My Goliath Challenge

[Freodin]

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

No, it is exactly what the story shows:

1Sam 17:43 "And the Philistine said unto David, Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves? "

Goliath expected David to engage him in melee combat, and ridiculed him for his choice of weapon. He did not expect David to shoot him from afar, he didn't make any mention at all of having recognized the sling that David had.

 

[Assyrian]

34 But David said to Saul, “Your servant used to keep his father’s sheep, and when a lion or a bear came and took a lamb out of the flock, 35 I went out after it and struck it, and delivered the lamb from its mouth; and when it arose against me, I caught it by its beard, and struck and killed it. 36 Your servant has killed both lion and bear; and this uncircumcised Philistine will be like one of them, seeing he has defied the armies of the living God.”

So the first time David strikes the lion, he is able to take a lamb out of its mouth, then the lion attacked David. What? The lion isn't dead and David can take a lamb from its mouth? The lion was clearly annoyed by this turn of events, so why didn't it do anything while David was opening its mouth and stealing its dinner? Could it be that David's first strike left the lion stunned and it only attacked him when it regained consciousness? Would explain why David made sure with Goliath, and chopped his head off even though there was a stone embedded in his forehead.

But the biggest problem for Raze is that he is trying to show David wasn't skilled with a sling, but his only evidence is the claim David didn't use a sling against the bear and lion, but the text doesn't say that.

 

[Cromulent]

Goliath was ill-prepared to fight an agile opponent armed with a sling, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a formidable warrior. If the Israelites had tried to fight him on his own terms, with a slow-moving, heavily-armoured tank of a lad, he could well have won. Similarly, if David was fighting a man on horseback, he could easily have been charged down before he could get a decent shot away. There is no such thing as a perfect warrior. All have vulnerabilities. David vs. Goliath is a good example of the exploitation of those vulnerabilities.

 

[Tinker Grey]

< staff edit >
If you think someone is missing the point, wouldn't it be useful for you to attempt to explain your point?

 

[razeontherock]

Been doing that for pages. The most basic level to this story, is Faith vs sight. Right where the thread began.

"Sight," aka natural reasoning which later developed into science, said "run away!"

Faith, said it's just a killer rabbit; now where's the Holy hand grenade?

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

No, it is exactly what the story shows:

1Sam 17:43 "And the Philistine said unto David, Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves? "

Goliath expected David to engage him in melee combat, and ridiculed him for his choice of weapon. He did not expect David to shoot him from afar, he didn't make any mention at all of having recognized the sling that David had.

I find it extremely unlikely that Goliath wouldn't have recognized a sling as an iron age soldier. It seems a lot more likely that he was just mocking David. He probably believed himself to be a hero like the ones who are found in a lot of Greek mythology (the Phillistines were a culture spawned from the Greek diaspora). Level of armor and weaponry was also seen as a measure of social status in the ancient world. In fact, the ability to purchase armor was how classes were divided in the Roman Republican prior to military reforms that took place later on near its end. A soldier who was probably wearing enough armor for it to be impractical was quite wealthy, and would have looked down on an individual who was (from all appearances) unable to afford armor or weaponry beyond a sling. Although slings were powerful, they were also very simple and some people probably just built their own as opposed to actually buying them.

It's also likely that he viewed the God of the Israelites in a negative light and, since trial by combat was often supposed to be an oracle, he probably thought that his gods would help him to win the battle.

 

[Assyrian]

Been doing that for pages. The most basic level to this story, is Faith vs sight. Right where the thread began.

"Sight," aka natural reasoning which later developed into science, said "run away!"

Faith, said it's just a killer rabbit; now where's the Holy hand grenade?

So atheists in a war who don't run away, do they have faith too?

David certainly had faith, and this faith gave him courage and confidence. But what I don't see is any abandonment of sight or science. He trusted God to guide him in his use of stone age technology. The Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch was still a hand grenade.

 

[sandwiches]

Been doing that for pages. The most basic level to this story, is Faith vs sight. Right where the thread began.

I hate bickering online, raze, but look at your posting history. It can be summarized into the following phrases: "You're wrong." "You're not reading it right." "That's not what it says." Which all basically mean the same thing.

You have yet to give us anything corroborating your claim.

 

[Freodin]

I find it extremely unlikely that Goliath wouldn't have recognized a sling as an iron age soldier.

Yes, it seems I used a wrong term here. Perhaps it would have been better to say, Goliath did not acknowledge the sling. He was set on close combat and thus didn't even give a thought to the notion that he would not be met in this way.

It seems a lot more likely that he was just mocking David. He probably believed himself to be a hero like the ones who are found in a lot of Greek mythology (the Phillistines were a culture spawned from the Greek diaspora). Level of armor and weaponry was also seen as a measure of social status in the ancient world. In fact, the ability to purchase armor was how classes were divided in the Roman Republican prior to military reforms that took place later on near its end. A soldier who was probably wearing enough armor for it to be impractical was quite wealthy, and would have looked down on an individual who was (from all appearances) unable to afford armor or weaponry beyond a sling. Although slings were powerful, they were also very simple and some people probably just built their own as opposed to actually buying them.

It's also likely that he viewed the God of the Israelites in a negative light and, since trial by combat was often supposed to be an oracle, he probably thought that his gods would help him to win the battle.

I agree wholeheartly.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Yes, it seems I used a wrong term here. Perhaps it would have been better to say, Goliath did not acknowledge the sling. He was set on close combat and thus didn't even give a thought to the notion that he would not be met in this way.

It's alright; I just didn't realize what you were saying here. I believe that Goliath probably did refuse to acknowledge the threat from a sling because he very likely had delusions of grandeur and perceived himself as a hero if not a demi-god. He probably understood that it was dangerous, but believed that it wasn't dangerous enough to kill someone like himself.

 

[razeontherock]

I doubt that he didn't think that it was possible for him to be met in semi-long range combat, though. His weapon was a thrown spear, after all, and the field wasn't so large that he couldn't lob it accurately over the distance (since David had to dodge twice).

Your understanding reflects sound hermeneutics. The only exception I take is what I bolded here. Are you sure that's from this story, and not from David's encounter with Saul?

 

[razeontherock]

Not debating. And why would I need to present something that corroborates? It's true anyway.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No, it's not. See how convincing argument by assertion works.

 

[Orogeny]

Not debating. And why would I need to present something that corroborates? It's true anyway.

So then you can't present any corroborating evidence for your claims. < staff edit >

 

[razeontherock]

Didn't say that. Just not debating. < staff edit >

 

[razeontherock]

Thinking the Bible discloses it's own hermeneutics is pretense.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Your understanding reflects sound hermeneutics. The only exception I take is what I bolded here. Are you sure that's from this story, and not from David's encounter with Saul?

My bad :head-desk:

I've deleted that part. I would still say that the Philistine's acceptance of the battle rules out the possibility that it was just David assassinating Goliath from over a thousand feet away, though. They apparently took it as a divine sign that they had lost, since they fled rather than accusing David of cheating and going on with the battle.

 

[razeontherock]

My bad :head-desk:

I've deleted that part. I would still say that the Philistine's acceptance of the battle rules out the possibility that it was just David assassinating Goliath from over a thousand feet away, though. They apparently took it as a divine sign that they had lost, since they fled rather than accusing David of cheating and going on with the battle.

Very much agreed with all that! the notion of David "cheating" just ins't to be found.
Here's the thing though - they were supposed to stay and be Israel's servants! Nobody has commented on that? And Israel wasn't supposed to go killing them in pursuit, either; although I don't think they would've been too comfortable having Philistine slaves around.

I think this aspect of the story just shows Israel's enemies to be entirely untrustworthy.

 

[Freodin]

Very much agreed with all that! the notion of David "cheating" just ins't to be found.
Here's the thing though - they were supposed to stay and be Israel's servants! Nobody has commented on that? And Israel wasn't supposed to go killing them in pursuit, either; although I don't think they would've been too comfortable having Philistine slaves around.

I think this aspect of the story just shows Israel's enemies to be entirely untrustworthy.

In this case you have to take into account that the authors of this story were not unbiased reporters.

 

[razeontherock]

In this case you have to take into account that the authors of this story were not unbiased reporters.

It really makes more sense to read such stories at face value, to see what they're trying to convey. It's not like anyone can furnish "evidence" one way or the other, which is a silly request in this case. Mix and match your literary approach, and you come up with nothing useful.