Guest Guest Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 I thought it was pretty plain' date=' myself, but hey....[/quote'] 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anon Posted January 23, 2008 Members Share Posted January 23, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 5dumplings@home Posted January 23, 2008 Members Share Posted January 23, 2008 Being unmarried is not akin to being a eunuch. A eunuch has a physical change. A single man does not necessarily have that issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anon Posted January 23, 2008 Members Share Posted January 23, 2008 Oh. Okay. So I'm stupid. :lol Then Daniel had a physical change because that's what the Bible says. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted January 23, 2008 Share Posted January 23, 2008 Oh. Okay. So I'm stupid. :lol Then Daniel had a physical change because that's what the Bible says. Lol the Bible never says Daniel was a Eunuch; only Ashpenaz was, according to the Bible. Saying anything more than that is either speculation or outright reading things into the Bible that aren't there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jerry Posted January 23, 2008 Members Share Posted January 23, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anon Posted January 23, 2008 Members Share Posted January 23, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Jerry Posted January 23, 2008 Members Share Posted January 23, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members IM4given Posted January 23, 2008 Members Share Posted January 23, 2008 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: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members qwerty guy Posted January 23, 2008 Members Share Posted January 23, 2008 Where is anyone getting dogmatic or trying to prove anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members JerryNumbers Posted January 23, 2008 Members Share Posted January 23, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anon Posted January 23, 2008 Members Share Posted January 23, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bakershalfdozen Posted January 23, 2008 Author Members Share Posted January 23, 2008 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members qwerty guy Posted January 24, 2008 Members Share Posted January 24, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bakershalfdozen Posted January 24, 2008 Author Members Share Posted January 24, 2008 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.