Simple question.

[ebia]

try substituting the definition I gave for the word "kill", or murder and you get:

Thou shalt not unlawfully take the life of another.

If you insist that the ten commandments must stand alone, without context or understanding, then you have a problem - however the commandments were the law given to Moses, who also gave the Levitical codes. Your self imposed stricture that the commandments must exist in a vacume creates the problem, not God's giving of the Law.

But its still an empty statement. The whole point of a law is that you shouldn't break it, so "don't do [anything] unlawful" is a waste of space - it tells us nothing.

 

[Chaucer]

May be you took that from NIV. "Goliath the Gittite" refers to the brother of Goliath. Look it up in a study bible. The language is more simpler in there. Look it up in KJV. The more reliable yet much harder language. It address as, "Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite"

I have a KJV and a New KJV. However checking the NIV, NASB, MSG, AMP and ASV I see that they all say nothing about "the brother of Goliath" but instead say just plain Goliath.

I have heard that the translators of the KJV recognized the internal contradiction and inserted the word "brother" where there was none in the ancient manuscripts. Additionally I have also heard that some of the new translations had access to more and older manuscripts than did the KJV translators.

Not owning any ancient manuscripts myself, I have to rely on others.

 

[Breetai]

I have heard that the translators of the KJV recognized the internal contradiction and inserted the word "brother" where there was none in the ancient manuscripts.

That is true.

Additionally I have also heard that some of the new translations had access to more and older manuscripts than did the KJV translators.

That is also true.
Actually, I'm impressed that you've bothered to put some research into this. Since you seem to have done some homework, then I'm sure that you've looked up 1 Chronicles 20:5. It's the same story, except in this one, in the Hebrew, the word "brother" is there. That does make a bit of a contradiction between the two different passages. We can therefore conclude that the verse in 2 Samual was simply a copiest error. Elhanan killed Goliath's brother and David killed Goliath.

 

[Rev. Smith]

But its still an empty statement. The whole point of a law is that you shouldn't break it, so "don't do [anything] unlawful" is a waste of space - it tells us nothing.

Drive means never using your car
Drive too fast would be subjective
Drive in excess of the speed limit means do what is lawfully posted - the instrruction takes context from elsewhere : a command to drive at or below a certain speed, the speed being provided to you later.

 

[Chaucer]

That is true. That is also true.
Actually, I'm impressed that you've bothered to put some research into this. Since you seem to have done some homework, then I'm sure that you've looked up 1 Chronicles 20:5. It's the same story, except in this one, in the Hebrew, the word "brother" is there. That does make a bit of a contradiction between the two different passages. We can therefore conclude that the verse in 2 Samual was simply a copiest error. Elhanan killed Goliath's brother and David killed Goliath.

That’s one possibility but not the only possibility and there are several problems with it.

In the the version of the story where David is protrayed as the slayer of Goliath, after Goliath is killed, Sauls says:

“Whose son is this youth? And Abner said, As thy soul liveth, O king, I cannot tell. And the king said, Inquire thou whose son the stripling is. (1 Sam. 17:55, 56)

If David had killed Goliath, Saul would have already known who he was since David was already a favorite in Saul’s court as previously mentioned in the story:

“And David came to Saul, and stood before him: and he loved him greatly; and he became his armourbearer. And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, Let David, I pray thee, stand before me; for he hath found favour in my sight. (1 Sam. 16:21-22.)

David even played the harp for Saul. Later in the story Saul himself sent David out to fight Goliath but then after Goliath is killed Saul doesn’t know who David is.

How can that be?

Additionally David took Goliath’s head to Saul in Jerusalem. But according to the Bible, Jerusalem was controled by the Jebusites and didn’t come into Israelite hands until after Saul when David was king so Saul wouldn’t have been in Jerusalem. So it sounds like David was already king when Goliath was killed, making it likely that somebody else battled with Goliath.

If that is not enough the David story says that Goliath was 10 feet tall (4 cubits and a span) - come on, 10 feet, really? Older DDS say that he was 6 foot 9 inches, still huge but believable.

Then there is the part of the story where David wants to marry Saul’s daughter. Saul asks for a marriage present of one hundred Philistine foreskins, thinking that David will get killed in the process. David not only kills 100 hundred Philistines and desecrates their bodies by lopping off their foreskins, he goes one further and kills and mutilates another 100. Sounds like an exaggeration.

The hero being sent on impossible mission is a common motiff or ancient literature (Jason and the golden fleece, Perseus and the head of Medusa).

The slaying of Goliath is also remeniscent of another motiff, that is the slaying of giants by members of “The Thirty.” As it turns out, Elhanan was a member of the The Thirty. The Elhanan version seems truer to the story of The Thirty and even in the introduction verse to the story of The Thirty we are told that by then that “David waxed faint,” and had grown tired. Like he had been around for a while - as king.

If that is not enough, there is another hint that the David story is later borrowed from the earlier Elhanan story is that in the David account, the name Goliath occurs only twice. In I Samuel 17:23 it says:

“And as he talked with them, behold, there came up the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, out of the armies of the Philistines, and spake according to the same words: and David heard them.”

Since Goliath had already been referred to as Goliath, it seems odd that it would be worded that way thus the suspicion is that the David angle was a later insertion. Of course there is a theory why David is alledged to have been incorrectly credited with the slaying but that’s another story.

The point is that there is a contradiction but you can’t easily explain it away as copyist error. I am posting on another thread that boasts how accurately OT manuscripts were copied and transmitted. Remember that older Hebrew manuscripts say nothing about “the brother.”

An interesting debate, whatever the correct version is.

 

[Breetai]

Chaucer, you spelled 'controlled' wrong. You had it as controled.

Well, you have looked into the Goliath cycles much more than I have. I still haven't gotten very far past the multiple Isaiahs.

A similar explaination that Chaucer gave can be found at http://ggreenberg.tripod.com/ancientne/101david.html

This is copied shamelessly from Carm.org:

Who killed Goliath, David or Elhanan?
1 Samuel 17:50 and 2 Samuel 21:19
​

​

1. David did (1 Samuel 17:50) - "Thus David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and he struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was no sword in David’s hand."
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   ​
2. Elhanan did (2 Sam. 21:19)- "And there was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam."
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   ​

The answer lies in two areas. 1 Chronicles 20:5 says, "And there was war with the Philistines again, and Elhanan the son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam." This is the correct answer; namely, that Elhanan killed Goliath's brother.
Second, it appears there was a copyist error in 2 Samuel 21:19. According to Gleason Archer's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties on page 179, it says,

1. The sign of the direct object, which in Chronicles comes just before "Lahmi," was '-t; the copyist mistook it for b-t or b-y-t ("Beth") and thus got Bet hal-Lahmi ("the Bethlehemite") out of it.
2. He misread the word for "brother" ('-h) as the sign of the direct object ('-t) right before g-l-y-t ("Goliath"). Thus he made "Goliath" the object of "killed" (wayyak), instead of the "brother" of Goliath (as the Chronicles passage does).
3. The copyist misplaced the word for "weavers" ('-r-g-ym) so as to put it right after "Elhanan" as his patronymic (ben Y-'-r-y'-r--g-ym, or ben ya 'arey 'ore -gim -- "the son of the forests of weavers" -- a most unlikely name for anyone's father!). In Chronicles the 'ore grim ("weavers") comes right after menor ("a beam of ") -- thus making perfectly good sense.

Therefore, we see that 2 Samuel 21:19 had a copyist error and 1 Chronicles 21:5 is the correct information.






This theory, along with what you, Chaucer, have presented would make for a fun little research paper. Maybe I'll go for it sometime.

Older DDS say that he was 6 foot 9 inches, still huge but believable.

I'm assuming that you meant 'DSS', not DDS.

 

[Chaucer]

Oh no, I meant a very ancient dentist (DDS). Spelling and I are not the best of friends.

I did recently attend a lecture by a member of the international team translating the dead sea scrolls.

The theory about David is that he was not really the great, almost superhuman hero-king protrayed in the Bible but rather a regional authority like a govenor and that much later, the Israelites (or Israelite author(s)) wanted to create an inspiring heritage to rally Israel pride and so beefed up his resume to make him look good.

In a museum show last year I saw a portion of the dead sea scrolls and they had a stone wall corner piece that had what is believed to be the very oldest archeaological evidence that had the name of the real David engraved on it - thought to be from within one generation of when he lived.

 

[Breetai]

I did recently attend a lecture by a member of the international team translating the dead sea scrolls.

One of my former university profs is(or was?) part of that team. Guess who I took my course on the DSS from?

In a museum show last year I saw a portion of the dead sea scrolls and they had a stone wall corner piece that had what is believed to be the very oldest archeaological evidence that had the name of the real David engraved on it - thought to be from within one generation of when he lived.

OK, that is pretty sweet. I can feel the envy forming within me.

 

[Chaucer]

One of my former university profs is(or was?) part of that team. Guess who I took my course on the DSS from?

Patrick Skehan?
Jena Starcky?

I dunno, who?

 

[Breetai]

Haha, I meant that as a rhetorical question. His name is Russell Nelson, if you really want to know. I don't think that he has written any major publications. Maybe a few journal articles(I don't even know if he wrote any), but that'd be about it. He's currently teaching a number of different religious studies courses on various OT subjects as well as Hebrew.

 

[Chaucer]

Breetai,

Okay, Now I am confused. I just googled "russell nelson dead sea scrolls" and the first hit was an article from the Enclycopedia of Mormonism.

There are 2 footnotes to the article. One from the great scholar Frank Cross and the other from Russell Nelson.

You aren't a closet Mormon are you?

 

[Breetai]

Haha, I actually did the same thing when I searched his name to see what I would find. If you his name into Google, one of the results will be his profile at Concordia University College in Edmonton. He's definitely not Mormon.

 

[Intrepid99]

Mormon... Hmmm. That really makes me sick. Their beliefs about christianity and stuff. Even though I never met a Mormon till now. I read about them in the internet.

 

[Breetai]

Mormon... Hmmm. That really makes me sick. Their beliefs about christianity and stuff. Even though I never met a Mormon till now. I read about them in the internet.

Why does it make you sick? If it's because you believe that Mormons are decieved by their church for teaching then things contrary to the Bible, then I agree with you. If you have ever met a Mormon, you might find that they are some of the nicest people around. If you meet one in 'read life', tell then that they are saved no matter how much they have sinned and no matter how mnay good words they have done. Jesus has it all covered.

 

[12volt_man]

When God commanded "Thou shall not kill", Was it ok for God when David killed Goliath ??

Yes, it was OK because the Bible differentiates between different kinds of killing.

Notice that the commandment is not, "thou shalt not kill", but "thou shalt do no murder".

The word commonly translated as "murder" here is ratsach. Notice that we never see this word or the accompanying condemning language in situations of war, self defense, capital punishment or where someone is commanded to kill by God as a means of carrying out His judgement.

 

[Chaucer]

Mormon... Hmmm. That really makes me sick. Their beliefs about christianity and stuff. Even though I never met a Mormon till now. I read about them in the internet.

That's kind of bizarre.

I make it a point to get to know people from all religions and denominations. The more I know about people, the more I marvel at the wonders of God's creation - his children. You ought to learn to be more intrepid and get to know some of his children. You might marvel too.