Jump to content

Photo

Daniel Was A Eunuch


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
57 replies to this topic

#21 Jerry

Jerry

    Mr. Grizzly

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,290 posts
52
Excellent

Posted 23 January 2008 - 03:14 PM

Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

This verse is not referring to Daniel and his friends - but it does go to show that God considers some eunuchs who have made the choice to be celebate for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven.

#22 Kitagrl

Kitagrl

    Long Time Member

  • Moderators
  • 15,816 posts
579
Excellent

Posted 23 January 2008 - 03:17 PM

It would make sense to me that kidnapped young men would be made eunichs in order to serve the king forever. The king would not want them lusting after women when they were supposed to serve him. This was not a saved king so I have no doubt that he did this to all of his young captives, especially since the Bible said that man was the prince of the eunichs...in other words...in charge of all the king's eunichs.

#23 Jerry

Jerry

    Mr. Grizzly

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,290 posts
52
Excellent

Posted 23 January 2008 - 04:38 PM

I agree, Kitagirl - coupled with the prophecy to Hezekiah I think that you have the right conclusion. The king would not exalt commen men or use them as his wise men or counsellors. See this passage as well:

Daniel 1:3-4 And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king's seed, and of the princes; Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king's palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.

#24 IM4given

IM4given

    10,000 post Club

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,977 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 23 January 2008 - 06:03 PM

I rightly don't think you can prove they were eunuchs because they were under the watch, care of a eunuch.

You would need more proof of it than just that.


:amen:

#25 qwerty guy

qwerty guy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 23 January 2008 - 06:06 PM

I rightly don't think you can prove they were eunuchs because they were under the watch, care of a eunuch.

You would need more proof of it than just that.


:amen:


Where is anyone getting dogmatic or trying to prove anything?

#26 JerryNumbers

JerryNumbers

    Life is about Jesus, not self

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,276 posts
2,524
Excellent

Posted 23 January 2008 - 06:31 PM

I thought it was pretty plain, myself, but hey....


The Secret Service is basically in charge of the President, but that doesn't make him a Secret Service operative. Just because they were in the care of the eunuch simply means that he was charged with those men's care, not that they themselves were castrated.


I do not know whether they were castrated but I do think they were eunichs in the sense that they were never married. Like I said...the warden of the concubines was in charge of the beauty contest girls (that's another discussion) and here, the guy in charge of the Eunichs was simply that...in charge of all the Eunichs. Its pretty simple really. No big mystery IMO.


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.

#27 Kitagrl

Kitagrl

    Long Time Member

  • Moderators
  • 15,816 posts
579
Excellent

Posted 23 January 2008 - 06:52 PM

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.

#28 Bakershalfdozen

Bakershalfdozen

    Super Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,872 posts
3
Neutral

Posted 23 January 2008 - 06:55 PM

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

#29 qwerty guy

qwerty guy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 23 January 2008 - 07:00 PM

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


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

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


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.

#30 Bakershalfdozen

Bakershalfdozen

    Super Contributor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,872 posts
3
Neutral

Posted 23 January 2008 - 07:05 PM

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.

#31 JerryNumbers

JerryNumbers

    Life is about Jesus, not self

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,276 posts
2,524
Excellent

Posted 23 January 2008 - 08:34 PM

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.


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.

#32 Kitagrl

Kitagrl

    Long Time Member

  • Moderators
  • 15,816 posts
579
Excellent

Posted 23 January 2008 - 08:37 PM

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!)

#33 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 January 2008 - 09:11 PM

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!)


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.

#34 Madeline

Madeline

    Child of God

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,198 posts
2
Neutral

Posted 23 January 2008 - 09:13 PM

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

#35 JerryNumbers

JerryNumbers

    Life is about Jesus, not self

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,276 posts
2,524
Excellent

Posted 23 January 2008 - 10:09 PM

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!)


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:

#36 Kitagrl

Kitagrl

    Long Time Member

  • Moderators
  • 15,816 posts
579
Excellent

Posted 23 January 2008 - 10:10 PM

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:

#37 JerryNumbers

JerryNumbers

    Life is about Jesus, not self

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,276 posts
2,524
Excellent

Posted 23 January 2008 - 11:59 PM

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.

#38 qwerty guy

qwerty guy

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 545 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 24 January 2008 - 03:07 AM

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

#39 Kitagrl

Kitagrl

    Long Time Member

  • Moderators
  • 15,816 posts
579
Excellent

Posted 24 January 2008 - 08:27 AM

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.

#40 JAHinton

JAHinton

    Advanced Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPip
  • 126 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 24 January 2008 - 10:55 AM

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.




The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500