That's actually a very good point.  Armor was made to fit one specific person, if it didn't fit, you wouldn't be able to see or move freely.  It would bind or flop around, both would hinder free movement.  And Saul was a warrior and had been trained all his life, he would know this.  So, it is possible that David was a lot larger than implied.  The Bible never actually comes out and says that David is small and scrawny, all it says is that David refused Sauls armor because it was too heavy for him.  And if you have not trained in armor, the first times you put it on, it slows you down and messes with your balance.  So it was actually pretty smart to say "thanks but no thanks" because it would have been more of a hindrance.

HurlinThom wrote on Nov 18^th, 2011 at 4:37am:



In the Bible the term 1/3 (like in Rev) ususualy means a lot, usually enough to be catostophic. However I am pretty sure 40 just means 40.

In old Inuit stories (Chukchi but I can call em Inuit  ),  the most dangerous and most capable warriors are extremely fit,  not giants,  of course we have stories of giants appearing and challenging whole villages and they are depicted as terrifying.  But top move fast and maneuver better one has to be fit and have plenty of endurance;  soo it was the same in Antiquity(any time for that matter),  the fitter the soldier/warrior the better,  assuming they got a good brain in their skulls to outwit and defeat their enemies 

Yepp, short and broad build of just right physical condition,  I'm nearly 6' though  ,  normally they would be 5'-5'7" more or less

Knaight wrote on Dec 6^th, 2011 at 8:14am:

I guess you aren't counting javelin throwing as spear training.

This is an interesting subject. To me, It goes without reason David carried a sling with him at all times, but apparently no ammunition...hence the need to gather pebbles prior to engaging Goliath. Is there a possiblility other slinger's in the army carried no ammunition until just prior to battle and resorted to a quick trip to the local ammunition dump (creek bed) before the battle began? Given the normal description of slingers as being ultra-light troops, this would make sense in that they would travel without the weight of a pouch full of ammunition, then only load up for battle just prior to going into action.

I was always taught that the Bible stories were multi-dimensional. There's the physical world event, a moral element and a spiritual element. The five stones could easily have been just that- five stones. Why five? Many have already opined on this but there is no obvious reason to mention this if we are looking for a materialistic meaning.

To understand this story, andt he five stones, you need to look to the spiritual element. The story is about the battle between good and evil. This doesn't discount the historical event but the purpose of the event and story is much larger. While the Bible contains history, it wasn't written as a history book. So, Hebrews represented the good and the Philistines the bad. David, the champion, did what that the others did not do? he realied on God. He didn't rely on physical armor. He wasn't scared. He demonstrated faith as his shield and believed that the hand of God would guide his sling to strike down the poster child of evil- Goliath. David was laughed at because he was a boy and not a trained and proven warrior. The laughed because they were afraid.

So, the five stones represented the basis of the Hebrew faith in God- the Torah, the five Books of Moses. This is as plausible understanding once you read the text for spiritual meaning. Without this meaning, there is no need to comment on the fact that there were five stones. The only signficance of five that I have been able to find in the Jewish Tanach is the five books of Moses. The idea that the stones foreshadow the deaths of Goliath's brothers is a stretch, despite what Grant Jeffries says. They simply represented God's Law, the foundation of the Hebrew faith in the battle against evil.

My .02.

May it be blessed,
Todd

I think the reason he selected five stones is related to his personal probablility of a "hit-kill" ratio. I figure he knew it was around 20% and experience told him five stone would get the job done. I personally think he was an adept slinger, but a far cry form anything similar to what could be considered an expert.