My Goliath Challenge

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Now you have to explain why none of the 700 Israeli experts with a sling took Goliath on. Your story just doesn't add up. The point is NOT that Gath sent "a lumbering tank" into battle, but that Goliath was strong enough to actually fight in his armor. (This is what it means David hadn't "proved" Saul's armor)

Can you do this without making certain assumptions? And how would we know your assumptions are correct, and not delusion?

 

[Jazer]

Goliath may have been a feared warrior in battle, but there is nothing to suggest he was fast.

There are some very big and very fast basket ball players today. But I think in general many big people are rather clumsy. Often they have a small tumor that causes an excessive amount of growth hormone. If you look in the army or navy you will find a lot more small people in the special troops and not that many big people. Small people have less weight to carry so they can often get around a lot easier.

 

[Belk]

Back then, yes.

Today, they have computers to make (and perpetuate) their mistakes for them.

I see. So by this measure everyone in the ancient world used "science" every day to do just about everything in their lives.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I see. So by this measure everyone in the ancient world used "science" every day to do just about everything in their lives.

nm

 

[Jazer]

Now you have to explain why none of the 700 Israeli experts with a sling took Goliath on....

Goliath had an army behind him. The plan was instead of the two armys fighting and a lot of people getting hurt, they would each send their best man to the front to represent all of them.

"Therefore David ran and stood over the Philistine, took his sword and drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it. And when the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled. 52 Now the men of Israel and Judah arose and shouted, and pursued the Philistines as far as the entrance of the valley" 1 Sam 17

 

[razeontherock]

Can you do this without making certain assumptions? And how would we know your assumptions are correct, and not delusion?

It's called hermeneutics. We are to understand the story as the original audience did. Your best way to check this, would be talk to a Rabbi.

Jazer: there's a fancy theological term for the principle you're describing, and it pertains to Christ's expiatory power.

 

[AV1611VET]

I see. So by this measure everyone in the ancient world used "science" every day to do just about everything in their lives.

Just like today.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

It's called hermeneutics. We are to understand the story as the original audience did. Your best way to check this, would be talk to a Rabbi.

Jazer: there's a fancy theological term for the principle you're describing, and it pertains to Christ's expiatory power.

Propper interpretation is one thing, adding certain assumptions to a passage is entirely another. You've made statements that are either supportable, or they're not. Please show where the characteristics you mentioned regarding Goliath are found in scripture. Please use proper exegis this time.

 

[razeontherock]

You pretend Scripture was written in a vacuum. It was not.

 

[Belk]

Just like today.

Indeed, just like today.

I mean, just this morning I scienced myself in to work where I did some science and then I took a break and had some science after which I scienced down to the local science store to buy some science. All perfectly sciencey. Apparently science is the new Smurf.

 

[razeontherock]

Watch out, I'm about to try science! Are we sciencing yet?

 

[Orogeny]

There is everything to know that Goliath was faster than any other warrior Gath had.

Evidence, please. This doesn't mean just saying 'but he must have been'. Actual evidence is required. All evidence available to us today about physical ability, speed is attributed to those within normal variation of average size and not to those who are gigantic. If you would like to make an assertion to the contrary, you must back it with real evidence.

Disagreed. I have used a sling, and you have not.

Check out this guy's reload rate:
Sling target pratice 1 - YouTube

He appears to be an amateur, and both his reload rate and velocity appear to be rather high (I dare say a rock slung at the velocity shown here would do some very real damage if it cracked you in the noggin). Obviously David was not an amateur, so we may safely assume his reload rate, velocity, and accuracy were higher than this character's.

I submit that you just suck at slinging.

 

[Belk]

Watch out, I'm about to try science! Are we sciencing yet?

 

[pgp_protector]

 

[Freodin]

1. Goliath had help; somebody in front of him to defend him, and carry additional weapons. (And Freodin said David broke the rules? )

2. You're suggesting Goliath was Gath's champion because he was slow, and didn't know how to fight? Mmmm, could be, but I ain't buying it. When you understand the rules of engagement your suggestion becomes preposterous.

3. You're trying to get context out of 1 chapter, and the Bible's *a bit* more complex than that. Goliath's society was giants, and his family was giants. In the story, anyway. This is not comparable to modern day freaks who are clumsy. If someone else were more agile and able to fight an Israelite, that's who would've been their "champion." There was too much at stake to fool around.

You (collectively) are ignoring the fact that the point of the story is NOT a sling; there were 700 experts with a sling, who were far more competent to this task than David.

You keep missing the point... < staff edit >
There were rules in these single combats. Unwritten rules, vague rules, but rules nontheless. Else this whole system of challenge and champions would not have worked. The Israelites would not have needed 700 experts with a sling... they could have rushed Goliath with a handful of man and killed him.

But this was not something you did. Single combat meant single combat. And it meant melee combat as well. It was expected that two warriors... the fighters, with armour and weapons... took it out on each other, showing their prowess at arms.

Goliath was able to fight the Israelits, every single one of them. That was why he was the champion. But he - and everyone else - expected to do it in a certain way.

David didn't. He cheated, and he was lucky that the Philistines withdrew instead of punishing him for that breach of etiquette.

 

[Assyrian]

As is any fit adolescent, but Saul was not charging him.

Isn't it easier to throw accurately when you aren't running?

Now you have to explain why none of the 700 Israeli experts with a sling took Goliath on. Your story just doesn't add up.

Read the story, they were terrified. I don't know they were any better at a sling than David, Saul's army was made up of ordinary farmers labourers and shepherds called together for the battle, just like David's brothers and the experts with a sling would have learned out in the hiulls just like David did.

There seems to be a false dichotomy here, that it was either impossible for David to kill Goliath with a sling, or that anyone skilled with a sling could have done it. A more realistic appraisal is that it was possible to kill the heavily armoured lunk with a sling, but that you were much more likely to end up feeding the crows yourself.

The point is NOT that Gath sent "a lumbering tank" into battle, but that Goliath was strong enough to actually fight in his armor. (This is what it means David hadn't "proved" Saul's armor)

The issue is how fast he could run in heavy armour, remember, he even had help carrying his shield. He could kill anybody who came at him in armour and fought him in normal armoured combat. But David fought asymmetrically.

There is everything to know that Goliath was faster than any other warrior Gath had. Or was it all of Philistine? And that he was more aggressive, and ferocious than anyone else they had. These are the properties that win, which is how one becomes a champion. These are synonymous with being intimidating, too!

Try not to just claim Goliath was faster, you need to show some evidence.

Disagreed. I have used a sling, and you have not. If you want to say David would run from Goliath all day like a chicken, through the brush and up the hills, and eventually gain enough distance to get another shot off? We see the story illustrate that is not what David was thinking about ...

In the story he only used one stone, they question is what he would have used the others for if he missed. While I agree he probably wouldn't have had much chance if he missed with the first stone, it was a better chance than if he had to pick up more stones as he was running away.

There is another possibility though, David made a bit of a show picking up the five stones and all the Philistines would have watched his every move as he came down the valley. The other four stones in his bag may have been to discourage any other Philistine trying his luck when David had killed Goliath.

 

[razeontherock]

Goliath was able to fight the Israelits, every single one of them. That was why he was the champion. But he - and everyone else - expected to do it in a certain way.

David didn't. He cheated, and he was lucky that the Philistines withdrew instead of punishing him for that breach of etiquette.

Not only is this not what the story shows, but it's quote the opposite of what it does show.

 

[razeontherock]

Evidence, please. Actual evidence is required. All evidence available to us today about physical ability, speed is attributed to those within normal variation of average size and not to those who are gigantic. If you would like to make an assertion to the contrary, you must back it with real evidence.

< staff edit > . And the guy on a tennis court with a sling in your video? He's not approaching the speed where you gain control, as you can clearly see by his horrible aim. You need to do a minimum of 3 full revolutions, before release. It takes longer than that to shoot.

 

[razeontherock]

Read the story, they were terrified.

There seems to be a false dichotomy here, that it was either impossible for David to kill Goliath with a sling, or that anyone skilled with a sling could have done it. A more realistic appraisal is that it was possible to kill the heavily armoured lunk with a sling, but that you were much more likely to end up feeding the crows yourself.

Exactly! And why wasn't David terrified? Faith vs sight.

In the story he only used one stone, they question is what he would have used the others for if he missed. While I agree he probably wouldn't have had much chance if he missed with the first stone, it was a better chance than if he had to pick up more stones as he was running away.

There is another possibility though, David made a bit of a show picking up the five stones and all the Philistines would have watched his every move as he came down the valley. The other four stones in his bag may have been to discourage any other Philistine trying his luck when David had killed Goliath.

You bet - Goliath had FOUR BROTHERS

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Exactly! And why wasn't David terrified? Faith vs sight.



You bet - Goliath had FOUR BROTHERS

Goliath was most likely the only one with Gigantism.