Posted on 01/13/2012 4:43:10 AM PST by TSgt
FRiends,
Simple question to resolve a debate I'm having with a family member. How did David kill Goliath? Was it with the stone from his sling or with the sword when he cut off his head?
50So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David.
51Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.
VS.
1 Kings 17 Douay-Rheims [49] And he put his hand into his scrip, and took a stone, and cast it with the sling, and fetching it about struck the Philistine in the forehead: and the stone was fixed in his forehead, and he fell on his face upon the earth. [50] And David prevailed over the Philistine, with a sling and a stone, and he struck, and slew the Philistine. And as David had no sword in his hand,
[51] He ran, and stood over the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath, and slew him, and cut off his head. And the Philistines seeing that their champion was dead, fled away.
Seems pretty clear to me.
The sling rendered the big man unconscious, the sword killed him.
That the word “killed” or “slew” (KJV) appears in both verse 50 and 51 should not cause the reader to be confused about what was responsible for Goliath’s death. He was killed by the stone which came from David’s sling, as indicated in verse 50. After killing the giant, David stood over him, and used his own sword to cut off his head. The taking of Goliath’s head was not the point of his death, but immediately followed his death. David, “...slew him, and cut off his head...”
There is no contradiction.
1Sa 17:46 This day will Jehovah deliver thee into my hand; and I will smite thee, and take thy head from off thee; and I will give the dead bodies of the host of the Philistines this day unto the birds of the heavens, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, 1Sa 17:47 and that all this assembly may know that Jehovah saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is Jehovah's, and he will give you into our hand.
Because of David's faith in God to deliver Israel from the Philistines and not in his own strength that God showed forth and provided the victory. Maybe we should start following that example a bit more when dealing with the Philistines in Washington :).
Classic Biblical format. The general followed by the precise. The general: hit him in the head with at stone and killed him. The precise: ran up to him and cut off his head with his own sword and slew him. The same pattern is throughout scripture.
Now THAT is the question!!
The stone rendered him unconscious, and David killed him with the sword. People here are arguing over the modern definition of the word slay. To slay, (Now obsolete, but not 400 years ago) used to mean to hit, not necessarilly to kill. You could argue about it till you’re blue in the face without a definitive answer, but only one makes sense.
The stone rendered Goliath unconscious, the sword finished the job (And he kept the head as a trophy). Even logically, blunt force trauma to the frontal lobe doesn’t necessarilly result in death. The important stuff is in the back.
From:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slay
slay [slei]
vb slays, slaying, slew, slain (tr)
3. Obsolete to strike
Depends if you want to classify it as a miracle or a fact. A fact requires evidence, a miracle does not.
You sit are correct. Even if you just read it, without analyzing the word definition (see above), in context it only makes sense that he felled Goliath with the stone, and killed him with the sword. Digging deeper will still provide more evidence of that. The answer is simple, he knocked him out (prevailing in the contest), and cut off his head (killing and taking his trophy).
We do have empircal proof - eyewitness testimony as recorded in the historical narratives of the Bible. It's the only type of empirical proof available for any historical event.
a) asking for empirical evidence that David and/or Goliath even existed and
b) rejecting the Hebrew historical records which are preserved today in the Bible.
Before answering the internet 'bot, perhaps it should be required to show empirical evidence that it is human.
Arguing with software is pointless.
“It’s the only type of empirical proof available for any historical event.”
Unless you’re a pseudo scientist, than you can make up anything and say that’s how it happened, passing it off as “science.”
You are absolutely correct!
In the case of fact, the "proofs" used can be called into question, which ususally lead to refutation and/or confirmation; but in either case, an advance in knowledge.
In the case of the "miracle"; it requires nothing but belief; it leads to no advance in knowledge and sometimes causes "difficulties" between the believer and the "non-believer".
I'll take fact.
“Better question: DID David kill Goliath? Ask for empiricle evidence....and the respondant may not use any biblical “proof” as “evidence”in the answer.
Now THAT is the question!!”
And what exactly are you looking for? Obviously, the Bible recounts the story as a witness or report from a witness. Do you have any witness to say with any credibility that it is false? Thought so, just another atheist fool spewing dumb rhetoric and thinking they sound smart...
sit=Sir. Sorry for the typo.
Yet a better question is whether such an act, killing someone with a sword on a battle field many centuries ago could be expected to leave any evidence other than eye witness accounts?
What sort of empirical evidence did you have in mind?
I think the initial question is pointless, who cares? If you let yourself get Into an argument on that kind of religious trivia, then you are probably missing the grandeur of the religious forrest, your view blocked by an insignificant spruce.
If God can knock down a cities walls with the sound of trumpets, split a Sea with a wooden staff, and make man out of the dust of the earth, it is completely feasible that he can kill the biggest of men with a rock between the eyes. Lets not to try to explain away his miraculous power by using science conceived out of the puny little brains of mortals.
And you sir are just another theist spewing intolerance and insults. (Note that I did not gratuitously call you dumb.)
I don't see it this way. The text says; verse 50, "he struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was no sword in David's hand."
Read on, verse 51. The cutting off of the head was to convince the army of the Philistines that their champion was dead.
The stone killed him, the decapitation proved it to his army.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.