Following my previous note, here, just for reference, are all the compounds of εὐνοῦχος in the standard classical Greek dictionary (LSJ: Liddell & Scott). (Note how the concept is used for dates without pits and melons without seeds, but goodness knows

what the emasculating lettuce is.) The word that Matthew is using is εὐνουχιζω - eunuchidzo - to eunuchize.

Is Matthew using it literally or metaphorically? Who knows for absolutely sure, but I think literally. New Testament Greek, particularly in the Gospels, is earthy, simple and direct, and it is best to give words their plain meaning. in Patristic Greek (ie, the early Church Fathers) the term is used both literally and metaphorically - for a summary see the entry s.v. εὐνοῦχος in GWH Lαmpe᾽s wonderful Dictionary of Patristic Greek. The term was of course used literally in the famous First Canon of the Council of Nicaea, 325 AD. For an early Christian writer's use of the concept, see Clement of Alexandria's Stromata Book III (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... glish.html and do a word-search for 'eunuch') He basically says that giving up sex is only virtuous if you do if for God.

To go bck to the first question, it would be very difficult to read penectomy into any of this, though of course one can read the Bible as one likes...

εὐνουχ-εῖον , τό, a kind of

A. lettuce, = ἀστυτίς, Plin. HN19.127.

εὐνουχ-ίας , ου, ὁ,

A. like a eunuch, impotent, Hp.Aër.22, Arist.GA746b24.

II. metaph., of a melon without seeds, opp. σπερματίας, Pl.Com.64.4; εὐ. κάλαμοι reeds without inflorescence, Thphr.HP4.11.4.

εὐνουχ-ίζω ,

A. castrate, τινα Ev.Matt.19.12 (Act. and Pass.), Luc.Sat. 12, etc.; “γυναῖκας” Xanth.19: metaph., “γῆν” Philostr.V A6.42; “φάρμακον” Archig. ap.Orib.8.2.8:—Pass., Gal.4.570, D.C.68.2.

εὐνουχ-ισμός , ὁ,

A. castration, Gal.4.576:

εὐνουχ-ιστής , οῦ, ὁ,

A. castrator, Gloss.

εὐνουχ-ιστέον ,

A. one must defertilize, “τοὺς μόσχους” Gp.17.8.2.

εὐνουχοειδής , ές,

A. like a eunuch, Hp.Aër.22 (Sup.):—also εὐνουχώδης , ες, Philostr. VS1.25.9, Aët.16.26, Suid. s.v. ἄρρεν.

Origen (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:32 pm εὐνοῦχος , ὁ, (εὐνή, ἔχω)

A. castrated person, eunuch, employed to take charge of the women and act as chamberlain (whence the name, ὁ τὴν εὐνὴν ἔχων), Hdt.3.130, al., Ar.Ach. 117, X.Cyr.7.5.60, etc.

2. of animals, Philostr.Her.1.3, Sch.Par.A.R.1.585.

3. of dates, without stones, Arist.Fr.267:—Pythag. name for θρίδαξ, Lycusap. Ath.2.69e.

II. as Adj., watching the bed, sleepless, “λαμπάδες εὐνούχοισιν ὄμμασιν” S.Fr.789.

ἀρχι-ευνοῦχος , ὁ,

A. chief of the eunuchs, ib.Da.1.3, Hld.8.3.

2135 {eunoûchos} a castrated person

i think it has to be literal. There is also mention of the ethiopian eunuch in Acts chapter 8 -

Acts 8:38 (KJV)

And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

It can't just meant that this ethiopian was unmarried. There are plenty of unmarried men in the Bible, that are not referred to as eunuchs. i think it just freaks a lot of Bible readers out too much, the idea of becoming a literal eunuch, so they have to twist Matthew 19:12 in their own minds to make it not literal.

In several places in the New Testament, we already read the words 'unmarried', and 'virgin', and 'chaste'. So i don't think 'eunuch' is symbolically just referring to remaining unmarried, or chaste, or a virgin, since those words are already used elsewhere in Scripture.

Many translations of the bible treat this passage differently. The Good News Translation has this:

12 For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some, because they were born that way; others, because men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so.”

The King James Version has this:

12

lust-ocd (imported) wrote: Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:06 pm 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 h

devi (imported) wrote: Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:03 pm ave mad

cheetaking243 (impor [/quote] ted) wrote: Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:06 pm 1354983840]
e themselves eunuchs for the king

dom of

heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

And the New International version has this:

12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

So Born that way, (I have rarely heard of this, being born without and not being female) having this done to you, I suspect slaves and defeated warriors mostly back then, cancer patients today, and those who would do so for faith. you could have done that back in the day, but today you would be regarded as a danger to yourself.

Eunuchorn (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:49 pm Many translations of the bible treat this passage differently. The Good News Translation has this:

12 For there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some, because they were born that way; others, because men made them that way; and others do not marry for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so.”

The King James Version has this:

12

lust-ocd (imported) wrote: Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:06 pm 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 h

Eunuchorn (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:49 pm

devi (imported) wrote: Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:03 pm ave mad

cheetaking243 (impor [/quote] ted) wrote: Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:06 pm 1354983840]
e themselves eunuchs for the king

dom of

heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

And the New International version has this:

12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

So Born that way, (I have rarely heard of this, being born without and not being female) having this don

e to you, I suspect slaves and defeated warriors mostly back then, cancer patients today, and those who would do so for faith. you could have done that back in the day, but today you would be regarded as a danger to yourself.

Yep. There are about 450 new bible versions, based on the Greek text from Alexandria, Egypt. All of them counterfeits, in my opinion. But the King James Bible is based on the received Greek text from Antioch, the place where they were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). For this reason, i only regard the King James Bible as Holy, and all of the new versions ascounterfeits. So i'm not influenced at all by what the new versions put for Matthew 19:12. At my baptism, they gave me an NIV study bible, and it went straight in the rubbish bin when i got home. And reading from the King James, it definately reads like it's speaking about literal eunuchs. But yes you're right, it depends which version you read, since all 450 new versions say completely different things to each other.

Look what a pigs ear 'the message' bible makes of Matthew 19:12 -

Matthew 19:12But Jesus said, “Not everyone is mature enough to live a married life. It requires a certain aptitude and grace. Marriage isn’t for everyone. Some, from birth seemingly, never give marriage a thought. Others never get asked—or accepted. And some decide not to get married for kingdom reasons. But if you’re capable of growing into the largeness of marriage, do it.”

i don't think

lust-ocd (imported) wrote: Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:06 pm t

Eunuchorn (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:49 pm hat Jesus said any of that... but this -

Matthew 19

devi (imported) wrote: Sun Dec 09, 2012 3:03 pm :12 (KJB)

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from thei

r mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which w

ere made eunuchs of men: and there be e

lust-ocd (imported) wrote: Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:06 pm unuchs, which have mad[quote="cheetaking243 (imported)" time=135498

3840]
e themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of
[/quote]
heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it , let him receive it.

lust-ocd (imported) wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:53 pm Hi Knightbird111, i couldnt reply to the private message you sent me, because it says you cant receive messages, so i have to answer you here. Yep, i'm a Christian. If you want to stop masturbation, first stopALL porn, and even stop watching things with partial nudity in, like hollywood movies, sexy music videos etc. And just it all settles down. But if you don't stop porn, it's not even possible to stop masturbation! Stop porn, and watch lust settle down.

These following verses are what cured my masturbation addiction literally on the spot. After i read these verses a year ago, i never masturbated again, not once. Because i knew it would be willful sin (you can't accidentally masturbate) and that therefore i could not do it even once for the rest of my life -

Hebrews 10:26-29 (KJV)

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, [27] But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. [28] He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: [29] Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

So you said about wanting to overcome the sin of masturbation. Well the sin of fornication is ANY sexual activity outside of marriage. So yes, becoming a eunuch is one option. Or you could just get married instead? -

1 Corinthians 7:2 (KJV)

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

So if you cannot contain your lust, and are constantly burning with lust, marriage is also an option for you, not just becoming a eunuch. Maybe marriage is a better option for you, than becoming a eunuch? Think about it.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9 (KJV)

I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. [9] But if they cannot contain, let them ma

Slammr (imported) wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:23 pm rry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Origen (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2012 6:05 am

Jesus wanted this thread

kept open? That might be OK, if you shut this guy down.

Following my previous note, here, just for reference, are all the compounds of εὐνοῦχος in the standard classical Greek dictionary (LSJ: Liddell & Scott). (Note how the concept is used for dates without pits and melons without seeds, but goodness knows

what the emasculating lettuce is.) The word that Matthew is using is εὐνουχιζω - eunuchidzo - to eunuchize.

Is Matthew using it literally or metaphorically? Who knows for absolutely sure, but I think literally. New Testament Greek, particularly in the Gospels, is earthy, simple and direct, and it is best to give words their plain meaning. in Patristic Greek (ie, the early Church Fathers) the term is used both literally and metaphorically - for a summary see the entry s.v. εὐνοῦχος in GWH Lαmpe᾽s wonderful Dictionary of Patristic Greek. The term was of course used literally in the famous First Canon of the Council of Nicaea, 325 AD. For an early Christian writer's use of the concept, see Clement of Alexandria's Stromata Book III (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... glish.html and do a word-search for 'eunuch') He basically says that giving up sex is only virtuous if you do if for God.

To go bck to the first question, it would be very difficult to read penectomy into any of this, though of course one can read the Bible as one likes...

εὐνουχ-εῖον , τό, a kind of

A. lettuce, = ἀστυτίς, Plin. HN19.127.

εὐνουχ-ίας , ου, ὁ,

A. like a eunuch, impotent, Hp.Aër.22, Arist.GA746b24.

II. metaph., of a melon without seeds, opp. σπερματίας, Pl.Com.64.4; εὐ. κάλαμοι reeds without inflorescence, Thphr.HP4.11.4.

εὐνουχ-ίζω ,

A. castrate, τινα Ev.Matt.19.12 (Act. and Pass.), Luc.Sat. 12, etc.; “γυναῖκας” Xanth.19: metaph., “γῆν” Philostr.V A6.42; “φάρμακον” Archig. ap.Orib.8.2.8:—Pass., Gal.4.570, D.C.68.2.

εὐνουχ-ισμός , ὁ,

A. castration, Gal.4.576:

εὐνουχ-ιστής , οῦ, ὁ,

A. castrator, Gloss.

εὐνουχ-ιστέον ,

A. one must defertilize, “τοὺς μόσχους” Gp.17.8.2.

εὐνουχοειδής , ές,

A. like a eunuch, Hp.Aër.22 (Sup.):—also εὐνουχώδης , ες, Philostr. VS1.25.9, Aët.16.26, Suid. s.v. ἄρρεν.

Origen (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 13, 2012 9:32 pm εὐνοῦχος , ὁ, (εὐνή, ἔχω)

A. castrated person, eunuch, employed to take charge of the women and act as chamberlain (whence the name, ὁ τὴν εὐνὴν ἔχων), Hdt.3.130, al., Ar.Ach. 117, X.Cyr.7.5.60, etc.

2. of animals, Philostr.Her.1.3, Sch.Par.A.R.1.585.

3. of dates, wit[quote="Origen

lust-ocd (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2012 7:44 am (imported)" time=1355943900]
hout stones, Arist.Fr.267:—Pythag. name for θρίδαξ, Lycusap. Ath.2.

69e.

II. as Adj., watching the bed, sleepless, “λαμπάδες εὐνούχοισιν ὄμμασιν” S.Fr.789.

ἀρχι-ευνοῦχος , ὁ,

A. chief of the eunuchs, ib.Da.1.3, Hld.8.3.

2135 {eunoûchos} a castrated person

i think it has to be literal. There is also mention of the ethiopian eunuch in Acts chapter 8 -

Acts 8:38 (KJV)

And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

It can't just meant that this ethiopian was unmarried. There are plenty of unmarried men in the Bible, that are not referred to as eunuchs. i think it just freaks a lot of Bible readers out too much, the idea of becoming a literal eunuch, so they have to twist Matthew 19:1

Eunuchorn (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:49 pm 2 in their own minds to make it not literal.

In several places in the New Testament, we already read the words 'unmarried', and 'virgin', and 'chaste'. So i don't think 'eunuch' is symbolically just referring to remaining unmarried, or chaste, or a virgin, since those words are already used elsewhere in Scripture.

Many translations of the bible treat this passage diff
[/quote]

lust-ocd (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:20 pm erently. The Good News Translation has this:

12 Fo

r there are different reasons why men cannot marry: some, bec

lust-ocd (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:20 pm ause they were born that way; others, because men made them that way; and others do not marry fo

Eunuchorn (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:49 pm r the sake of the Kingdom of heaven. Let him who can accept this teaching do so.”

The King James Version has this:

12

lust-ocd (imported) wrote: Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:06 pm 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 h

dom of

heaven's sake. He that is able t

o receive it, let him receive it.

And the New International version has this:

12 For there are eunuch

s who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom o

Paolo wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:03 pm f heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

So Born that way, (I have rarely heard of this, being bor

n without and not being female) having this done to you, I suspect slaves and defeated warriors mostly back then, cancer patients today, and those who would do so for faith. you could have done that back in the day, but today you would be regarded as a danger to yourself.

Just so you know, Knightbird crossed a big red line here and got himself IP banned.

Thanks for your input, though.

I really DO NOT believe this, but this POST is JUST to PISS OFF people who like to barge into MY bedroom and critique OUR 40+ year relationship dragging Jesus out of the Bible written by MEN doing a VERY BAD impersonation of him misrepresenting him in every way possible, and even pretending that they are him to achieve their OWN PRIDEFUL NEED TO CONTROL HUMANITY.

It never fails to amaze me what GREEK scholars cum up with. They are so, excuse the expression, ANAL ORIENTED... I guess that they just like it "GREEK"



ENJOY!!! (http://media.beta.photobucket.com/user/ ... rt=1&o=249)

lust-ocd (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:20 pm Yep. There are about 450 new bible versions, based on the Greek text from Alexandria, Egypt. All of them counterfeits, in my opinion. But the King James Bible is based on the received Greek text from Antioch, the place where they were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). For this reason, i only regard the King James Bible as Holy, and all of the new versions ascounterfeits. So i'm not influenced at all by what the new versions put for Matthew 19:12. At my baptism, they gave me an NIV study bible, and it went straight in the rubbish bin when i got home. And reading from the King James, it definately reads like it's speaking about literal eunuchs. But yes you're right, it depends which version you read, since all 450 new versions say completely different things to each other.

Look what a pigs ear 'the message' bible makes of Matthew 19:12 -

Matthew 19:12But Jesus said, “Not everyone is mature enough to live a married life. It requires a certain aptitude and grace. Marriage isn’t for everyone. Some, from birth seemingly, never give marriage a thought. Others never get asked—or accepted. And some decide not to get married for kingdom reasons. But if you’re capable of growing into the largeness of marriage, do it.”

i don't think

that Jesus said any of that... but this -

Matthew 19:12 (KJB

lust-ocd (imported) wrote: Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:06 pm )

For there

lust-ocd (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:20 pm are some eunuchs, which were so born from their moth

er's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuch

lust-ocd (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:20 pm s of men: and there be eunuchs, which h

Eunuchorn (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2012 12:49 pm

ave mad

[quote="cheetaking243 (imported)" time=

lust [/quote] -ocd (imported) wrote:Sun Dec 09, 2012 12:06 pm 1354983840]
e themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of

heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it , let him receive it.

I do not rely on the KJV only for an amusing reason. My dad, when he was younger, was a SCUBA/skin diver. things like Sea Hunt were still on TV. So what? well, the King James version has this to say:Proverbs 20:10 Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD.

The New International Version has this to say: Differing weights and differing measures—the Lord detests them both.

So, until recently, I was sure that Lloyd Bridges was going to hell because the Lord hates Divers.

So, Yes, lust-ocd, Translations matter.

Eunuchorn (imported) wrote: Sun Dec 23, 2012 7:32 pm I do not rely on the KJV only for an amusing reason. My dad, when he was younger, was a SCUBA/skin diver. things like Sea Hunt were still on TV. So what? well, the King James version has this to say:Proverbs 20:10 Divers weights, and divers measures, both of them are alike abomination to the LORD.

The New International Version has this to say: Differing weights and differing measures—the Lord detests them both.

So, until recently, I was sure that Lloyd Bridges was going to hell because the Lord hates Divers.

So, Yes, lust-ocd, Translations matter.

Thanks, that made me chuckle. Diverse, scuba divers lol

But it's not even that the same thing is just being translated differently inndifferent versions,but that they literally say the exact opposite things. For example -

Hosea 11:12 (NIV) ...And Judah is unruly against God,even against the faithful Holy One.

Hosea 11:12(KJV) ...but Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the saints.

Which one is true? They can't both be true. A lot of new versions say that someguy called Elhanan killed Goliath, when even a child knows it was David. TheNIV is popular, but unfortunately it has 64,098 words removed, and has bizarre alterations like this -

Proverbs 26:10 (NIV) Like an archer who wounds at random is one who hires a fool or any passer-by.

Proverbs 26:10 (KJV)

The great God that formed all things both rewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors.

They are not even remotely the same!

So i guess i'm done with this thread. It's completely pointless discussing the meaning of Matthew 19:12 here, unless we are all agreed which Bible version is the perfect and preserved word of God. But that's not a debate for this eunuch forum. Just research 'Wescott and Hort', if you want to know.

lust-ocd (imported) wrote: Tue Dec 25, 2012 12:36 pm Thanks, that made me chuckle. Diverse, scuba divers lol

But it's not even that the same thing is just being translated differently inndifferent versions,but that they literally say the exact opposite things. For example -

Hosea 11:12 (NIV) ...And Judah is unruly against God,even against the faithful Holy One.

Hosea 11:12(KJV) ...but Judah yet ruleth with God, and is faithful with the saints.

Which one is true? They can't both be true. A lot of new versions say that someguy called Elhanan killed Goliath, when even a child knows it was David. TheNIV is popular, but unfortunately it has 64,098 words removed, and has bizarre alterations like this -

Proverbs 26:10 (NIV) Like an archer who wounds at random is one who hires a fool or any passer-by.

Proverbs 26:10 (KJV)

The great God that formed all things both rewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors.

They are not even remotely the same!

So i guess i'm done with this thread. It's completely pointless discussing the meaning of Matthew 19:12 here, unless we are all agreed which Bible version is the perfect and preserved word of God. But that's not a debate for this eunuch forum. Just research 'Wescott and Hort', if you want to know.

I am sorry, that was cleared up for me only recently. The divers business, I mean. I knew there had been pearl and abalone divers in biblical times, and they were active in what they did. I had figured that they were either promiscuous or did some other thing that God disapproved of.

lust-ocd (imported) wrote: Thu Dec 20, 2012 5:20 pm Yep. There are about 450 new bible versions, based on the Greek text from Alexandria, Egypt. All of them counterfeits, in my opinion. But the King James Bible is based on the received Greek text from Antioch, the place where they were first called Christians (Acts 11:26). For this reason, i only regard the King James Bible as Holy, and all of the new versions as

counterfeits. .

There are, at last count, 5,488 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament of which, 96 are papyrus fragments, and 299 uncial parchment MSS. The remainder are MSS in late miniscule writing. A critical edition, attempting to reconstruct the earliest form is based on a comparison of these sources, the quality of which depends on the scope of the sources and the intelligence of the editor. The KJV of 1611 purports to be a translation of the the original languages based on the oldest MSS "diligently compared." For English scholars of the seventeenth century, that phrase definitely means that they consulted the fifth century New Testament now housed in the British Library called the Codex Alexandrinus (A in the standard sigla). In point of fact, though the translators use the date of A as one of the selling points to claim authenticity and accuracy for their product, they in fact relied on the then "received text," a printed version put out by Erasmus of Rotterdam at Basel in 1516 through 1535 purporting to use early MSS but in truth reprinting only very late and questionable sources. For example, Erasmus's text (and therefore the KJV) adds to the Lord's Prayer the syntactically meaningless doxology "and the kingdom and the power and the glory forever." Because all of the extant MSS agree that the preceding clause prays "deliver us from evil" adding "and the kingdom and the power and the glory forever" would mean that the speaker is praying for God to deliver (or save) him (or her) not only from evil but also from "the kingdom and the power and the glory." These are usually taken to mean the kingdom of heaven, the power of faith or God and the glory of salvation or Heaven. To ask to be delivered (or saved) from salvation makes no logical sense and theologically approaches mindlessness if not blasphemy.

The current textus receptus refers to Lachmann's 1831 edition or its sequel, Tischendorf's Leipzig edition of 1869-72, so to claim that the KJV represents that text is chronologically impossible. And the idea that the KJV represents anything like an original, pristine, or exceptionally orthodox text is nonsense. One can admire the KJV for the sonority of the language, much of which was taken over word for word from Tyndale's earlier translation (a sign, by the way, that the translators were not deeply engaged in original scholarship or deep understanding or analysis of the text but merely like school boys doing their homework, trying to produce text for a powerful outside authority).

If you aspire to an authentic or "holy" version of the text, then why rely on any translation? Tischendorf's Greek text is still in print and very little changed since 1872. There is also a remarkably clear facsimile of the Codex Sinaiticus (the oldest complete New Testament) and if you bother to learn Greek, you can read that quite easily.

Just to be sure, I consulted the Sinaiticus and the text is virtually the same as the Textus Receptus.

Tischendorf:

εἰσὶ γὰρ εὐνοῦχοι, οἵτινεc ἐκ κοιλίαc μητρὸc ἐγεννήθησαν οὕτω· καί εἰσὶ εὐνοῦχοι, οἵτινεc εὐνουχίσθησαν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων· καί εἰσὶ εὐνοῦχοι, οἵτινεc εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτοὺc, διὰ τὴν βασιλειάν τῶν οὐρανῶν. ὁ δυνάμενοc χωρεῖν χωρείτω.

Sinaiticus:

ΕΙΣΙΝ γαρ ΕΥΝΟΥΧΟΙ ΟΙΤΙΝΕΣ ΕΚ ΚΟΙΛΙΑΣ ΜΗΤΡΟΣ ΕΓΕΝΝΗΘΗΣΑΝ ΟΥΤΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΙΣΙ ΕΥΝΟΥΧΟΙ ΟΙΤΙΝΕΣ ΕΥΝΟΥΧΙΣΘΗΣΑΝ ΥΠΟ ΤΩΝ ΑΝΘΡΩΠΩΝ ΚΑΙ ΕΙΣΙ ΕΥΝΟΥΧΟΙ ΟΙΤΙΝΕΣ ΕΥΝΟΥΧΙΣΑΝ ΕΑΥΤΟΥΣ, ΔΙΑ ΤΗΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΑΝ ΤΩΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΩΝ Ο ΔΥΝΑΜΕΝΟΣ ΧΩΡΙΝ ΧΩΡΙΤΩ

The only differences are that the particle gar was supplied by a later hand in Sinaiticus and that as a result the verb eisi 'they are' has the optional nu at the end. Also the diphthong ei in χωρεῖν χωρείτω is given its fourth century raised monophthongal pronunciation and therefore is spelled with an iota rather than a diphthong, χωρῖν χωρίτω.

The notion that there were significant differences in the Greek texts is not supported by the textual evidence. These texts remain stable over a considerable period of time.

And yes, eunuch/eunoukhos certainly means a male without genitals. Any effort to read that meaning out of the text reduces the argument to the claim that the writer, who by the way was not a native speaker of Greek, could not express his thoughts clearly in Greek, but that path would force you to conclude that the entire text is worthless, because if he is unable to say what he means in Greek, then the Greek is meaningless and so is the text. The claim is that men lack genitialia, some from birth (conditions called undescended testes or intersex states with no scrotal development), some made that way (that is males castrated by others ie slaves or prisoners of war) or those who are self-castrated. The real puzzle is the last clause "he who being able to accept, let him accept." Accept what? The practice of self-castration? This bit of information?