How did David slay Goliath

A cursory view of any commentaries you have will reveal some interesting items you may wish to spend more time studying. One, the UBS Handbook, states, “This verse [verse 50], which is a kind of summary statement, is missing in the Septuagint. MFT and NAB place the entire verse within square brackets, indicating that the translators regard the verse to be a later addition to the Hebrew text.

Omanson, R. L., & Ellington, J. (2001). A handbook on the first book of Samuel. UBS Handbook Series (380). New York: United Bible Societies.

Is that it? No one's got anything better?

I may have a different approach to interpreting scripture to you, but I'll try to help.

Can I suggest that neither the author of 1 Samuel nor David knew at exactly which moment Goliath died? No post-mortem examination was performed, and their understanding of function and dysfunction of the brain was very limited.

Even today I, as a doctor, would find it very difficult to say exactly when someone with the type of brain injury likely to have been caused by David's stone died. Determining time of death after decapitation with a sword is a little easier.

This is my guess (and it is no more than that): Gigantism is caused by a growth-hormone-secreting tumour in the pituitary gland, situated just underneath the brain. If it is a large tumour (which it isn't always), it can press on another structure underneath the brain, the optic chiasm. This is where some of the nerve fibres coming from the eyes cross over the midline to be processed in the opposite side of the brain. The result of damage to the optic chiasm is bitemporal hemianopia: inability to see the outer parts (to the left and right) of the field of vision, with preservation of central vision.

This visual field field defect would make Goliath vulnerable to stones coming at him from the side. Assuming that David was right handed, his best approach would have been to aim his stone at Goliath's left temple (which is included in the meaning of the Hebrew word usually translated forehead). Not only is this the thinnest part of the skull, but just inside is the middle meningeal artery and its branches, making serious bleeding inside the skull (an extradural haematoma) quite likely. Such a sequence of events might fell Goliath and even render him unconscious immediately, but it might (or might not) take a few minutes for the pressure inside his head to affect the brainstem, responsible for breathing and circulation. We would only really regard him as dead once his heart stopped (along with signs that his brain wasn't functioning).

So Goliath may still have been alive when he fell, but he would have died fairly swiftly after his head was removed.

I suggest that you interpret verse 50 less literally. Its point is not when the death occurred but that little David was able to go out against the big, well-armed Goliath with just his sling and no sword and, none the less, defeat and kill him, by the grace of God.

Jonathan Pitts said:

I suggest that you interpret verse 50 less literally. Its point is not when the death occurred but that little David was able to go out against the big, well-armed Goliath with just his sling and no sword and, none the less, defeat and kill him, by the grace of God.

Peace, Jonathan!         *smile*                            Thank you so very much indeed!                            Truly appreciated!

The way I understand 1Sam 17:49-51 KJV as read, David hit Goliath with the stone. Goliath fell to the ground (may have been knocked out, not yet dead). David took Goliath own sword and cut off his head (which ensured death).

IMO, 1 Samuel 17:50-51 is stating that David cut off Goliath's head with a sword, after he had first hit him with a stone - but he was already good as dead ...

Bootjack said:

Two more responses - 5 Solas, I must confess your explanation wants me to lean that way also. George, I think that's a wise move of not going into something that supposedly would throw doubt on who it was that smote this rather unhappy giant.   ;-)

Stones don't kill people; people kill people. [;)]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:  In general, a sling bullet lobbed in a high trajectory can achieve ranges approaching 400 m 

5 Solas said:

But only at an appointed time - Heb 9:27 and means - Psa. 115:3; Dan. 4:35; cf. Prov. 16:9 to see God's purpose fulfilled bringing God glory - Rom 9:17-18, et. al.  

Yes! I was thinking along the same lines, "Only so far as God permits and purposes," but then I thought I'd ruin my joke if I added anything. Good reminder that we serve a sovereign God who is trustworthy and good.

DMB said:

Don't forget Dr Heiser's article: http://biblestudymagazine.com/interactive/goliath/

Separately, judging from subsequent Assyrian army 'photos', I'd assume slingers were the 'minutemen' of the day, filling in the distance between professional swordsmen, and even more professional javelin-tossers (Goliath's third weapon of infliction, bowmen being the wealthy ones with those neato metal tips).

Normally I don't appreciate attempts to reconcile passages which seem to conflict.  Most generally they're a bit too cutesy.  Heiser's attempt isn't really of the same sort as most of those.  There is a problem with a section of the article where he discusses את and אח in that the Hebrew order has been reversed.  I assume this was not Dr. Heiser's error (unless he's assuming that the text was written boustrophedon–highly unlikely).

Well, JRS ... irrespective of the OP's concerns, obviously quite a few scribes and subsequent Targumists thought the issue was significant.

In the latter case the writer was insistant on making sure both 'killed's were undeniably killed, and that the stone hit solidily 'in the house of the eyes'.  I'd assume that indicated David was a really good slinger; no near-miss there!

Judging from the aramaic, I suspect George is probably correct (the hebrew and then aramaic semantics).

You're interpreting it like it's just a story...based on history...written by reporters.

It isn't...it's irrelevant...it isn't.

David Paul said:

You're interpreting it like it's just a story...based on history...written by reporters.

It isn't...it's irrelevant...it isn't.

JRS said:

As a matter of fact, it is a story whether based on history or not.  The point is that any story must be coherent—in other words, it must make sense.  What the OP is doing is attempting to make sense of what the story says.  This is a legitimate pursuit.

If one is simply curious for some reason about the question, then I can accept that. But if one were trying to make a claim for the presence of errors in the Scripture, this seems a trifle and easily expained. Similarly, if one were trying to make a stand for the inerrancy of Scripture using this pericope, it is hardly a worthy Thermopylae.

IMHO, it gets filed under 'How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Much ado about nothing.

I don't detect anyone attempting to point out errors in scripture.  What I do detect is an attempt to understand the meaning of the story.  If anyone were to attempt to point out some inconsistency, I would likely be the one, but even I have not done so.  That is why I expressly stated that I was not intending to enter into a discussion of who it was who actually killed Goliath (assuming that the event occurred).

George Somsel said:

As a matter of fact, it is a story whether based on history or not.  The point is that any story must be coherent—in other words, it must make sense.  What the OP is doing is attempting to make sense of what the story says.  This is a legitimate pursuit.

George,  Are those my words from another thread or did you inadvertently append someone else's words to my post?

Regardless, they are basically what I was attempting to communicate when I said, "If one is simply curious for some reason about the question, then I can accept that."  Casual questioning of any text is a normal function of reading whether it is Scripture or Clancy.

Beyond that, and without any claims of knowing the intent of the OP, all I am saying is that the question is of no significance ... whether in inerrancy debates, or an obsession to harmonize, or theological, or hermeneutical, or applicational, or whatever.  To try and elevate the question to some level of significance is to do an injustice to the text.

William Gabriel said:

Look at the discussion over the last two pages--there has definitely been a hermeneutical study of this text.

That is precisely what hasn't happened.

I suggest everyone buy another Logos resource and look it up again. [:P]

At least then it will be minimally related to Logos and fall under proper use of the forums. [^o)]

fgh, David Paul, JRS, George Somsel, DMB, Rosie Perera and Super Tramp--I love you guys as brothers and sisters in Christ.

I meant no offense. And looking back, I was incorrect in my assessment (was stuck on a train of thought). I thought I was respectful, but I apologize for any stumbling blocks I may have placed before you.

I'm thankful for this Logos community, and I look forward to insightful conversation here, a chance for iron to sharpen iron.

-Bill

Super Tramp said:

I also sang the children's song "Only a Boy Named David" to my 4 year old at bedtime.

My sympathies to your son.  [:D]  Just kidding, of course, since I have no idea what your voice is like.

William Gabriel said:

I meant no offense.

No apologies required ... I wasn't offended by anything you posted (or anyone else) .

William Gabriel said:

I meant no offense. And looking back, I was incorrect in my assessment (was stuck on a train of thought). I thought I was respectful, but I apologize for any stumbling blocks I may have placed before you.

Thanks, and apology graciously accepted. I take full responsibility for having fallen into temptation. I love joking around, and stumbling stones (oops sorry, there I go again) are sometimes too enticing for me to step around.