How did David slay Goliath

David Paul said:

George Somsel said:

What this is is a concept that the bible is a puzzle to be decoded.  I don't buy that concept.

 

That's too bad...

Prov. 25:2  Mt. 10:26  Mk. 4:22  Lk. 8:17  Lk. 12:2

None of that refers to biblical statements.  You simply pull verses out of the text and apply them to whatever you wish.  That is irresponsible interpretation.

David Paul said:

Believe what you like, George.

Thematic interpretation is as old as the hills.

So is Kabbalah

Richard DeRuiter said:

This has gone far off of the purpose of these forums. The forums are to discuss using Logos software, not theology, hermeneutics, prophecy, or even the content of Logos resources.

Not quite correct. While I agree most of the posts in this thread, mine included, are out of the guidelines of the forum I must point out posts about Logos products is one of the specifically allowed subjects. 

Forum Guidelines here.

"Please keep your discussions focused on Logos Bible Software: our software, products, websites, company, tools, etc."

It is pretty much useless to post concerning a Logos product and avoid talking of the content of that product. My post of the soon shipping Samuel Rutherford Collection referenced Lex Rex which may be of interest to the posters since the original thread topic obviously is not. That particular post was more in compliance with the forum guidelines than any other post in this whole thread, MVPs notwithstanding. 

Richard DeRuiter said:

few have gotten as off-topic, or as visceral as this one.

Here's my last attempt to get back to topic and withing Logos Forums guidelines:

The following is what I found in my Logos library regarding the interpretation of the apparent 'double death' of Goliath. Earlier I mentioned the possibility of 1 Samuel 17:50 being sort of a summary for the whole event. Thus Goliath is struck to the ground by a stone. Still alive, he is then decapitated by his own sword by David finishing him off. Incidentally all of the following references seem to agree well with this proposal:

-         
The NET Bible Notes: logosres:gs-netnotes;ref=Bible.1Sa17.50;off=10

-         
The Anti-Christ Theme in
the Intertestamental Period: logosres:anchrstthmnt;ref=Page.p_35;off=544

-         
Expositor’s Commentary: logosres:ebc03;ref=Bible.1Sa17.50-51a

-         
A Handbook on the First
Book of Samuel: logosres:ubshbk09;ref=Bible.1Sa17.50

-         
Legends of the Jews: logosres:legndsjews;ref=Page.p_916;off=1800

-         
Letters of St Augustine: logosres:npnfrc01;ref=Augustine.Ep._75.1.2

-         
Semeia: logosres:semeia68;ref=Page.p_83;off=1044

Sleiman said:

Here's my last attempt to get back to topic and withing Logos Forums guidelines:

 

The following is what I found in my Logos library regarding the interpretation of the apparent 'double death' of Goliath. Earlier I mentioned the possibility of 1 Samuel 17:50 being sort of a summary for the whole event. Thus Goliath is struck to the ground by a stone. Still alive, he is then decapitated by his own sword by David finishing him off. Incidentally all of the following references seem to agree well with this proposal:

As I noted quite early in this thread, there is no statement that Goliath was killed twice.  It indicates that David hit him with a stone which sank into his forehead with the result that Goliath fell on his face.  It then interestingly emphasizes that David did not have a sword so that he resorted to taking Goliath's sword in order to cut off his head and kill him.  It would seem that many would rather further the common thought that David killed Goliath with a sling-stone than actually read the passage and base their conclusions on it.

I was looking at a few different commentaries and found they didn’t really engage with this issue. I re-read the passage in the Lexham English Bible and it helped. Here’s how it reads:

“Then David put his hand into the bag and took a stone from it and slung it. He struck the Philistine on his forehead, and the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the ground. So David prevailed over the Philistine with the sling and with the stone, and he struck down the Philistine and killed him, but there was no sword in David’s hand. Then David ran and stood over the Philistine and took his sword and drew it from its sheath and killed him and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.” (1 Samuel 17:49–51, LEB)

Breaking it apart:

• David struck down Goliath with a sling stone
• Goliath fell down on his face
• David then killed him
• Text then explains that he killed him
• David didn’t have a sword
• The text then explains where/how David got a sword
• He used Goliath’s sword to kill him

I could be wrong, but it seems that 1 Samuel 17:49-50 encapsulates the story, then 1 Samuel 17:51 specifies how and with what.

Jeremy Einfeld said:

Paul Oertly said:

Is it coincidence that the only posts removed reflect one side of the "issue"? Even when other provocative posts are called to your attention?

Yes, it is a coincidence.

It could be a case like Richard Briggs states:

DMB said:

OK, George. I'm going to have to agree with the OP. And absent some sort of expansion on your point, I give up. (smile)

There TWO 'kills'. It's the same hebrew word. One is clearly 'no sword!!' (thus a rock) and one is with a sword. I still think the answer resides in the Canaanite-period culture, since none of the subsequent jewish writers wanted to change it ... almost always, if there's any hint of a problem, the targums try to change the meaning but here they don't.

George Somsel said:

No, there is one kill.

George Somsel said:

Schezic said:

George Somsel said:

No, there is one kill.

Hebrews 9:27

 

Your point?

Relax. [:P] This time i was agreeing with you.

Sleiman said:

The following is what I found in my Logos library regarding the interpretation of the apparent 'double death' of Goliath. Earlier I mentioned the possibility of 1 Samuel 17:50 being sort of a summary for the whole event. Thus Goliath is struck to the ground by a stone. Still alive, he is then decapitated by his own sword by David finishing him off. Incidentally all of the following references seem to agree well with this proposal:

-          The NET Bible Notes: logosres:gs-netnotes;ref=Bible.1Sa17.50;off=10

-          The Anti-Christ Theme in the Intertestamental Period: logosres:anchrstthmnt;ref=Page.p_35;off=544

-          Expositor’s Commentary: logosres:ebc03;ref=Bible.1Sa17.50-51a

-          A Handbook on the First Book of Samuel: logosres:ubshbk09;ref=Bible.1Sa17.50

-          Legends of the Jews: logosres:legndsjews;ref=Page.p_916;off=1800

-          Letters of St Augustine: logosres:npnfrc01;ref=Augustine.Ep._75.1.2

-          Semeia: logosres:semeia68;ref=Page.p_83;off=1044

Two issues with this "theory" of incapacitation-and-then-death rather than death-and- then-death.

First, it refuses the text, plain and simple. Rather than accept the text for what it says, it literally employs eisegesis--"reading into the text". Now, I'm not saying there aren't times when you can rightly draw logical, common sense conclusions based on the provided information, even if those conclusions are not explicitly mentioned. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, but there are many times when that is exactly what the reader is expected to do. But that isn't what is happening here.

From the start of this thread, and for thousands of years, there has been confusion and embarrassment with the text, simply because readers refuse to accept what it says at face value. Now, it may have been understandable that readers for the thousand years from David to Messiah did not understand, but once Yeishuu`a and John had spoken, confusion should cease. Golyaatth died twice. You don't have to understand exactly how it happened. I don't have to explain exactly how it happened. It is simply incumbant upon us to acceptt it's what happened because that is what Scripture SAYS happened...AND, as I pointed out above, there is a clear, profound prophetic reason for Goliath to die twice. He DESERVES to die twice...to suffer the "second death".

When the Logos resources above say that 1 Sam. 17:51 is simply a restatement of 1 Sam. 17:50, they are conforming the text to fit their imposed expectation. Two things drive this: the fact that they can't accept what it says because they don't understand the double death and so they "explain it away" (just like George keeps doing) by saying Goliath didn't die in v50 even though it clearly, explicitly says he did. The second thing in play here drives not just this failure of interpretation but a multitude of others--the ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENT to make it make sense while harboring a false perception about what the conclusion ought to be. This is gap filling, and it is perhaps the most common hermeneutic in Christianity (because the only correct hermeneutic is the one that is taboo and ridiculed, namely the "prophetic"). Obviously, this process is driven by presumptions and assumptions, such as "Goliath can only be killed once".

Goliath was killed with a sling & stone // without a sword. That is prophetic. Goliath was killed with a sword. That is prophetic. The stone represents the ROCK. The sword represents the WORD. The ROCK = the WORD. 1 Cor. 10:4  Rev. 1:16.

This, of course, is all just a long series of coincidences. The fact that the string of coincidences continues practically indefinitely is itself a coincidence.

*Interesting fact: String 6 coincidences in a row--you just won Powerball!! Odds? 9-digits to one.

String 60 coincidences in a row? Odds far, far greater than 10 to 60th power...a number that is practically meaningless in this universe.

String 600 coincidences in a row? Odds? 1:1  Because that can only be Design.

Number of "coincidences" in the string of prophecies that support Goliath's double death? Far more than 600...

666? Perhaps....

Maybe more.

David Paul said:

Two issues with this "theory" of incapacitation-and-then-death rather than death-and- then-death.

First, it refuses the text, plain and simple. Rather than accept the text for what it says, it literally employs eisegesis--"reading into the text". Now, I'm not saying there aren't times when you can rightly draw logical, common sense conclusions based on the provided information, even if those conclusions are not explicitly mentioned. Not only is there nothing wrong with that, but there are many times when that is exactly what the reader is expected to do. But that isn't what is happening here.

Snort, RFLOL !  As I said, this is the Twilight Zone.

  ~

Schezic said:

One can lose their First life at the hands of another. The second life is a personal CHOICE.

If people receive the second death, they most certainly are losing the resurrected life to the hands of Another.

Whether one receives life or death is a result of individual choice...yes. But the "reward", whichever it is, WILL and MUST come. No one "opts out" of the reward phase, so in that respect one's choice is limited.

Schezic said:

C'mon David! You are just trolling for a debate.

The second life is based on personal CHOICE. Romans 6:23

Sorry, my mistake.

I forgot that those who are judged to be unrighteous CHOOSE to jump into the lake of fire...that is what "cast" means--isn't it? [^o)] Rev. 20:15

Schezic said:

People deprive themselves of the second life. No one takes it from them.

I guess I also forgot that Deut. 32:39 ...or was it you who forgot that? "It is I who put to death ["kill" ESV] and give life" is specifically and explicitly speaking of Rev. 20 judgment.

Schezic said:

If one rejects the gift, you surely can't accuse God of killing his/her second life.

Actually, that is precisely what I'm saying....because it is precisely what He said.

Btw, did you read the verse you quoted?? It says very plainly that life is a gift of God. You realize that gifts aren't choices, don't you?

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.

DMB said:

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.

Sleiman said:

“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 said:

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*

Milton C.Jones said:

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.  [;)]  [:D]

Sleiman said:

No offense but I like this interpretation more than yours.

You quoted two and picked the one you liked. [8-)]

Sleiman said:

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 said:

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.

David Paul said:

George Somsel said:

DMB said:

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??

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

David Paul said:

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

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