immediate, remote or figurative kinship: – child, foal, son.
Just as the phrase, “sons of God”  is not gender specific but used to refer to all who’ve been Born Again of God’s Spirit and thus are children, or “sons of God.”
“sons” G5043 teknon; means offspring, children, child, male child, or daughter. See both Strong’s and Thayer’s Definitions.
Perdition means utter destruction, perishing, ruin, and eternal misery in hell.
Whether or not the final AntiChrist will be homosexual, what we know for certain is that Yahweh our God, will eventually pour out His judgment and wrath upon any nation which indulges in filthy sexual perversions, as He has done throughout history. He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with sulfur and fire because of its sexual perversions – Genesis 19:1-28.
In Leviticus 18, God identifies incest, homosexuality and bestiality as the sins which cause the land to “vomit out its inhabitants” (v25). Even in this dark context homosexuality is singled out for special condemnation as “an abomination” (v.22).
In what is probably the most challenging Biblical passage of all, Deuteronomy 20:16-18, God tells the Hebrew people to completely wipe out the Canaanite inhabitants of the Holy Land. His explanation why is detailed in Leviticus 18:24-30.
“‘Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. ‘For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. ‘But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); so that the land will not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you. ‘For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people. ‘Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the LORD your God.’”
It is certainly not within our right to judge God. We can only rest in the assurance that, by definition, whatever God does is justified. Importantly, however, his use of genocide to punish sexual perversion is instructive as to His perspective of the relative gravity of human sins, as is His admonition not to tolerate these forms of sexual conduct by any persons in the society, even “the sojourner among you.”
Of course, this does not condone hatred or violence against homosexuals. 
God brought about the fall of the Roman and Greek empires; both known for their sexual excesses and perversions. “The Greek “gymnasium,” where young men engaged in sporting events in the nude, was a center of homosexuality and one of the reasons sodomy became known throughout the entire western world as “Greek love.” In his article, Homosexuality & the Maccabean Revolt, Catholic scholar Patrick G.D. Riley notes:
“The all-male athletic club known as the gymnasium was notorious in the ancient world as a nestingplace for pederasty. Socrates himself was susceptible to it, as we learn in the Charmides. The lovers of boys came to the gymnasium in crowds, as Plato notes in that dialogue and in the Euthydemus. Plutarch mentions it in the Erotikos. Hence the gymnasium, with its sexual seductions, was bound to arouse alarm when it arrived in Jerusalem and “attracted the noblest young men” of Israel (2 Macc. 4:12). What follows that phrase bears this out. The original Greek of the text of 2 Maccabees continues with a pun: hypotasson hypo petason, which literally means “subduing [these noble young Jews] under the petason,” the broad-brimmed hat of Hermes worn by naked Greek athletes. But in the Church’s traditional Latin translation, known as the Vulgate, St. Jerome renders this in lupanaribus ponere, that is, ‘to put in brothels’
…Joined themselves to the Gentiles. In the Greek, this has a strong connotation of sexual union. The verb, zeugizein, means “to yoke in pairs,” a graphic metaphor for sexual union. It is used in a love-passage from second-century B.C. Alexandria, hence contemporary with the Maccabees, in a context implying copulation. Since the Greek gymnasium was traditionally exclusive to males, and since the histories present the Jerusalem gymnasium as male-only, the sexual union can only be homosexual. (New Oxford Review, September 1997). 
Will America, who is currently passing all kinds of legislation protecting the imaginary rights of gays, lesbians, transvestites, and transsexuals’ to aggressively oppress religious institutions by causing them to embrace the ‘gay’ life-style; marry gays/lesbians against their religious beliefs, and so on – not be judged for its immorality and sexual perversions as have other nations before her? When the state makes it a crime to worship according to one’s faith, isn’t that the quintessence of religious oppression? The Secularists are forever trumpeting the “Separation of Church and State” clause while hypocritically making LAWS and REGULATIONS regarding religious institutions. The original intent of that clause, penned by our nation’s forefathers, was to keep the state OUT OF RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS and from MAKING LAWS which oppress religious freedoms; ie., to worship as they please without government interference! For the history of how the ‘Separation of Church and State’ clause came to be, see .
According to God’s Word, the Bible, Christians are not to agree with, work with, or promote the “works of darkness” (which would include sexual perversions) – but rather “expose them” – Eph 5:11 Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. 
This goes especially for all the ‘affirmative churches’ who not only welcome but endorse the ‘gay’ life style as normative, who assure gays that they’re OK the way they are (they don’t need to repent) for God won’t judge their sin, and who ordain gay and lesbian ministers. While we should not hate gays/lesbians, nor engage in violence against them, we don’t have to endorse their vile acts. Deu 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel. Deu 23:18 Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a dog, into the house of the LORD thy God for any vow: for even both these are abomination unto the LORD thy God. “sodomite” H6945 qâdêsh; BDB Definition 1) male temple prostitute
Yeshua is soon to return, wouldn’t it be wise to be ready and be sure you’re not on the wrong side of the issues?
 Chaldee Language —
Employed by the sacred writers in certain portions of the Old Testament, viz., Dan_2:4-7, Dan_2:28; Ezra 4:8-6:18; Ezr_7:12-26; Gen_31:46; Jer_10:11. It is the Aramaic dialect, as it is sometimes called, as distinguished from the Hebrew dialect. It was the language of commerce and of social intercourse in Western Asia, and after the Exile gradually came to be the popular language of Palestine. It is called “Syrian” in 2Ki_18:26. Some isolated words in this language are preserved in the New Testament (Mat_5:22; Mat_6:24; Mat_16:17; Mat_27:46; Mar_3:17; Mar_5:41; Mar_7:34; Mar_14:36; Act_1:19; 1Co_16:22). These are specimens of the vernacular language of Palestine at that period. The term “Hebrew” was also sometimes applied to the Chaldee because it had become the language of the Hebrews (Joh_5:2; Joh_19:20).
 Barabbas – G912 a aßßa
Barabbas = “son of a father or master”
1) the captive robber whom the Jews begged Pilate to release instead of Christ
 2 Thess 2:8 -12; Rev 19:21
 Daniel 11:31-45, Rev 19:20
 Luke 23:19 & 25, John 18:40
 Jn 1:12, Rm 8:14, Rm 8:19, Gal 4:6, Phil 2:15, 1 Jn 3:1 &2
 G1651 ἐλέγχω elegchō
1) to convict, refute, confute
1a) generally with a suggestion of shame of the person convicted
1b) by conviction to bring to the light, to expose
2) to find fault with, correct
2a) by word
2a1) to reprehend severely, chide, admonish, reprove
2a2) to call to account, show one his fault, demand an explanation
2b) by deed
2b1) to chasten, to punish