Goliath and Legend

[MaxVel]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigantism

There are currently a handful of men pushing 9 feet in the world, and none of them would have the agility to glide down a basketball court, even in their youth. Soldiering is much more intensive.

And yes I'm assuming the ancient Israelites weren't aware of medical literature.

So... ...you're saying that Goliath wasn't real because whoever wrote the account over-exaggerated his height for dramatic effect?


And therefore...



...the Bible is untrustworthy and God doesn't exist....??

[whag]

So... ...you're saying that Goliath wasn't real because whoever wrote the account over-exaggerated his height for dramatic effect?


And therefore...



...the Bible is untrustworthy and God doesn't exist....??

I actually said nothing of the sort. If I did, please quote it and I'll backtrack or clarify.

[seanD]

Because gigantism is a handicap not a benefit. It's not that it's impossible to grow to that height but that giants don't make good soldiers. The storytellers who did the embellishing didn't know that.

We don't have a enough 9 footers in our history to know this for sure.

[Carrikature]

It was a (loosely) related example to illustrate the point: ancient writers operated under different writing conventions and priorities, and rejecting their accounts solely because they didn't write according to our conventions and priorities is fallacious.

Good thing that's not the basis for my rejection, then, isn't it? It's not the differences in conventions and priorities that are why the accounts are rejected. Rather, it's that the differences in conventions and priorities lead to unreliable reporting. One doesn't have to frown upon certain conventions to recognize that one needs to look elsewhere for reliable reporting.

Your last sentence means you're going to have to throw out pretty much all ancient biography and most history, AFAIK.

This is oft-repeated nonsense. There's a lot more to our understanding of most history than single, unreliable accounts. Where our understanding is based solely on such accounts, we should not consider that understanding on firm footing. Quite the opposite. This isn't that hard to grasp, yet it often seems beyond many apologists (at least on this site).

That's plenty big enough to be very intimidating. I've played casual basketball against someone 6'5". I'm 5'8", and play with people who are my height or not much taller. Him simply changing hands on his dribble made him pretty much unguardable, and he could block shots, without even jumping, that I can get off easily against others.

I never argued that it wasn't intimidating. That said, someone doesn't even have to be taller than you for you to be intimidated by them. Put on a cloth tunic and face off against a muscular guy in armor.

What I think people often miss about miracles is context (and/or timing). Something that is within the realm of the 'normally possible' - like a slinger killing an armoured soldier with one shot - but happens just at a particular time, or in a particular context... ...well that seems unusually unlikely.

It would be more unusually unlikely for a skilled slinger to miss than to hit. This isn't baseball, where the guys are hitting 30% of their attempts and happen to get a home run at the bottom of the ninth to win the game. That said, if this is how you want to define a miracle, it can apply to literally anything you find unlikely that happens at just the right time. Talk about a definition that's too broad to be useful...

[whag]

We don't have a enough 9 footers in our history to know this for sure.

We know enough about the causes and effects of a runaway pituitary to know that for sure. It wreaks havoc on a body for specific demonstrable reasons.

Are you saying these stories (David, Samson, Balaam) are accurate recorded history with none of the embellishment MaxVel just got done defending as an accepted rhetorical device?

[seanD]

We know enough about the causes and effects of a runaway pituitary to know that for sure. It wreaks havoc on a body for specific demonstrable reasons.

Are you saying these stories (David, Samson, Balaam) are accurate recorded history with none of the embellishment MaxVel just got done defending as an accepted rhetorical device?

There are enough 7 footers and above that thrive athletically. So there's no reason to assume every 9 footer would have the same debilitating issues.

[whag]

It would be more unusually unlikely for a skilled slinger to miss than to hit. This isn't baseball, where the guys are hitting 30% of their attempts and happen to get a home run at the bottom of the ninth to win the game. That said, if this is how you want to define a miracle, it can apply to literally anything you find unlikely that happens at just the right time. Talk about a definition that's too broad to be useful...

That's why Hail Mary shots are called that. =)

Why should the apologist stress the precise marksmanship of David--and all shepherd boys of the day--to kill running lions but then say*David's shot had to be divinely guided into a stationary target?

[whag]

There are enough 7 footers and above that thrive athletically. So there's no reason to assume every 9 footer would have the same debilitating issues.

Yes, and they don't have runaway pituitary growth. Debilitation comes from the gland's overproduction, which is devastating to the body.

Also, wrestling and basketball aren't relentless. Soldiers can't take a timeout for Gatorade and a rubdown in a war.

You need to be more nuanced about this. Stubbornly clinging to "it could have happened" when the consensus acknowledges embellishment isn't convincing. Once you plug this hole, ten more await. Better to acknowledge at the outset this isn't accurate history but legend.

[jordanriver]

Yes, and they don't have runaway pituitary growth. Debilitation comes from the gland's overproduction, which is devastating to the body.

Also, wrestling and basketball aren't relentless. Soldiers can't take a timeout for Gatorade and a rubdown in a war.

You need to be more nuanced about this. Stubbornly clinging to "it could have happened" when the consensus acknowledges embellishment isn't convincing. Once you plug this hole, ten more await. Better to acknowledge at the outset this isn't accurate history but legend.

this is great stuff.

well, because it takes me back , 7th grade we had to come up with something for science class, I picked dwarfism and how its important to donate your pituitary so dwarfs can have the ACTH for treatments...

...plus I was young then

[whag]

this is great stuff.

well, because it takes me back , 7th grade we had to come up with something for science class, I picked dwarfism and how its important to donate your pituitary so dwarfs can have the ACTH for treatments...

...plus I was young then

It was a kind thought. If only our bodies were that simplistically modular!

[Carrikature]

What I think people often miss about miracles is context (and/or timing). Something that is within the realm of the 'normally possible' - like a slinger killing an armoured soldier with one shot - but happens just at a particular time, or in a particular context... ...well that seems unusually unlikely.

I was reading a blog this evening and came across this relevant tidbit regarding the definition of a miracle, so I thought I'd share.

Source: The Cambridge Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion

An event (ultimately) caused by God that cannot be accounted for by the natural powers of natural substances alone. Conceived of this way, miracles don’t violate the laws of nature but rather involve the occurrence of events which cannot be explained by the powers of nature alone. When dead bodies come back to life it is a miracle because the molecules that make up the corpse lack the powers necessary to generate life.

© Copyright Original Source

This is the usage for which I typically see 'miracle' used.

[MaxVel]

Carrikature: -

Did Goliath exist?

Was he a really big soldier?

Did David kill him using a sling?

Was that something that was surprising and unexpected to the Israelites and the Philistines?


On miracles:-

Was something like the collapse of the walls of Jericho (possibly) miraculous? Timing and context seem to play quite a big role in how the Israelites saw that event.

[JimL]

The story of David and Goliath sounds an awful lot like myth to me. The story doesn't make much sense, as the Israelites needn't have feared Goliath's obviously absurd challenge. Neither winner's nation would assent to complete subjugation. There are many other clues that it is highly embellished that we can discuss, such as David killing a lion. Can one regard that story as legend, or is skepticism of these kinds of biblical stories frowned upon? How much of a burden exists in Christianity to believe these OT stories?

Being that there are many such stories it doesn't seem that the burden to believe outwieghs the ability of the inculcated mind to do so. For instance, Samson tore a lion to shreds with his bare hands and killed a thousand men with the jawbone of an ass.

[whag]

MaxVel:

Did an evil spirit from the Lord enter Saul, or did Saul just have mental issues?

ETA: is supernatural embellishment as acceptable as numerical embellishment?

[Carrikature]

Carrikature: -

Did Goliath exist?

Was he a really big soldier?

Did David kill him using a sling?

Was that something that was surprising and unexpected to the Israelites and the Philistines?

The believer will accept it as a real event based on a general attitude that everything in the Bible is true. Without having anything to corroborate this tale, though, we don't have any way of knowing whether or not it actually happened. In my opinion, this holds true for all historical records for which we lack corroborating evidence. That said, we don't necessarily have a reason to simply reject it out of hand, either. It's plausible that this story is true. I'm not going to say that it is or it isn't, because I simply can't know yet. So the best I can do for many of these questions is going to be "maybe".

IF Goliath existed, it seems reasonable to say that he was a really tall soldier that met another man in battle and was killed by a stone from a sling. This isn't an unrealistic outcome, as I think we've firmly established in this thread. Whether or not it was surprising and unexpected to the Israelites and/or the Philistines is a matter for speculation. Had neither of them seen, let alone used, slingers in battle? Where they wholly unaware of the killing power of the sling? The story would have us believe that, yes, this is exactly the case. David alone seems to understand what his weapon can do. This I find to be extremely unlikely. We know that slings have been used in battle for millenia. David, at least by his account, has been using the sling for years to protect the flocks. Was he the only one to use it this way? Probably not. Were the leaders of both armies completely unaware of the possible battle applications? Maybe, but again this seems unlikely. If it's the first time slings were used/encountered in battle, it's conceivable that both the Israelites and Philistines would be surprised by the outcome. In reality, most people weighing "unarmored boy with a sling" vs "big soldier in good armor" in their heads are probably going to favor the latter anyway. It's possible, then, that the outcome was surprising and unexpected to the Israelites and the Philistines. I'm not sure what difference it makes, though. Simply calling something 'surprising' and 'unexpected' does not a miracle make.

On miracles:-

Was something like the collapse of the walls of Jericho (possibly) miraculous? Timing and context seem to play quite a big role in how the Israelites saw that event.

You'll have to explain what you mean about timing and context. A mighty shout causing the walls to collapse is downright impossible short of supernatural intervention, and that's not changed by how many times you march in a circle around them. The instructions to march that the Israelites followed look no different to me than Moses being instructed to strike rocks, speak to a rock, erect a type of caduceus, or anything else. They're exercises in "do what you're told" not "I know something you don't about how the universe works".

As far as I can tell, the current information available points to the tale of Jericho being outright false. The commonly accepted location of Jericho was not walled at the time, if it was inhabited at all. In fact, most of the cities that were supposedly destroyed and/or conquered by the Israelites run into similar issues. The evidence, especially archaeological, simply does not support the accounts presented.