How did David slay Goliath

Page 8 of 9 (166 items) « First ... < Previous 5 6 7 8 9 Next >
This post has 165 Replies | 4 Followers

Posts 9945
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 18 2013 7:03 AM

DMB:

Thanks, George.

Sleiman, not agreeing with Paul, but the OT and NT have quite a number of double-deaths, primarily associated with resurrections.  Matthew was the biggest proponent of the concept.

Yes, but I hardly think that Goliath fits into that category.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 9955
Denise | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 18 2013 7:07 AM

Agree, not appropriate to the Goliath example. But this has caused me to examine the text in greater depth. I didn't know David, like Jacob, got tricked in the deal (having to 'kill' Philistines twice for the king's daughter). Of course, Saul didn't personally make the promise to David; only his men.  So that might be different.


Posts 4625
RIP
Milford Charles Murray | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 18 2013 7:34 AM

Sleiman:

“So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him. There was no sword in the hand of David.” (The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (1 Sa 17:50). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.)

The word used for struck is נכה. Note it does not say “killed him with the stone”. To say the latter is a form of eisegesis (reading into the text). If the author/narrator(s) wanted to tell us that the slingshot killed Goliath all they had to do is simply say that. Probably as “So David struck and killed the Philistine with a sling and a stone.” But the author did not say that. This whole verse simply reads as a summary.

David Paul:
The stone represents the ROCK. The sword represents the WORD. The ROCK = the WORD.
OK Let me start off by saying that I am not going to be dragged into a theological debate with people I don't know very well especially on a forum with guidelines that explicitly prohibit such. What I was referring to is just what the text is saying not what theology you can draw out of it. Having said that though, I grant that you’re probably on to something there although you did not get it quite right. Yes the rock most probably represents Christ. Check what Cyprian of Carthage had to say about that after talking about the stone as Christ.

Also, this is the stone in the first book of Kings, with which David smote the forehead of Goliath and slew him; signifying that the devil and his servants are thereby thrown down—that part of the head, namely, being conquered which they have not had sealed (logosres:anf05;ref=Page.p_522;off=3687)

On the other hand, commenting on Psalm 144, St Augustine says

The title of this Psalm is brief in number of words, but heavy in the weight of its mysteries. “To David himself against Goliath.” This battle was fought in the time of our fathers, and ye, beloved, remember it with me from Holy Scripture.… David put five stones in his scrip, he hurled but one. The five Books were chosen, but unity conquered. Then, having smitten and overthrown him, he took the enemy’s sword, and with it cut off his head. This our David also did, He overthrew the devil with his own weapons: and when his great ones, whom he had in his power, by means of whom he slew other souls, believe, they turn their tongues against the devil, and so Goliath’s head is cut off with his own sword.(logosres:npnf08;ref=Augustine.Enarr._in_Ps._144)

No offense but I like this interpretation more than yours. If you want to win me over to your camp, all you have to do is produce a couple of quotations from the fathers to support your “double death” theory. To make it easier, present just one quote and that’s enough to start a case with me.

Peace to you, Dear Brother!

                   Thank you for your very insightful posts and for your clear references, including the linkage to get to them quite easily!

If I correctly remember a bit about your history, then English is not your "first language"; however, you express yourself very well indeed and communicate very clearly!

               Perhaps this year, perhaps next year      .............           or in Eternity    .........       since you only live about 1/2 to 3/4 hour from me on this small planet   ......    I'd love to invite you for lunch and a "cool one"!          *smile*                    God Bless You!            *smile*

Philippians 4:  4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........

Posts 9
Milton C.Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 18 2013 7:35 AM

Without looking into the linguisstics, does it really matter. Twice it tells us what does matter....David killed Goliath" . The final act of cutting off his head left no one in doubt. What I gather from his is, "if I am in line with God's will, no matter how great the obstacle, I will come up a winner. I remember 55 years ago, while in bible college, how we stayed up many nights discussing things that really did not matter.

Milton C. Jones

Posts 9945
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 18 2013 7:52 AM

Milton C.Jones:
I remember 55 years ago, while in bible college, how we stayed up many nights discussing things that really did not matter.

Yes, sometimes we avoided the really important concerns such as how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, but you're much older than I since I'll only be 39 on my next birthday.  Wink  Big Smile

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 4742
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 18 2013 8:22 AM

Sleiman:

David Paul:
Goliath was killed with a sling & stone // without a sword.
No the text does not say that.

“So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him. There was no sword in the hand of David.” (The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. 2001 (1 Sa 17:50). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.)

Read the bold print. David struck the Philistine and killed him. There was no sword in the hand of David. It says as clearly as possible that Goliath was struck and killed by a guy with no sword in his hand, just a sling and a stone.

Why can't you see that? Indifferent

Sleiman:

The word used for struck is נכה. Note it does not say “killed him with the stone”.

Correct...it says David killed him without a sword in his hand.

Sleiman:

If the author/narrator(s) wanted to tell us that the slingshot killed Goliath all they had to do is simply say that.

1. He-they did.  2.Unless it was said exactly the way YHWH intended it to be said.

50     וַיֶּחֱזַ֨ק דָּוִ֤ד מִן־הַפְּלִשְׁתִּי֙ בַּקֶּ֣לַע וּבָאֶ֔בֶן וַיַּ֥ךְ אֶת־הַפְּלִשְׁתִּ֖י וַיְמִיתֵ֑הוּ וְחֶ֖רֶב אֵ֥ין בְּיַד־דָּוִֽד׃

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia : With Westminster Hebrew Morphology. 1996, c1925; morphology c1991 (electronic ed.) (1 Sa 17:50). Stuttgart; Glenside PA: German Bible Society; Westminster Seminary.

Seems like there is a concerted effort to apply Clinton"IS"m to this verse. Everything in the above sentence is presented as a contiguous WHOLE. There is only one sof pasuq ( ׃). It literally says "...and he struck down the Philistine and death of him and a sword was not in hand of David."

Sleiman:

Probably as “So David struck and killed the Philistine with a sling and a stone.” But the author did not say that. This whole verse simply reads as a summary.

You want that conclusion? Dwell in it.

Beware of rope.

Posts 4742
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 18 2013 8:34 AM

Sleiman:

No offense but I like this interpretation more than yours.

You quoted two and picked the one you liked. Confused

Sleiman:

If you want to win me over to your camp, all you have to do is produce a couple of quotations from the fathers to support your “double death” theory. To make it easier, present just one quote and that’s enough to start a case with me.

I don't have to...you did it for me.

Sleiman:

Check what Cyprian of Carthage had to say about that after talking about the stone as Christ.

Also, this is the stone in the first book of Kings, with which David smote the forehead of Goliath and slew him; signifying that the devil and his servants are thereby thrown down—that part of the head, namely, being conquered which they have not had sealed (logosres:anf05;ref=Page.p_522;off=3687)

Done.

Btw, your veneration of "the fathers" is disturbing. A list of their errors would be almost half as long as their collected writings.

Posts 4742
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 18 2013 8:53 AM

George Somsel:

DMB:

Thanks, George.

Sleiman, not agreeing with [David] Paul, but the OT and NT have quite a number of double-deaths, primarily associated with resurrections.  Matthew was the biggest proponent of the concept.

Yes, but I hardly think that Goliath fits into that category.

LOL...so you don't think Goliath will be resurrected?? Surprise

Hmm

Posts 9945
George Somsel | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 18 2013 9:11 AM

David Paul:

George Somsel:

DMB:

Thanks, George.

Sleiman, not agreeing with [David] Paul, but the OT and NT have quite a number of double-deaths, primarily associated with resurrections.  Matthew was the biggest proponent of the concept.

Yes, but I hardly think that Goliath fits into that category.

 

LOL...so you don't think Goliath will be resurrected?? Surprise

Hmm

Well, you know what they say about Bultmann—that Jesus was resurrected in the kerygma.

george
gfsomsel

יְמֵי־שְׁנוֹתֵינוּ בָהֶם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה וְאִם בִּגְבוּרֹת שְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה וְרָהְבָּם עָמָל וָאָוֶן

Posts 2351
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 18 2013 9:22 AM

David Paul:

 

50     וַיֶּחֱזַ֨ק דָּוִ֤ד מִן־הַפְּלִשְׁתִּי֙ בַּקֶּ֣לַע וּבָאֶ֔בֶן וַיַּ֥ךְ אֶת־הַפְּלִשְׁתִּ֖י וַיְמִיתֵ֑הוּ וְחֶ֖רֶב אֵ֥ין בְּיַד־דָּוִֽד׃

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia : With Westminster Hebrew Morphology. 1996, c1925; morphology c1991 (electronic ed.) (1 Sa 17:50). Stuttgart; Glenside PA: German Bible Society; Westminster Seminary.

"And Ihֱzk David from - the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and smote - Philistine, and slew him, and there was no sword in hand - David:"

The Google Translate version:    IMHO I think that says that before David picked up the sword the Philistine was dead.  

Posts 2351
David Ames | Forum Activity | Replied: Fri, Jan 18 2013 9:29 AM

David Paul:

LOL...so you don't think Goliath will be resurrected?? Surprise

Goliath WILL be resurrected!  The question is in which resurrection?  Rev 20:5  

 

Posts 670
Sleiman | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 19 2013 6:43 AM

David Paul:
You quoted two and picked the one you liked. Confused
No I picked both. The quote from Cyprian is to affirm that your understanding of the stone as representing Christ can be valid. Follow my link to your library and read it in context to understand what I mean.

David Paul:

Sleiman:

 

If you want to win me over to your camp, all you have to do is produce a couple of quotations from the fathers to support your “double death” theory. To make it easier, present just one quote and that’s enough to start a case with me.

 

I don't have to...you did it for me.

Very clever I must admit. I am going to assume that you genuinely misunderstood me. What I meant was that it's not possible to quote a church father interpreting the Goliath battle as alluding to second death or to prove that they understood that Goliath was killed twice.

David Paul:
Btw, your veneration of "the fathers" is disturbing. A list of their errors would be almost half as long as their collected writings.
Why did you assume I venerate them? I'm not going to make a case for patristic writings as this is beside the main point. What I was trying to get at is that novel interpretations of the biblical text happen all the time, but most (if not all) are in error. Check out the "Left behind" best selling series, the original book is free on Vyrso I believe.

All I'm saying is that you might want to make your case sound stronger by quoting someone. Anyone! I'm making my challenge even easier for you: Produce any known reference (in Logos or not) that agrees with you that Goliath was killed twice and that his second death is unto the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14).

Some church fathers (like Cyprian) believed that Goliath was killed by the stone while others (like Augustine) believed that he was killed by the sword. But never killed twice!

 

David Paul:

50     וַיֶּחֱזַ֨ק דָּוִ֤ד מִן־הַפְּלִשְׁתִּי֙ בַּקֶּ֣לַע וּבָאֶ֔בֶן וַיַּ֥ךְ אֶת־הַפְּלִשְׁתִּ֖י וַיְמִיתֵ֑הוּ וְחֶ֖רֶב אֵ֥ין בְּיַד־דָּוִֽד׃

Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia : With Westminster Hebrew Morphology. 1996, c1925; morphology c1991 (electronic ed.) (1 Sa 17:50). Stuttgart; Glenside PA: German Bible Society; Westminster Seminary.

Seems like there is a concerted effort to apply Clinton"IS"m to this verse. Everything in the above sentence is presented as a contiguous WHOLE. There is only one sof pasuq ( ׃). It literally says "...and he struck down the Philistine and death of him and a sword was not in hand of David."

 

What I would suggest is to use your Logos to look at all the translations of this verse. You'll notice that some translations agree more with your interpretation than others. Particularly the NIV (logosres:niv2011;ref=BibleNIV.1Sa17.50):

So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone; without a sword in his hand he struck down the Philistine and killed him. 

The New International Version. 2011 (1 Sa 17:50). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

Interestingly, the IVP background commentary disagrees with this translation (logosres:ivpbbcot;ref=Bible.1Sa17.49):

David’s shot targeted one of the few vulnerable areas that could render his opponent unconscious. This allowed him to approach and secure Goliath’s sword, which he then used to kill his unconscious victim (despite the NIV’s implication that the shot killed Goliath).

Matthews, V. H., Chavalas, M. W., & Walton, J. H. (2000). The IVP Bible background commentary: Old Testament (electronic ed.) (1 Sa 17:49). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

This is not the only reference that does so. Consider the Expositor's Bible Commentary (logosres:ebc03;ref=Bible.1Sa17.50-51a):

 

The Hebrew of vv.50–51 is ambiguous (probably unintentionally) concerning whether David killed Goliath with a sling stone or with Goliath’s own sword. Boogaart’s analysis (“The Story of David and Goliath,” p. 214 n. 8) seems best: Verse 50 is the narrator’s personal comment, stating that David “killed” Goliath (eventually) and anticipating “the death of Goliath which is not recorded until verse 51.” David did not kill Goliath with an Israelite sword (v.50); irony of ironies, he did it with Goliath’s own sword (v.51; cf. similarly Benaiah’s exploit in 2 Sam 23:21). Baldwin summarizes: “The stone had stunned the giant, and now the sword must kill him” (p. 128; cf. Ariella Deem, “ ‘And the Stone Sank Into His Forehead’: A Note on 1 Samuel xvii 49,” VetTest 28, 3 [1978]: 350).

Youngblood, R. F. (1992). 1, 2 Samuel. In F. E. Gaebelein (Ed.), The Expositor's Bible Commentary, Volume 3: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (F. E. Gaebelein, Ed.) (702). Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House.

 

The EBC commentary is good because it quotes from others as well. In an earlier post I produced more references to make my point. Check them. if you don't have the resources in Logos, let me know, I'll copy/paste the relevant sections.

So I guess what I'm saying is that your translation is not conclusive. What you seem to be saying is 'believe me because I say so' rather than produce references to support your claims. Now again, who is "dwelling in it"?Wink

David Paul:
Beware of rope
At first I did not understand your phrase so I googled it and this is what I found:http://www.wimp.com/invisiblerope/

So do you mean that I see things that are not there? Don't worry I'm not offended because I sometimes do that. I also quite often miss things that are staring me in the face (as my wife will tell you again and again). You probably should agree given that you asked me why I didn't see something so obvious to you in the text.

More importantly, I also admit that I may be dismissing your theory altogether when I should not do so quickly. So I promise you that I'll consider your point of view in prayer.

With that as my closing statement, I won't be adding to this thread anymore, so I'll leave the last word for you if you prefer.

In Christ, Sleiman.

Posts 105
Stephen Jones | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 19 2013 7:18 AM

Bootjack - for your interest, David also cut off his head not to make sure he was dead, but because he said to Goliath that he would strike him (stone) and take off his head (sword) in v.46. David trusted God so much that when it was over, he fulfilled the promise he made (something alot of people fail to do today because they trust in themselves instead of God), and took the head of Goliath and made the enemy retreat.

Posts 74
Ralph Hale | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 19 2013 8:17 AM

Sleiman:
All I'm saying is that you might want to make your case sound stronger by quoting someone. Anyone! I'm making my challenge even easier for you: Produce any known reference (in Logos or not) that agrees with you that Goliath was killed twice and that his second death is unto the lake of fire (Revelation 20:14).
Galatians 1:8-9

Posts 978
Richard Wardman | Forum Activity | Replied: Sat, Jan 19 2013 8:37 AM

My 2p's worth:

Q: How did David slay Goliath?

A: By faith.

Posts 1493
Josh | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 20 2013 8:35 AM

David Paul are you suggesting that a miracle (such as a supernatural resuscitation) occurs between v50 and v51 that made it possible for Goliath to be physically killed twice?

Posts 4742
David Paul | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 20 2013 12:08 PM

Josh:

David Paul are you suggesting that a miracle (such as a supernatural resuscitation) occurs between v50 and v51 that made it possible for Goliath to be physically killed twice?

 

Like I said, the Book is prophecy...and it's entire purpose is a circular argument about YHWH and the expression of His nature, which exemplifies itself in the establishment of a family--thus the enlarged Beitth ( ב ) at the beginning of Gen. 1. [I suppose I should add that beitthbayitth = "house".] As prophecy, YHWH shoe-horns pictures of his purpose into every nook and crany of the Book.

 

I will repeat...paste...what I said earlier...

David Paul:

You don't have to understand exactly how it happened. I don't have to explain exactly how it happened.

That isn't a dodge--though I'm sure many will insist it is. I don't know "exactly" what dynamic was in play. Truth is, it doesn't matter...anymore than it matters "how" YHWH speaks things into existence. We don't have to know and explain the process down to the molecular level and beyond in order to accept that it happened. All we need to know is that it did happen and we (ultimately, in the appointed time) are expected to put it all together.

This is where the "the Bible's not a puzzle" crowd chimes in, along with the "you're insistence on prophetic interpretation is opening the door to all kinds of potentially loony ideas so we have to nail the door shut" crowd as well. I'm not going to take the time to respond to those gripes at this time. Call it a dodge if you want...I don't care. Golyaatth died twice because that is what Scripture says. His double death has a prophetically important meaning...it might be (I can't think of any other instance at this time) the first revelation of "second death" as a concept in the Bible. Very little is introduced for the first time in the NT. The references of Yeishuu`a and John don't occur in a vacuum.

I personally doubt there was a "supernatural resuscitation", but I can't rule it out. All I know is that the things that occur in Scripture, which occur both as prophecy and as the fulfillment of prophecy, occur to the satisfaction of 'Elohhiym. They don't have to occur or be explained to our satisfaction. In YHWH's sight, David killed Goliath twice. I don't need to have the intracacies explained to accept it...the rest of prophecy supports and confirms the revelation. I accept that dynamic along with the hundreds of "sheer coincidences" that stack in a 1:1 probability of His design.

Posts 670
Sleiman | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 20 2013 3:55 PM

Milford Charles Murray:
Peace to you, Dear Brother!
Milford, sorry I totally missed this post. Thank you for your kind words. I'd be honored to meet you. Perhaps one (warm) day I'll make the small trip to Oshawa and join you in a Sunday service maybe? I don't know.

Milford Charles Murray:
on this small planet
Small indeed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEheh1BH34Q

Posts 4625
RIP
Milford Charles Murray | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 20 2013 4:28 PM

Sleiman:

Milford Charles Murray:
Peace to you, Dear Brother!
Milford, sorry I totally missed this post. Thank you for your kind words. I'd be honored to meet you. Perhaps one (warm) day I'll make the small trip to Oshawa and join you in a Sunday service maybe? I don't know.

Milford Charles Murray:
on this small planet
Small indeed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEheh1BH34Q

Peace, Sleiman!                                       We will want Winter to be over, eh???           *smile*                        Because of Jesus we have a Whole Eternity to meet; so it will happen when it happens!             *smile*

edit:   BTW   -- Thank you for the "Small Indeed" video.

Psalm 139:1-18

Philippians 4:  4 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. 5 Let your reasonableness be known to everyone. The Lord is at hand..........

Posts 18634
Rosie Perera | Forum Activity | Replied: Sun, Jan 20 2013 4:53 PM

Sleiman:
Milford Charles Murray:
on this small planet
Small indeed: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEheh1BH34Q

Reminds me of this cool interactive site about the scale of the universe:

http://htwins.net/scale2/?bordercolor=white

Page 8 of 9 (166 items) « First ... < Previous 5 6 7 8 9 Next > | RSS