Doc's bishopric Sunday School (Noun or adjective? One word or two?)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 9 Votes - 4.22 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-03-2014, 10:51 PM
DOC'S THEOPHOBIC SUNDAY SCHOOL
(02-03-2014 08:38 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  
(28-02-2014 03:48 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  Hey Doc I have a legit question about the story of David and Goliath. I was reading the KJV version and got a bit confused during 1 Samuel 17:50-51.
Where did David get his sword? If you look back at 1 Samuel 17:39-40, he didn't take one with him. Then if you look at 1 Samuel 17:4-7 you'll notice there's no mention of Goliath having a sword either...

Im_Ryan,
The story of David and Goliath is not as straightforward as it is made out to be. There are several problems with the story:
1. When Saul sends David out to battle the giant, Saul does not recognize David, despite the fact that David was his own personal minstrel.
2. In 1 Sam 17:50, it says that David killed Goliath with a stone, but in v. 51 it says that after the giant fell down, David drew Goliath's sword, killed the giant and then cut off his head.
3. When Goliath was first struck by the stone on his forehead, he falls face froward, rather than backward, but that may be a minor point.
4. The armor that Goliath was wearing was not worn by Philistine soldiers in the 10th century BCE and is an indication of the late composition of Samuel.
5. The KJV and later bibles list his height as 9'6" or thereabouts, but the Septuagint lists it as 6'9" or thereabouts.
6. Both 2 Sam. 21:19 and 1 Chron. 20:5 say that Goliath was slain by Elhanan not David.

With all the problems in the story the question of where David got the sword to decapitate the giant is moot, but it was probably Goliath's own sword that 1 Sam. 17 neglected to mention.

Interestingly, David later gets the sword of Goliath for his own use when he is on the run from Saul by lying to the priest, 1 Samuel 21:1-9. As a resullt, 85 priests were executed by Saul. So much for David being a man after God's own heart and God protecting his own priests.

Doc

#3 Sounds like expected behavior to me. Insufficient kinetic energy in a small stone to knock back a large assailant charging toward the launcher.

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2014, 11:38 PM (This post was last modified: 02-03-2014 11:42 PM by Im_Ryan.)
RE: DOC'S THEOPHOBIC SUNDAY SCHOOL
(02-03-2014 08:38 PM)docskeptic Wrote:  
(28-02-2014 03:48 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  Hey Doc I have a legit question about the story of David and Goliath. I was reading the KJV version and got a bit confused during 1 Samuel 17:50-51.
Where did David get his sword? If you look back at 1 Samuel 17:39-40, he didn't take one with him. Then if you look at 1 Samuel 17:4-7 you'll notice there's no mention of Goliath having a sword either...

Im_Ryan,
The story of David and Goliath is not as straightforward as it is made out to be. There are several problems with the story:
1. When Saul sends David out to battle the giant, Saul does not recognize David, despite the fact that David was his own personal minstrel.
2. In 1 Sam 17:50, it says that David killed Goliath with a stone, but in v. 51 it says that after the giant fell down, David drew Goliath's sword, killed the giant and then cut off his head.
3. When Goliath was first struck by the stone on his forehead, he falls face froward, rather than backward, but that may be a minor point.
4. The armor that Goliath was wearing was not worn by Philistine soldiers in the 10th century BCE and is an indication of the late composition of Samuel.
5. The KJV and later bibles list his height as 9'6" or thereabouts, but the Septuagint lists it as 6'9" or thereabouts.
6. Both 2 Sam. 21:19 and 1 Chron. 20:5 say that Goliath was slain by Elhanan not David.

With all the problems in the story the question of where David got the sword to decapitate the giant is moot, but it was probably Goliath's own sword that 1 Sam. 17 neglected to mention.

Interestingly, David later gets the sword of Goliath for his own use when he is on the run from Saul by lying to the priest, 1 Samuel 21:1-9. As a resullt, 85 priests were executed by Saul. So much for David being a man after God's own heart and God protecting his own priests.

Doc

I only came up with three questions (from personally reading):
  1. Why did Saul not recognize David after the battle?
  2. How did David kill Goliath?
  3. Where did David get the sword?

I dismissed #1 (shakely) because it could've been just a figure of speech. Ie: when you do something very out of character and a family member asks "who are you?"
Then I dismissed #2 because it sounded like he just decapitated Goliath for a war prize (the wording is strange, so please correct me if I'm wrong).
I know there are other questions (like how many sons does Jesse have?), but I wanted to try and test my own critical thinking skills Tongue

Also, for your #6, the KJV adds "the brother of [Goliath]" to fix that issue. I didn't catch it, had to read an older version.
Reference.

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2014, 07:59 AM (This post was last modified: 03-03-2014 08:21 AM by docskeptic.)
RE: DOC'S THEOPHOBIC SUNDAY SCHOOL
(02-03-2014 10:51 PM)Cardinal Smurf Wrote:  3. When Goliath was first struck by the stone on his forehead, he falls face froward, rather than backward, but that may be a minor point.

Doc

#3 Sounds like expected behavior to me. Insufficient kinetic energy in a small stone to knock back a large assailant charging toward the launcher.
[/quote]

Cardinal,
I agree. I guess I had that picture from my old Sunday School flannel-graph presentation in my mind. You know, the one where Goliath stands threatening David, who is whirling his sling around his head. I guess it would be more realistic to expect Goliath to be charging forward.

There is a secondary point though. In all contemporary depictions of Philistine armor, the helmet reaches low over the forehead, effectively shielding it from sling attack-see the Medinet Habu reliefs. This depicts defeated "Sea People" soldiers from ca. 1190 BCE, roughly 200 years prior to David wearing their characteristic helmets. Why would David aim for an armored point?

I suppose, though, that individual tastes in armor varied and Goliath may have had a helmet exposing his forehead. Also armor styles may have changed in 200 years.

To cut it short, I concede the point.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-03-2014, 04:23 PM
DOC'S THEOPHOBIC SUNDAY SCHOOL
(03-03-2014 07:59 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  Cardinal,
I agree. I guess I had that picture from my old Sunday School flannel-graph presentation in my mind. You know, the one where Goliath stands threatening David, who is whirling his sling around his head. I guess it would be more realistic to expect Goliath to be charging forward.

There is a secondary point though. In all contemporary depictions of Philistine armor, the helmet reaches low over the forehead, effectively shielding it from sling attack-see the Medinet Habu reliefs. This depicts defeated "Sea People" soldiers from ca. 1190 BCE, roughly 200 years prior to David wearing their characteristic helmets. Why would David aim for an armored point?

I suppose, though, that individual tastes in armor varied and Goliath may have had a helmet exposing his forehead. Also armor styles may have changed in 200 years.

To cut it short, I concede the point.

Doc

Perhaps it was a hot day?

He's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy! -Brian's mum
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2014, 11:58 AM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2014 12:06 PM by docskeptic.)
RE: DOC'S DIAPHORETIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (SWEATIN' TO THE OT)
So, here's something to consider:

In Lev. 16:7-10, it says, "(Aaron) is to take the two goats and present them before the Lord at the entrance to the tent of meeting. He is to cast lots for the two goats—one lot for the Lord and the other for the scapegoat. Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the Lord and sacrifice it for a sin offering. But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the Lord to be used for making atonement by sending it into the wilderness as a scapegoat."

However, the word "scapegoat" is translated from the Hebrew "Azazel", a proper noun perhaps denoting a desert demon or spirit. 1 Enoch describes him as a fallen angel who corrupted the human race.

It sounds as if the Israelites were appeasing their tribal god YHWH and a desert demon. The translators of the Bible recognizing the plurality of deities cleverly changed "for Azazel" to "for the scapegoat". Others translate Azazel as "a strong, hard mountain."

Thoughts?

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes docskeptic's post
11-03-2014, 12:03 PM
RE: DOC'S DIAPHORETIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (SWEATIN' TO THE OT)
(11-03-2014 11:58 AM)docskeptic Wrote:  So, here's something to consider:

In Lev. 16:7-10, it says, "(Aaron) is to take the two goats and present them before the Lord at the entrance to the tent of meeting. He is to cast lots for the two goats—one lot for the Lord and the other for the scapegoat. Aaron shall bring the goat whose lot falls to the Lord and sacrifice it for a sin offering. But the goat chosen by lot as the scapegoat shall be presented alive before the Lord to be used for making atonement by sending it into the wilderness as a scapegoat.

However, the word "scapegoat" is translated from the Hebrew "Azazel", a proper noun perhaps denoting a desert demon or spirit. 1 Enoch describes him as a fallen angel who corrupted the human race.

It sounds as if the Israelites were appeasing their tribal god YHWH and a desert demon. The translators of the Bible recognizing the plurality of deities cleverly changed "for Azazel" to "for the scapegoat". Others translate Azazel as "a strong, hard mountain."

Thoughts?

Doc

Part of the "combo meal" that Yahweh was, was an Edomite Mountain deity.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...-is-Yahweh

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
14-03-2014, 11:10 AM
RE: DOC'S DIAPHORETIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (SWEATIN' TO THE OT)
It just goes to show that the Israelites were a fundamentally polytheistc people with monotheism only gradually winning out and YHWH emerging as the sole survivor.

I posted this earlier but I thought it might be worth repeating:

In Numbers 21:4-9 on their way to the Promised Land, the people complained against Moses because there was no food or water. To punish them, God sent "fiery serpents" among the people and many died. Upon hearing their cries, God relented and explicitly told Moses to make a bronze serpent, put it up on a pole and whoever looked at the serpent would then be saved. This is depite the fact that earlier in Exodus 20:4, God explicitly told the Israelites, "You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below."

But what happened to the bronze serpent? In 2 Kings 18: 4, we read that King Hezekiah "broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan)."

Now, Hezekiah ruled Judah from ca. 715-687 BCE and the Exodus occured ca. 1400 BCE (by conservative reckoning). So, the serpent that God commissioned survived for 700 years or so as an idol in Israel. That means that it survived the rest of Moses's life, Joshua, the Judges, the reign of King David, "a man after God's own heart" and King Solomon, "the wisest man in the world".

So, who was responsible for Israel's idolatry? A strong case could be made that God himself was culpable. The situation would be analogous to giving a child cyanide-laced candy and then blaming the kid for taking a lick.

The moral of the story is that anything, even a serpent or a psychopath like YHWH can be turned into a deity.

Doc
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like docskeptic's post
14-03-2014, 11:35 AM
RE: DOC'S DIAPHORETIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (SWEATIN' TO THE OT)
Funny how the golden calf caused so much anger and violence from God and Moses, but this bronze statue was OK by both of them.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-03-2014, 09:50 AM
RE: DOC'S ONOMATOPOEIC SUNDAY SCHOOL
(14-03-2014 11:35 AM)Timber1025 Wrote:  Funny how the golden calf caused so much anger and violence from God and Moses, but this bronze statue was OK by both of them.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ble-Bull-s

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2014, 03:49 PM
RE: DOC'S EBONIC SUNDAY SCHOOL (GETTIN' JIGGY WID IT)
Where has Doc been? Did I miss something? Want to continue my education in his class.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: