Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Daniel Was A Eunuch

58 posts in this topic

Posted



The part in bold, your just assuming, need hard evidence.

I to know people some men who never married, they don't call themselves eunuchs and I don't assume that they are either.

Quite plain, we know its a fact the man put over them was an eunuch, we should not take it any further than that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Login or register for removal of this advertisement.

Posted

Doesn't the Bible say "Prince of the Eunichs"??? How hard is it to interpret "Prince over all the Eunichs"? If I say "President of America" it doesn't just mean the man is an American himself, it means he is the President OVER Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Jerry already posted this verse, not sure why it has been ignored...


2 Kings 20:16-18 And Isaiah said unto Hezekiah, Hear the word of the LORD. Behold, the days come, that all that is in thine house, and that which thy fathers have laid up in store unto this day, shall be carried into Babylon: nothing shall be left, saith the LORD. And of thy sons that shall issue from thee, which thou shalt beget, shall they take away; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.


I'd say there is much more evidence for this Biblical "theory" than some of the others floating around OB these days. :frog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Quite plain' date=' we know its a fact the man put over them was an eunuch, we should not take it any further than that.[/quote']

Err, no offense, but that's how you learn stuff...



And that's why this is fun. I admit this will never go beyond "theory" because there is no verse that says "Daniel is a eunuch", but it's still fun to research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I agree, qwerty, but along with Jerry, I'd like to know the fulfillment of that prophecy regarding PRINCES and the KING OF BABYLON. :smile Seems pretty simple to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Doesn't the Bible say "Prince of the Eunichs"??? How hard is it to interpret "Prince over all the Eunichs"? If I say "President of America" it doesn't just mean the man is an American himself' date=' it means he is the President OVER Americans.[/quote']

So he is the Prince of the Eunuchs, that does not mean everyone he is over is an eunuch.

I take that to mean that he is the Prince of the Eunuchs, that is he is the head eunuch of all the eunuchs the king has. But again, that does not mean all that he has charge of is eunuchs.

Probably this king has other eunuchs that are in charge of many different things. It just happens to be the one over the Hebrew children is the Prince over all the Eunuchs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I take that to mean that he is the Prince of the Eunuchs, that is he is the head eunuch of all the eunuchs the king has. But again, that does not mean all that he has charge of is eunuchs.


You are really grasping for straws, here. :reality: (I've been wanting to use that one!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted



You are really grasping for straws, here. :reality: (I've been wanting to use that one!)


Regardless how trivial, useless and stupid this discussion has become, I still disagree that Daniel or the three others were eunuchs. As far as the prophecy thing goes I can't say for sure, as I haven't studied it. However, the only thing supporting your argument so far is your own interjection and inference that since a eunuch was over them, they too were eunuchs. There's no hard scripture to support the stance you've taken, so the furthest you can go within the bounds of scripture is to say that it's your opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Most scholars would agree with Daniel was not a Eunuch. It should be noted that the Bible nowhere says that Daniel was a eunuch, so we cannot say for certain that it was the case, but it would not be unlikely. So I would say that this discussion would most likely be going in circles. Let's discuss biblical FACTS, not assumptions. It would certainly explain how there is no indication of him or his friends being married or having any children. This is also not a decisive argument to prove he was one, but given that we have some rather extensive discussions of various episodes in his life, the absence is notable. And, as the verses quoted in this thread show, it was apparently a rather common practice for those in this sort of special royal service to be such and not just in Babylon (cf. the Ethiopian eunuch of Acts 8).

Scripture certainly indicates that this is not a desirable state. Any mal-formation or injury of the male apparatus was grounds for disqualification from the priesthood (Lev.21:20; cf. Lev.22:24), and for separation from the community (Deut.23:1). Generally speaking, being a eunuch gave cause for regret rather than rejoicing (Is.56:3). Jesus words about being a eunuch for the sake of the kingdom of heaven are not talking about physical emasculation but rather about the choice to remain celibate in order to better serve the Lord (cf. 1Cor.7:1; 7:7). So, by all means, it would be a terrible mistake for anyone to emasculate themselves physically, especially on the erroneous assumption that God would take any pleasure in that. The decision to live a celibate life is one that takes a good deal of time and soul-searching to make, and it is not uncommon for a person to change his/her mind about this later on. The point is, it is difficult for anyone to know without fail God's will about this for his/her life instantly. Physical self-emasculation forestalls any possibility of carrying out God's will if that will turns out to be marriage and family. But whatever His will, I am convinced from scripture that physical self-emasculation is never in His will, but is instead a self-willed action that is folly at best, and the most pernicious sort of legalism and works at worst. Finally, let no one undertake such a course of action under the mis-guided assumption that this will eliminate.

Love,
Madeline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted



You are really grasping for straws, here. :reality: (I've been wanting to use that one!)


So by that same logic used, the king put the Prince of Eunuch over his many wife's, so that make his wife's eunuchs. :roll

Yes, I can see your grasping at straws to try and prove something you can't. :reality:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So by that same logic used, the king put the Prince of Eunuch over his many wife's, so that make his wife's eunuchs.


But, um...he didn't. :uuhm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I was trying to show you how silly your logic was, but he probably did have an Eunuch overseeing him many wife's.

We were just showed how important this was to the king by him putting the head eunuch over these Hebrew children, it in no way proves they were eunuchs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

lol, I love the people getting heated.. it's like arguing about bible cover colors.

Lets see...

If Daniel and company where Eunuchs, it would not have been by their choice, the Babylonian king would of done it to em, and I don't see how that would of forced them to be out of the will of God.

Even if you can't be a priest of God as a Eunuch, I thought Daniel was a governor for the king of Babylon and was used by God? Don't recall him ever doing temple.....

Could be Daniel got married and had 5 kids and it was never mentioned, because of relevance... (could you imagine how great a wife and kids that would of been to never cause enough of a problem to make biblical mention?)

Anyone open to me checking Bal and the Dragon on this? OH NO APOCRYPHA!! lol. and before it's said.. I don't look at the apocrypha books as inerrant words of God.. I see them either as historical, or satanic (book of wisdom **shutter**) Bal and the Dragon is one I see kinda as historical, like reading about George Washington.

Anywhoooooooo, I bet that has a 50/50 chance of changing the topic lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It was pretty clear that Joseph was given a wife and had kids...I would think if that happened to Daniel that there would be some mention of it in the entire book.

I guess I'm simple enough to believe that if he was in a group of eunichs, that he probably WAS one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Forty posts later we have proven nothing.

There is indication that Daniel may have been a eunuch. He was placed under the prince of eunuchs. Does that refer to his rank among eunuchs or does it speak of the office he holds over eunuchs? I dont think any can answer that question with 100% confidence.

Prophecy speaks of the king of Babylon making captives Eunuchs. Is Daniel a fulfillment of that prophecy? It seems very plausible that he might be.

I think it probable that he was. Does this constitute definitive proof? I think not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Forty posts later we have proven nothing.

There is indication that Daniel may have been a eunuch. He was placed under the prince of eunuchs. Does that refer to his rank among eunuchs or does it speak of the office he holds over eunuchs? I dont think any can answer that question with 100% confidence.

Prophecy speaks of the king of Babylon making captives Eunuchs. Is Daniel a fulfillment of that prophecy? It seems very plausible that he might be.

I think it probable that he was. Does this constitute definitive proof? I think not.


That is what gets me, when there is not 100% proof of something, but yet some will say its an absolute truth and will never agree ti disagree on it. That was waht I was working for. :dunno: Not trying to change a mind.

And they are several issues within the cover of the Bible that can not be prove 100% beyond a doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

No one is arguing that it has to be - no question about it - what we are arguing is that it is a possibility based on the passages mentioned, and some others won't even consider the possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Agreed. I would think that it is plausible that Daniel was a eunuch, but noone can say 100% either way. Considering the positions he held, I really don't see that it was critical to his ministry either. He certainly seems to have had much more spiritual fortitude than anyone I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yes, Daniel certainly was a devoted man of God, and he puts many of us to shame!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Forty posts later we have proven nothing.


No one is arguing that it has to be - no question about it - what we are arguing is that it is a possibility based on the passages mentioned' date=' and some others won't even consider the possibility.[/quote']

I haven't really seen anyone get dogmatic about it. I lean one way but yea, I think it's now at about 70/30 he was one, but it's never going to leave the realm of "maybe" without more. And honestly, unless it says he was or was not in some shape or way, it can never be more then 99% on any topic.

Only thing I disagree with on this thread is those who say it's not worth even talking about. Sure it is.. it's bible. And the reason many are on the forums is to put forth what they see, have it talked about, and other people produce scripture to back up or discount it.

I kind find it funny how most of the posts are defending that we're just talking about it. We silly fundimentalists sure are gun shy about over doctrination. Sad to say I bet you really could split a church over even a topic like this one, so I guess it's good we keep the air clean about how trivial this is.

So.. I'll ask again just cuz I don't want anyone mad, but should I check Bal and the Dragon to see if it says anything on this topic? Any Nay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

So.. I'll ask again just cuz I don't want anyone mad' date=' but should I check Bal and the Dragon to see if it says anything on this topic? Any Nay?[/quote']

How would that help resolve or contribute to a Bible discussion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I suppose this is a trivial issue compared to other Bible topics but it is in the Bible and I found it interesting. That is all. I had never noticed it before. If someone doesn't like it, they don't have to read or post. :wink

To me, if the king had summoned his chief baker and said, "Send me some of the best captives", the chief baker would have sent him captives in the kitchen dept., not ones from the laundry dept. Vice-versa. Why would the king call for the person in charge of the eunuchs and ask for the best and the brightest from his dept. if he really wanted someone from the chief gardener's dept. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

God has a way of getting people He wants in the positions He wants them in. Consider Joseph. In his predicament who would have thought he would end up second in command of Egypt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I think this is a very valid discussion. It caused me to think about something I had never considered.

I welcome these kind of discussions. Either position doesnt qualify one as a heretic. new evangelical, or compromiser.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted



I don't look at it as nothing more then a historical book. If it mentions something, by no means does it add to the bible, nor solve an argument, but it is a resource available that is wittings about Daniel from his time. If it mentions something on the topic, worth a look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites