But is it impossible? I'm going to assume from what you said that if I could get you to reply, you would reply that no, it's not impossible.
Impossible? No. Improbable? Yes.
And so you proceed as if what is more likely is what always happens?
Not sure what part of "it's more likely" is tripping you up. Seems pretty straight forward to me, what that means.
Not really. For example, you haven't explained why you think it is more likely stories are falsified than true- even though I challenged that.
I didn't say that about "stories"
in general. I was talking about a
specific type of stories:
fantastical stories.
Let's look at the assumptions you're making, even though you say you're not assuming anything. So, you assume falsifying is more likely (#1).
You seem confused. *I* am not assuming anything. I'm talking about the assumptions
we would have to make to accept a certain story as correct.
In that sense, we require MORE problematic assumptions to accept the david/goliath story
literally as opposed to not accepting it
literally.
The assumption that the size of Goliath was exaggerated is a
less problematic assumption then assuming a "giant" actually existed.
We have uncountable precedents of tales of heroism being
exaggerated.
We have NO precedents of "giants" the size of Goliath.
You assume ...
#2: He couldn't stand up straight
A reasonable assumption. Just about every example we have of people with growth problems, have serious issues with standing up straight without additonal help. Our bones simply aren't fit for such heights and/or growth rates.
Have you ever seen such people? They are visibly handicapped. They have visible problems with walking etc. And here, we are talking about a dude who's supposed height is TALLER then any documented example we have.
Considering that the problems become increasingly severe as they get taller, it is reasonable to assume that this unprecedented height would come hand in hand with equally unprecedented problems.
#3: that the Philistines weren't bluffing - that they didn't put a rod in Goliath's armor that supported him and forced him to stand straight
#4: that he had to stand straight to scare the Israelites - that they wouldn't be scared by his sheer size
#5: that their fear wasn't amplified by other factors such as a king (Saul) who wasn't committed to the battle but was looking for a way out - that the Philistines in general were intimidating.
#6: that the Israelites were "seasoned warriors" and their ranks weren't filled with a bunch of farmers, herders, and shopkeepers.
If it was a bluff, they would've found out the second they defeated him. In fact, it would have been apparant the second the fight between him and David started.
If that is the case, why was it ommitted from the story?
The guy is, after all, depicted as a fearsome warrior and that somehow what David did was an insane accomplishment. But if it was just a bluff.... then it wasn't that much of an accomplishment, now was it? Not to mention that it would have been incredibly dishonest to lie about it in the story, by making it seem as if David just accomplished the near impossible...
But anyway, as the story goes, Goliath's armor supposedly weight 125 pounds and NOTHING in the story indicates any kind of "bluff".
#7: that it wouldn't accomplish anything to defeat Goliath if he were actually weak, which dismisses the power of symbolism - the idea of a "champion" and that Goliath had been chosen as such by the Philistines even if you wouldn't choose Goliath.
I have no problems with symbolism. But the bible story, again, doesn't imply any such thing.
#8: The idea that 2m76 is "not anywhere near" Goliath's height, given the questions about how to properly interpret the text:
How tall was Goliath? Even if we take the 9'6" (2m90) often used, that is only a 14 cm difference (5%). Sounds pretty close to me.
Sources I've read state the bible's given measurements are the equivalent of +3m.
But that is indeed just the bible. Many other sources (like the dead sea scrolls for example) give very different and far more reasonable measurements... ranging from 1m90 tot 2m20.
Whole different ballgame.
#9: that age is somehow relevant ... I don't even get this one. So the one guy died at 22. So what?
General life expectancy of ancient times vs post-enlightment times.
We have become increasingly better at keeping people alive. As I said, such growth deficiencies go hand in hand with serious health problems. Problems that we have become increasingly better in dealing with.
Goliath couldn't have been younger than 22?
Sure. But then his growth rate becomes even more unbelievable.
Alexander the Great was only 16 when he began his rampage.
Sure. And if people would have claimed that Alexander measured 3m at that age, I would find it equally unbelievable/unreasonable.
Those are the assumptions I noticed. I'm sure other people could point out a few more.
Too bad you missed the point of all of them.
Here's the question you need to ask yourself:
Which requires more
unreasonable assumptions?
- that the story is literally true and an unprecedented giant actually existed?
or
- that the story is literally true, but that the actual size of Goliath was exaggerated?
I say that it is rather obvious that the first option requires more unreasonable assumptions.
