I found the answer to why David chose 5 stones in the book: The Signature of God by Grant Jeffery.
David did not lack faith in the Supernatural power of God, Goliath had 4 brothers, all of which were Giants !  :o In the book of 2nd Samuel chapter 21:15-22 ( please feel free to read it yourself ) it mentions 2nd Samuel 21:22 "These four (Goliaths brothers) were decendants of Rapha in Gath , and they fell to the hands of David and his servants (soldiers). Try finding sombody knowadays that can make a head shot on a target 9ft tall 5 times in a row!

Please do more reaserch in the topic by reading 2 Samuel 21 and also pick up the well written Signature of God by Grant Jeffery which also answeres many other questions in Bible text.

Thanks for the prompt.  I've been meaning to re-read the story of David now that I'm a slinger.

sure thing bro  ;)

Dan wrote on Jun 19^th, 2010 at 11:34am:

I found the answer to why David chose 5 stones in the book: The Signature of God by Grant Jeffery. David did not lack faith in the Supernatural power of God, Goliath had 4 brothers, all of which were Giants !  :o In the book of 2nd Samuel chapter 21:15-22 ( please feel free to read it yourself ) it mentions 2nd Samuel 21:22 "These four (Goliaths brothers) were decendants of Rapha in Gath , and they fell to the hands of David and his servants (soldiers). Try finding sombody knowadays that can make a head shot on a target 9ft tall 5 times in a row! Please do more reaserch in the topic by reading 2 Samuel 21 and also pick up the well written Signature of God by Grant Jeffery which also answeres many other questions in Bible text.

9 feet tall is unlikely. What's worth noting is that the average height at that point would have been low, if they were even 6 feet tall then they would be bigger and heavier than most everyone else, with reach to boot, big advantages. And strictly speaking it would be easier to make a head shot on a bigger target, plus there are still people around who can pull that off.

The bible is of dubious validity as an objective historical resource, not only has it gone through a great many translations, it is a heavily biased piece to begin with. Goliath would have been exaggerated as tougher than he was, David would have been exaggerated as less physically impressive, so as to make the story seem more miraculous. Its likely there is a grain of truth in that story, which boils down to in a war, the Israelites fielded a slinger as champion who took down someone who had a reputation as very dangerous. With five stones, and lighter armor, multiple tries would have been near guaranteed, though extreme bravery is still needed.

Furthermore, the cited incident with Goliath's brothers occurred after David had become a leader and acquired soldiers, so the stones collected in the initial battle are completely irrelevant anyways. Its another point that serves largely to point out that A) Gods on our side, look at this champion, and B) Seriously, look at this champion, he's pretty awesome.

I think he choose 5 stones because he knew that thats the maximum of stones he could sling(in case he misses) until goliath puts an end to the fight.He had to fight only goliath,not his brothers too.Am I right?

jlasud wrote on Sep 20^th, 2010 at 3:03pm:

I think he choose 5 stones because he knew that thats the maximum of stones he could sling(in case he misses) until goliath puts an end to the fight.He had to fight only goliath,not his brothers too.Am I right?

He had to fight only Goliath in the duel. His brothers represented a problem later on, so he went and dealt with them, because David got stuff done as a king.

 Ha ha, sounds like a tag line from an action movie!  "First he dealt with Goliath, now his brothers are in the crosshairs!"  coming this september to a theater near you!

 He may also have asked for a few extra so that he could pick the best ones, like maybe he picked the best 3 out of the 5 as he couldn't gather them himself and get them the way he liked them.  

 I was in the food store, (yeah the food store,) the other day and was looking at a rack of movies while waiting at the checkout and there was a new film called DAVID, being the story of King David and on the cover they showed a sling... the perplexing thing was I couldn't see that there was any retention or release cord, it looked like one continuous loop!  It was a pretty clear picture and I looked at it closely but that's what it looked like, it may have been bad photography or a serious hollywood blunder or some strange type of sling, IDK....

Personally I think it was more like a "trust in god, but let´s carry this extra ammo just in case" kinda thing.

Personally I doubt whether David really killed Goliath. Later in the modern Bible Elhanan is said to have killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath, but in older manuscripts it is Elhanan the brother of a Bethlehemite (pronounced Bat'Lahmi in hebrew) who killed Goliath. I think that Elhanan killed Goliath, the story was rewritten to please the current king (David), both versions accidently were compiled together, and the mistake was noticed by a translator who added in "brother" and mistook the word bethlehemite (maybe it was smudged?) for a name.

Another possibility is that David killed a giant and his name was changed to Goliath by borrowing from the Elhanan story because in the ancient Hebrew language Goliath came to mean huge. Then later someone from outside the culture who missed the subtlties thought goliath was the name of Davids opponent and did the same thing to Elhanan's opponent as my first theory.

wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 9:54am:

Personally I think it was more like a "trust in god, but let´s carry this extra ammo just in case" kinda thing.

That`s what I think, too.  It`s what I would do, under those circumstances :)
timann

Kinda like the WWII "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition." attributed to a Chaplin manning a deck gun at Pearl Harbor.

Above text totally redacted

So much for attributions ... the story is here:
http://my.execpc.com/~dschaaf/praise.html

P.S. what I mean to say is take a lot of ammo to a gunfight (or sling)


#195 / 255

I agree with u Dan i have thought this for a long time and thanks for posting the truth ;)

slingingrat wrote on Oct 5^th, 2010 at 6:26pm:

I agree with u Dan i have thought this for a long time and thanks for posting the truth ;)

Well, an opinion. Whether it is the truth or not..... ;)

wanderer wrote on Oct 7^th, 2010 at 7:08am:

slingingrat wrote on Oct 5th, 2010 at 6:26pm: I agree with u Dan i have thought this for a long time and thanks for posting the truth ;) Well, an opinion. Whether it is the truth or not..... ;)

I agree with wanderer; it's a possibility but it's not necessarily the truth and certainly not, "The Truth". There is no reason given for the number of stones selected in the story or the other texts. Making it an article of faith based on speculation is not a good idea.

I must say, I don't understand, Dan, what you're saying. This is the quotation from 2 Samuel 21


*****
15 Once again there was a battle between the Philistines and Israel. David went down with his men to fight against the Philistines, and he became exhausted. 16 And Ishbi-Benob, one of the descendants of Rapha, whose bronze spearhead weighed three hundred shekels [b] and who was armed with a new sword , said he would kill David. 17 But Abishai son of Zeruiah came to David's rescue; he struck the Philistine down and killed him. Then David's men swore to him, saying, "Never again will you go out with us to battle, so that the lamp of Israel will not be extinguished."
18 In the course of time, there was another battle with the Philistines, at Gob. At that time Sibbecai the Hushathite killed Saph, one of the descendants of Rapha.



19 In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim [c] the Bethlehemite killed Goliath [d] the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod.

20 In still another battle, which took place at Gath, there was a huge man with six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot—twenty-four in all. He also was descended from Rapha. 21 When he taunted Israel, Jonathan son of Shimeah, David's brother, killed him.

22 These four were descendants of Rapha in Gath, and they fell at the hands of David and his men.
*****

Now it concerns a war of David, when he is king, against the Philistines. We are told that during this war, 4 men from Gath were killed, of the descendants of Rapha (those 4 were born to the giant, leharaphah beGath). It is not about the incident in 1 Samuel where David kills Goliath. These 4 men were not killed by David's sling, but by David's men (beyad avedav) as well as "by his hand".


So which is it:

1. The five stones in David's pouch in 1 Samuel symbolize the future fights by David against the Philistines.
a. The real David had five stones, and they predicted his wars as a king and the further slaying of Philistines, not just Goliath.
b. The author of 1 Samuel introduced this detail to announce the future war.
In any case, it's not a case of David getting five headshots.

2. Goliath the Gittite is in fact the "real Goliath"-- conflated with the nameless six-digits-on every-extremity giant, also from Gath-- and his slaying did occur, but only after David became king; the story was later shifted back to before David became king, as a symbol of David's destiny and the divine favour that he enjoyed. (I suppose this has been noted before, but I don't what the commentaries say on this). Again, no five headshots, but just a story that's been transposed. Perhaps the five stones symbolize, consciously or no, the "future" fights against Philistines when David is king (which is in fact the real context when these killings occurred).

I've not read the book you recommend, Dan. My view ? It's a realistic detail-- what a slinger would do (five stones as a good tactical load for a fight-- this only makes the splendid accuracy of the shot the more striking, and the more impressive as a sign of divine favour; of course, this does contradict the confidence with which David speaks to Goliath, but this very mystery, of the contrast between human precaution and inspired speech is religiously meaningful and challenging);

-- later commentators on the bible, trying to make sense of this, think of the passage in 2 Samuel, and intepret it symbolically.

I have read the Bible like you, and I go for the other four giants and the case that they could come to the battle in the Ela valley. This giants were the sons of Orpah. David knew them well because Orpah was his grandmother's(Ruth) sister in law. They were not blood family but they were realted somewhat. Goliath was the oldest of the giants and thus much older than David.
The Bible has sybolisms throught the pages, but David history with Goliath was battle itself and the amount of stones didn't bring any symbols to be decoded. David didn't get five stones in case he missed one because he had practiced slingling all his life and conquered beasts since a young age. He brought the five stones in case the other giants reached the Ela valley. Anyway they did not go there that day but they were killed later.

It's a fun story, anyway.

Dr.Q wrote on Nov 7^th, 2010 at 4:25am:

I have read the Bible like you, and I go for the other four giants and the case that they could come to the battle in the Ela valley. This giants were the sons of Orpah. David knew them well because Orpah was his grandmother's(Ruth) sister in law. They were not blood family but they were realted somewhat. Goliath was the oldest of the giants and thus much older than David. The Bible has sybolisms throught the pages, but David history with Goliath was battle itself and the amount of stones didn't bring any symbols to be decoded. David didn't get five stones in case he missed one because he had practiced slingling all his life and conquered beasts since a young age. He brought the five stones in case the other giants reached the Ela valley. Anyway they did not go there that day but they were killed later.

Thank you

I tend to believe that although David trusted God, and with good reason, he knew that God seldom grants us victories over problems and trouble in our life instantly.  Therefore he couldn't be sure that Goliath would go down with only one stone.  He trusted God, but was prepared to cooperate with God in being prepared and in doing all he could with his own strength and skills while trusting that God would see him through in the end.  In this instance, I believe God intended to reward Davids public trust in him with an instant and public example.  Despite Davids probable considerable skills, the implication of the story was that the ultimate credit went to God for Davids success.  Incidently, the archaological record indicates that the cubit in use in Israel up till the time of Hezekiah was the royal Egyptian cubit that the Hebrews brought with them out of Egypt and it was standardized throughout Egypt at 20.6".  So at the time the story of David and Goliath was written, the cubit in use would have made Goliath close to 11 feet tall.  I suspect he was a genetic throwback to pre-flood times.  Just as the fossil record demonstrates the unusual size of plant and animal life before the flood, I believe humans preflood where of unusual size.  The bible hints at this by showing the rapid deterioration of life expectancy immediatly after the flood and by a cryptic reference to people being giants in the land.  Paleantologists have found human bones that had to come from people at least 12 feet tall.(I am not refering to the recent photos circulated on the web that were obvious hoaxes.)  Fossilized footprints have been found in the mud next to dinosaur footprints( in one case superimposed in a dinosaur footprint) around 15" long.  For those that disagree I respect that.  But there is a good reason why most archaologists ignore giant human bones and footprints.  Because it doesn't fit with what they want to believe.

wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2010 at 9:54am:

Personally I think it was more like a "trust in god, but let´s carry this extra ammo just in case" kinda thing.

I think so too.  Love the way you said it. :D

starhiker wrote on Jan 9^th, 2011 at 2:39pm:

I tend to believe that although David trusted God, and with good reason, he knew that God seldom grants us victories over problems and trouble in our life instantly.  Therefore he couldn't be sure that Goliath would go down with only one stone.  He trusted God, but was prepared to cooperate with God in being prepared and in doing all he could with his own strength and skills while trusting that God would see him through in the end.  In this instance, I believe God intended to reward Davids public trust in him with an instant and public example.  Despite Davids probable considerable skills, the implication of the story was that the ultimate credit went to God for Davids success.  Incidently, the archaological record indicates that the cubit in use in Israel up till the time of Hezekiah was the royal Egyptian cubit that the Hebrews brought with them out of Egypt and it was standardized throughout Egypt at 20.6".  So at the time the story of David and Goliath was written, the cubit in use would have made Goliath close to 11 feet tall.  I suspect he was a genetic throwback to pre-flood times.  Just as the fossil record demonstrates the unusual size of plant and animal life before the flood, I believe humans preflood where of unusual size.  The bible hints at this by showing the rapid deterioration of life expectancy immediatly after the flood and by a cryptic reference to people being giants in the land.  Paleantologists have found human bones that had to come from people at least 12 feet tall.(I am not refering to the recent photos circulated on the web that were obvious hoaxes.)  Fossilized footprints have been found in the mud next to dinosaur footprints( in one case superimposed in a dinosaur footprint) around 15" long.  For those that disagree I respect that.  But there is a good reason why most archaologists ignore giant human bones and footprints.  Because it doesn't fit with what they want to believe.

Thanks for tuning in starhiker it is good to find other bible believing people on here , welcome.

starhiker wrote on Jan 9^th, 2011 at 2:39pm:

Fossilized footprints have been found in the mud next to dinosaur footprints( in one case superimposed in a dinosaur footprint) around 15" long.  For those that disagree I respect that.  But there is a good reason why most archaologists ignore giant human bones and footprints.  Because it doesn't fit with what they want to believe.

Wait, wait, wait. I've got no problem with pre-flood giants, but are you suggesting that people were wandering around at the same time as the dinosuars?



I'd also like to apologize for necro'ing this thread.  And the other one I did earlier.

Indeed. I'd like to see some references for these claims too. It's not enough to say they are in the Bible and we should all accept that. I'd like to see the Biblical reference matched with a modern scientific/archaeological one.

Anyone care to set me right?


Mods, is this is too touchy a subject?

snowcelt wrote on May 12^th, 2011 at 2:36am:

Indeed. I'd like to see some references for these claims too. It's not enough to say they are in the Bible and we should all accept that. I'd like to see the Biblical reference matched with a modern scientific/archaeological one. Anyone care to set me right? Mods, is this is too touchy a subject?

No, it's not too touchy, provided people are willing to accept that it is very speculative. The Bible itself is very light on detail; no descrition of the throw, nor of the distance, is given. Goliath's height is stated as being six cubits and a span but some ancient texts say only four cubits and a span. Ignoring or overlooking evidence which doesn't fit into the prevailing viewpoint is a trap we all can fall into.

Similarly, any speculation that the five stones represent Goliath's five brothers is just that, speculation. There is NO definite Biblical reference to confirm that. As is the notion that Goliath was really struck on the kneecap. This idea is based on tha similarity of the words for forehead and kneecap. It is surmised that Goliath's forehead would have been covered by his helmet and he would not have fallen forward if struck on the forehead. Perhaps he was wearing a short helmet and tripped?

We have to accept that we can never really know some of these finer details.

Well, um, what claims are we talking about ?

--the story of David and Goliath ? (in the Bible)

--humans and dinosaurs at the same time (not in the Bible, really)

or should we just sling ?

Let's just go slinging. Best idea I've heard all day!  ;D

Not to get into anything but one aspect of the discussion, even a forehead hit would have reuslted in Goliath falling forward. A slingstone simply lacks the momentum to topple someone backward. In fact, that much momentum delivered to the head would have broken Goliath's neck. Killed or merely stunned, his knees would have buckled and he would have fallen forward.

Similarly, if you shoot a deer with a rifle bullet having 2500 foot pounds of energy the deer drops; it doesn't go flying 100 yards.

This is basic physics, conservation of momentum versus conservation of energy.

the trauma force is the same at the point of impact as it is when the weapon recoils= when you get hit by a projectile, the backward force is the exact same as the recoil from the weapon. considering a slings "recoil" (how much force is put on you if you get hit by the release cord) is not much, you would fall forward if hit in the forehead with a  sling stone

Aussie wrote on May 12^th, 2011 at 3:34am:

No, it's not too touchy, provided people are willing to accept that it is very speculative. The Bible itself is very light on detail; no descrition of the throw, nor of the distance, is given. Goliath's height is stated as being six cubits and a span but some ancient texts say only four cubits and a span. Ignoring or overlooking evidence which doesn't fit into the prevailing viewpoint is a trap we all can fall into.

It is also worth noting that what exactly a cubit is is unknown. We can state that it originated from a body based measurement, but estimates from 1.5 to 4 feet are common. 1.5 is the most reasonable of these, which gives Goliath at least 6 feet of height -given the low meat diet and agricultural lifestyle in the region at that time, over 6 feet would be a giant, particularly if the person were also well muscled and broad shouldered-something expected in a champion.

I believe the commonly accepted measurement for a cubit is from the elbow to the tips of the fingers.

Thunder Chief wrote on May 16^th, 2011 at 6:57pm:

I believe the commonly accepted measurement for a cubit is from the elbow to the tips of the fingers.

Also two spans or half an ell.  ;)

Thunder Chief wrote on May 16^th, 2011 at 6:57pm:

I believe the commonly accepted measurement for a cubit is from the elbow to the tips of the fingers.

This is the most common use, but by no means is it the only one. Furthermore, this still varies highly from person to person.

Thunder Chief wrote on May 16^th, 2011 at 6:57pm:

I believe the commonly accepted measurement for a cubit is from the elbow to the tips of the fingers.

That's where the original came from, but by the time of David the measure had been standardized somewhat like modern "feet" and "hands" are though they also started out as the length or width of a body part.

See my post in the DvG thread to see one reason there's so much confusion over the height of Goliath.

Thearos wrote on May 12^th, 2011 at 4:33am:

Well, um, what claims are we talking about ? --the story of David and Goliath ? (in the Bible) --humans and dinosaurs at the same time (not in the Bible, really) or should we just sling ?

Both of those are in the Bible quite distinctly and I would be happy to tell you more about it through PM that way we don't throw the thread too off topic.

Well someone said it´s in the bible that the rapture would take place last Saturday...
You could read into parts of the bible it speaks of "dinosaurs", for instance Leviathan, but it is pretty far fetched, and certainly not "quite distinctly".....

I really don't think we get anywhere discussing what is or is not in the Bible or how it is to be interpreted. Nobody will be persuaded that the other guy is right and it just leads to bruised feelings.

One could question how Noah could gather enough food to keep the lions and tigers and bears (oh, my!) fed for 40 days and nights. But this isn't the place for that.

I think that is not a very good comparison, as the story of Noah clearly is in the bible, and it is a pretty straight forward story, no far fetched interpretations going on. Believing it or not is something else (as to your feeding question, simple, "miraculous").  
Of course if you take the bible literally as Dan here does, I suppose the interpretation of humans walking the earth with dinosaurs is understandable, taking the story of Genesis in consideration, and the time lines involved. You have to put the critters somewhere, humans were created at the start, along with everything else,  so there you go.

NB. Don´t know if you noticed Thom, but this whole thread is about biblical interpretation....

Some days I'm slower than others.  :-[

My point is that a literal interpretation brings up its own problems. Those problems have been debated over the last couple-thousand years with no resolution yet in sight. It's pretty unlikely it will be resolved on this forum

Actually I designed for the thread for just interpretation for D vs. G. So Kuggur if you don't mind backing down back to David that would be good or it will probably go into what Hurlinthom said.

Also to answer 1 more question, Hurlinthom It would be illogical to take adult animals on the ark as they would obviously take up more and eat more food so most Christians believe that there were just baby's (not really newborn but toddler size) on the ark. Calculating the size of the ark and subtracting the space that 2 of every kind of animal (2 dogs, 2 squirrels, etc.), the ark would have been only about 1/3 full with animals, leaving plenty of room for food.

This isn't as widely known but many Christans beleive that the ark had what is called a moon pool (looks kind of like a big notch in the boat) this would have relieved much of the preasure on the boat and also alowed a place for Noah and his sons to get rid of the scat and also a place to fish. Just a theory and doesn't really matter either way but it's still pretty cool.  

I do mind "backing down", especially as you yourself go right ahead and keep on pushing your religious views.
You can´t decide who should shut up just because what he says doesn´t agree with you.

If religious topics in general are to be put to rest (not such a bad idea in itself), then everybody should stop posting about it. But I´d say that´s a matter for the mods to decide and regulate.

Dan, I think you just created a self fulfilling prophesy. By trying to not bruise feelings you miffed kuggur. I don't mind thread drift, though; so how about my 2 cents on Noah's ark?

We have evidence that there was a thin wall holding back the ocean from flooding into a basin that became the dead sea. We have remains of settlements all throughout the area including building at the deepest point of the dead sea. We have a "natural" trench that matches computer models of how rushing water would carve of the area if it did flood into the dead sea. I, and quite a few others, believe that Noah's ark was built in the Dead Sea basin and contained local domesticated animals. Oxen, chickens, etc. When the land wall collapsed and water rushed into the Dead Sea it would've stretched across the horizon and looked like the whole world was flooding. it's a literal story, but it's also a matter of perspective. Obviously someone living in Mesopotamia would have no idea what a penguin is, and so they wouldn't know that the ark couldn't have every animal because penguins (and every other animal they'd never seen) weren't there.

Umm, Dan et al. you guys can believe what you want and that is fine-fine by me. I happen to disagree completely. That's ok too but.  Look, I like this forum and while active debate may be entertaining, ultimately we're all here because we love/like slinging. I don't want to things to get nasty just because of entrenched beliefs. Might I suggest that in future such topics have a more specific subject title to avoid or lessen acrimony.

Kevin.

My aplologies if I came off too harsh, I don't mean to force my opinion on anyone I was just giving Hurlin thom what I believed was the answer to his question. Everyone is entitled to his opinion and I don't want to take that way from anyone, but I do know plenty about Creation but I would like to learn more about David and Goliath as well as slinging hence the thread. I have a feeling that due to the major use of the sling in David in Golaiath, Bible related topics will come up quite often it's just a matter staying calm and friendly.

If it's okay I would like to state what I beleive to be the literal answer to Maki opinion (after reading this you may continue to believe whatever you like this is just my opinion). The Bible states that Noah had around 100 years to build the ark and warn others and generally this is enough time to get just about anywhere out side of the mesopotamia, which would have been much easier than building a giant boat and constantly taking care of many animals for 40 days.

If anyone else would like to share your opinion on Noahs ark, it's always good to learn more on other's perspectives.

I Think if going to war against a big scary guy like Goliath,I would of taken 20 stones! And even with Great Faith at least 3-5!
 I have no doubt that the Goliath was 9ft. Because he was a hybrid offspring of Angels that left God for "The Daughters of Men"  :-*

I'm sorry I haven't been checking up on this thread as I've missed the discussion my comments started.  I had no intention of side tracking things or starting anything heated.  My apology.  I was just expressing my belief on this subject.  Yes, there are different ways the bible is interpreted and even christians have different opinions.  As for the animals in the ark, some of you are missing the obvious solution to the feeding problem.  Many species will hibernate when faced with changing weather and I believe God could step in and put all the animals in hibernation.  Of course, the bible is silent on this subject so it is just a theory.

Lets get back to Goliath.  I suspect that Goliath didn't know or notice that David carried a range weapon as we all know the sling is easy to conceal until ready to use.  He also had to see that David didn't carry a sword or spear so Goliath must have thought that David had nothing that could threaten his head.  He might have thought that David had been sent out like some pagan human sacrifice as he appeared relatively unarmed.  In this case and if the weather was hot, Goliath may have pushed the edge of his helmet back away from his eyes exposing a small bit of forehead or maybe even choose to take his helmet off and let his armor bearer carry it for him.  After all, he should have thought it wasn't needed and I doubt it was comfortable.  Obviously this is just speculation as the bible doesn't bother to fill in the details but it seems to be a plausible scenario and it would explain the results.

My last reservation is whether David could have slain Goliath with the sling. Maybe he could only find 5 suitable stones at that location in the time available.

Masi, I think you mean the Black Sea, not the Dead Sea, which is landlocked and fed by a river. I saw something on TV maybe 20 years ago on that subject. The Sumerians had the same basic story before the proto-Israelites. Good ol' Utnapishtim.

You're right; I was never very good a geography. :-[

Untapishtim is likely a retelling of the even older flood myth of Atra-Hasis of Shuruppak.

I think Goliath knew exactly what he was going up against.  I also think, contrary to Hollywood versions, he was treating David with a great deal of respect, he was advancing quickly with his shield up, probably covering the lower half of his face.  David hit him in the forehead because that was pretty much his only target.  He only carried five stones because he knew, one way or the other, the fight would be over quickly.  The head armor of the time was a boarskin cap shaped like a beehive, it would have come down to just above his eyebrows.  So David was shooting for an area on his face from just above his cheekbones to just over his eyebrows.  Any hit in that area from a decent sized rock would be instantly incapitating, it may or may not have been instantly fatal.  Pretty good shooting.  Bill

I agree, I think he did know what man he was up against (as he preceded hiding behind his sheild held by his armor bearer) but never took into account Divine Intervention, in which account sheild or not he never stood a chance.

Dan wrote on Jun 1^st, 2011 at 4:08pm:

I agree, I think he did know what man he was up against (as he preceded hiding behind his sheild held by his armor bearer) but never took into account Divine Intervention, in which account sheild or not he never stood a chance.

Divine intervention or no, he was screwed. One doesn't advance towards sharpshooters with melee weapons and no stealth and relatively unimpressive cover, it doesn't end well, particularly if one is a large target.

And it kinda diminishes David´s skill; I mean if it was divine intervention that determined the outcome he could have tossed the pebble casually by hand, in Goliath´s general direction....
I´d say it rather was a case of "god helps those that help themselves", and our David was quite a sharp shooter.

wrote on May 26^th, 2011 at 5:42pm:

I think that is not a very good comparison, as the story of Noah clearly is in the bible, and it is a pretty straight forward story, no far fetched interpretations going on.

Well, no, to me the stories seem vastly different.

The Noah story is clearly intended as a "just-so" story.  Many people now believe it literally, but that requires supernatural intervention continuously throughout the story.  At any level, humans could not have done it unaided.  One person builds a boat larger than is possible today, with primitive tools?  One person gathers the entire world's animals, both predator and prey, and a small family cares for them for a year?  Then they magically get to their final destinations without leaving traces in between?  Water that didn't exist before or after arrives in quantities to cover the earth?  Certainly all of that is possible IF and ONLY IF you allow for God's hand at every step.  To think that the Noah story is straightforward is to wilfully suspend any kind of even casual analysis.  You have to believe in miracles to believe it actually happened.  Which is okay, that is what religion is all about.  

Contrast that to the David vs Goliath.  This one IS a perfectly straightforward athletic contest:  mobile light infantry with projectile weapons against immobile heavy infantry with armor and thrusting weapon.  One-on-one, the slinger should win at least 99% of the time.  Though we do have to remember there is a considerable difference in mental preparation between a trained warrior and a shepherd.  One is used to risking his life in battle, and unlikely to be all that scared of a skinny (though "comely") kid;  the other surely would have had some qualms.  

He may have not had all tht many qualms, he was noted for killing wolves and lions with a sling.  And at that time, everybodys' favorite pasttime was raiding the neighbors, and stealing whatever they could, so everyone got some sort of military training at a pretty early age.  So, even if he had been too yong to go on raids, he would have been expected to be on the look out for raiders and to help repell them.  Bill

Bill Skinner wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 9:42am:

He may have not had all tht many qualms, he was noted for killing wolves and lions with a sling.  And at that time, everybodys' favorite pasttime was raiding the neighbors, and stealing whatever they could, so everyone got some sort of military training at a pretty early age.  So, even if he had been too yong to go on raids, he would have been expected to be on the look out for raiders and to help repell them.  Bill

In my norwegian translations he ran after lions and bears that stole sheeps, beat them and tore the sheep from their mouth.
If they turned against him he beat them to death.  
Even if he used a club or staff of some kind instead of his fist it`s easy to assume he was not exactly a pushover confronted with anyone.

And for the number of stones and slinging and such I agree with kuggur slingdog, god, as must of us know him, definitively helps those who help themself.

timothy42b wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 9:12am:

wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 5:42pm: I think that is not a very good comparison, as the story of Noah clearly is in the bible, and it is a pretty straight forward story, no far fetched interpretations going on. Well, no, to me the stories seem vastly different. The Noah story is clearly intended as a "just-so" story.  Many people now believe it literally, but that requires supernatural intervention continuously throughout the story.  At any level, humans could not have done it unaided.  One person builds a boat larger than is possible today, with primitive tools?  One person gathers the entire world's animals, both predator and prey, and a small family cares for them for a year?  Then they magically get to their final destinations without leaving traces in between?  Water that didn't exist before or after arrives in quantities to cover the earth?  Certainly all of that is possible IF and ONLY IF you allow for God's hand at every step.  To think that the Noah story is straightforward is to wilfully suspend any kind of even casual analysis.  You have to believe in miracles to believe it actually happened.  Which is okay, that is what religion is all about.   Contrast that to the David vs Goliath.  This one IS a perfectly straightforward athletic contest:  mobile light infantry with projectile weapons against immobile heavy infantry with armor and thrusting weapon.  One-on-one, the slinger should win at least 99% of the time.  Though we do have to remember there is a considerable difference in mental preparation between a trained warrior and a shepherd.  One is used to risking his life in battle, and unlikely to be all that scared of a skinny (though "comely") kid;  the other surely would have had some qualms.

You completely misunderstood this part of the discussion (it had spun a bit off topic at this point), the comparison that was made and that I disagreed with was with the Noah story, and that dinosaurs allegedly are named in the bible as contemporary with humans. Just read the couple of posts above the one you quoted.

wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 11:55am:

You completely misunderstood this part of the discussion (it had spun a bit off topic at this point), the comparison that was made and that I disagreed with was with the Noah story, and that dinosaurs allegedly are named in the bible as contemporary with humans. Just read the couple of posts above the one you quoted.

Sorry if I misunderstood.  I thought you were saying the Noah story was straightforward and believable, which I would have to disagree with (barring an enormous amount of supernatural intervention, which of course is possible.).  

I think maybe what you meant was just that Noah and the Flood are clearly described in the Bible, whether true or not; whereas dinosaurs are not described in the Bible, certainly not clearly anyway, but must be added in by interpreters.  ??

I think David against a Goliath is a nobrainer, given the choice of weapons.  (I get a rock that can kill you at 35 yards, you get a thrusting spear that can reach me at 3 yards.  Doh.)  A slinger against a dinosaur on the other hand seems doomed to become a meal.

And I know why he picked five stones, because I've picked rocks out of a stream bed myself.  There's a good one!  Wait, that one over there is better, grab it too.  Hey, what's that?  Really smooth, but not quite heavy enough, but might work.  Etc.    

 

I do know the answer to every one of your points on the ark, though generally people usually get angry if I do anwer and it usually doesn't make a difference anyway. You can either study the Bible much better than it seems you have for the answer or just throw me a PM (only if you really wan't the answer though).

Back to David, I have no doubt he was an excellent slinger to start with but even with that I am a pretty good archer (a bow is generally more accurate than a sling) and even those better than me would have a pretty hard time hitting that small of a target at medium range (the Bible doesn't give the exact range though I would guess it wasn't close cause the Bible says Goliath yells when he spoke with David indicating it was a greater range.)  Not only would it be an amazing shot (one that took Luis Pons Livermor more than 5 shots to get) but the story also shows how God can give anyone bravery in tough situations.

timothy42b wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 12:13pm:

Sorry if I misunderstood.  I thought you were saying the Noah story was straightforward and believable, which I would have to disagree with (barring an enormous amount of supernatural intervention, which of course is possible.).

Well we are on the same page there, as an atheist I think the large parts of the bible are pretty unbelievable. I only called the story "straight forward", not believable. The David story on the other hand could be historical.


timothy42b wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 12:13pm:

I think maybe what you meant was just that Noah and the Flood are clearly described in the Bible, whether true or not; whereas dinosaurs are not described in the Bible, certainly not clearly anyway, but must be added in by interpreters.  ??

Indeed what I meant, though not entirely, there wasn´t anything "added", people like Dan conclude there are Diosaurs in the bible from their interpretation of the unaltered text. As I said before, not an unreasonable interpretation if you take the word of the bible literally.


timothy42b wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 12:13pm:

I think David against a Goliath is a nobrainer, given the choice of weapons.  (I get a rock that can kill you at 35 yards, you get a thrusting spear that can reach me at 3 yards.  Doh.)

Aaah, but do you hit that small target every  time at 35 yards? Under very stressfull conditions? Because if you miss, and I have the thrusting spear I will not give you much time to reload, I am already running towards you during the first shot you take, 35 yards are covered very quickly...
I say our David had balls of steel....
 

wrote on Jun 4^th, 2011 at 8:22pm:

timothy42b wrote on Jun 3rd, 2011 at 12:13pm: I think David against a Goliath is a nobrainer, given the choice of weapons.  (I get a rock that can kill you at 35 yards, you get a thrusting spear that can reach me at 3 yards.  Doh.) Aaah, but do you hit that small target every  time at 35 yards? Under very stressfull conditions? Because if you miss, and I have the thrusting spear I will not give you much time to reload, I am already running towards you during the first shot you take, 35 yards are covered very quickly... I say our David had balls of steel....

I think it is a Bayes theorem problem.

At 35 yards, if i hit 80% of the time, and Goliath can get me in 4.2 seconds, do I throw now, or close to 25 yards, where my hit percentage is 95, but he can get me in 3 seconds, etc.  When you're close your odds of hitting go up, but also the risk if you miss.  

Assuming it happened as described, it being a lucky shot doesn't necessarily mean that it had to have been miraculous.  Also, Luis is a fantastic slinger, but that does not mean that David couldn't have been better, and of course, it doesn't actually give us a precise range for the shot, and it's not inconceivable that the available target was just a bit bigger than the impact sensor.

All of this is a moot point, because if the bible is assumed to be literally accurate in every detail, there were much more obvious miracles, and if it's not quite so accurate, then there's no particular reason to regard the account of David's victory as being sure proof of divine intervention.

You are over looking one thing, Golith could duck or get his shield up tp protect this face, he was not a static target.  He was moving, and jinking and ducking.  I think it was skill that let him make the shot, it was faith that made him get out there in the first place.  Bill

timothy42b wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2011 at 9:12am:

wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 5:42pm: I think that is not a very good comparison, as the story of Noah clearly is in the bible, and it is a pretty straight forward story, no far fetched interpretations going on. Well, no, to me the stories seem vastly different. The Noah story is clearly intended as a "just-so" story.  Many people now believe it literally, but that requires supernatural intervention continuously throughout the story.  At any level, humans could not have done it unaided.  One person builds a boat larger than is possible today, with primitive tools?  One person gathers the entire world's animals, both predator and prey, and a small family cares for them for a year?  Then they magically get to their final destinations without leaving traces in between?  Water that didn't exist before or after arrives in quantities to cover the earth?  Certainly all of that is possible IF and ONLY IF you allow for God's hand at every step.  To think that the Noah story is straightforward is to wilfully suspend any kind of even casual analysis.  You have to believe in miracles to believe it actually happened.  Which is okay, that is what religion is all about.   Contrast that to the David vs Goliath.  This one IS a perfectly straightforward athletic contest:  mobile light infantry with projectile weapons against immobile heavy infantry with armor and thrusting weapon.  One-on-one, the slinger should win at least 99% of the time.  Though we do have to remember there is a considerable difference in mental preparation between a trained warrior and a shepherd.  One is used to risking his life in battle, and unlikely to be all that scared of a skinny (though "comely") kid;  the other surely would have had some qualms.

While I certainly respect the choice of those that choose not to believe the bible it would be good if they would leave some preconcieved notions behind when examining the story.  For example, when does the bible say the preflood people were primitive and not technologically advanced?  Also, the water of the flood IS STILL HERE!  If the earth was smoothed flat, the oceans would cover the surface to a depth of 8,000 feet.  And just because Noah was given the job doesn't mean he did it all by himself.

starhiker wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 2:26am:

While I certainly respect the choice of those that choose not to believe the bible it would be good if they would leave some preconcieved notions behind when examining the story.  .

You make many unsupported assumptions, the largest one being that you speak for all of Christianity.  In fact by far the majority of Christians, and all the mainstream denominations, have a far different understanding of the Bible in general and the specific flood story than you do.  You seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is an atheist AND has not read the Bible.  Actually a good many atheists have read the Bible fairly carefully, and most Christians disagree with you, including me.  

The flood story is certainly possible if an omnipotent God worked a large number of miracles.  But it is not possible scientifically.  Sorry.

What is interesting to me is the level of attentional blindness that maintains an unawareness of how preposterous the story is at so many levels.  Note that I'm not saying it could not have happened.  But I AM saying that any reasonable person would notice obvious problems.  

Go here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html and read a few of the objections.  Most of them are not based on complicated scientific theories or math;  they are common sense ones that really any intelligent person should notice - yet few do.  I really don't know how to explain that phenomenon, which I find miraculous almost at the level of a flood.  

You are aware that 99% of the species that have ever lived are now extinct, right?  Yet they were all on the ark together.  

I think we can reasonably assume that the ark only carried animals that were extant at the time of and just after the flood. Whether or not it carried all of that 1+ percent is a point of contention, but about 98 percent of the animals that were ever on the Earth can be ruled out.

Aside from that I completely agree with you, timmothy.

Noah had help? Not supported by scripture, and who would be dumb enough to help out when he'd be off the passenger list when the big day came? Technologically advanced? Then a lot of folks would have had boats, even large ships, so more would have survived.

Starhiker: whether or not a smooth earth would be covered with water to that depth there is no geological record or scriptural reference to such a condition. The water that existed would have to fit the earth's surface that existed.

The convoluted logic strict Bible believers use to support their views is truly wondrous to behold.

And how did Noah get access to bongos, capybaras, kangaroos, cassowaries, and assorted other species?

HurlinThom wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 12:05pm:

And how did Noah get access to bongos, capybaras, kangaroos, cassowaries, and assorted other species?

When you point out a problem like this, the very conservative believers will dig in a book of "apologetics" and try to come up with an answer.

What strikes me as strange is that one has to point it out.  Never do they notice on their own.  I'm not saying the apologetic answer is always wrong.  I'm saying they don't see that there is a problem needing to be answered.  

One classic example is Isaiah 7:14, predicting the birth of Jesus: Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

Well, they didn't call him Immanuel, did they?  And I'm sure there's a very good reason why not, and that this in no way invalidates the Bible.  I'm equally sure no conservative Christian ever noticed or wondered.  (do you know why, without having to look it up?  hee, hee)  

Moderator: is this really necessary ?

Thread drift isn'ta bad thing, so I don't have a problem with the subject matter and I don't think the discussion needs moderation yet. Rule of thumb, you can share your opinions as long as they don't put down someone else. If we all just keep in mind that what we write can be taken as unintentionally insulting and try to be a little less abrasive then I don't think any moderation will be needed at all.

were supposed  to be talking about davids choice of 5 stanes, not noahs ark... ;)

The five stones thing: Dan had some kind of mystical interpretation for it (it symbolizes future combats of David once king ? David also killed Goliath's five brothers ?), which is frankly unconvincing and unclear. People said that David probably took enough ammo for a fight.

After that, somehow, it turned into dinosaurs and Noah's ark. I'm baffled.

Q:  When you go into combat, how much ammo do you want?
A:  All you can carry and a little bit more.

But in this case weight reduces your mobility, so there is only so much you can carry and still have an edge.   And face it, you might get a second shot, maybe even a third, but more than that against a skilled warrior is unlikely.  Five is not a bad number.  

I've tried googling "biblical significance of number 5" but found nothing that made much sense.  

I guess this was more of a duel than combat, in which case you want to do things as close to normal as possible.  Probably he always carried five stones.  As Lombardi said, "never change a winning strategy."

timothy42b wrote on Jun 6^th, 2011 at 11:47am:

starhiker wrote on Jun 6th, 2011 at 2:26am: While I certainly respect the choice of those that choose not to believe the bible it would be good if they would leave some preconcieved notions behind when examining the story.  . You make many unsupported assumptions, the largest one being that you speak for all of Christianity.  In fact by far the majority of Christians, and all the mainstream denominations, have a far different understanding of the Bible in general and the specific flood story than you do.  You seem to think anyone who disagrees with you is an atheist AND has not read the Bible.  Actually a good many atheists have read the Bible fairly carefully, and most Christians disagree with you, including me.   The flood story is certainly possible if an omnipotent God worked a large number of miracles.  But it is not possible scientifically.  Sorry. What is interesting to me is the level of attentional blindness that maintains an unawareness of how preposterous the story is at so many levels.  Note that I'm not saying it could not have happened.  But I AM saying that any reasonable person would notice obvious problems.   Go here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html and read a few of the objections.  Most of them are not based on complicated scientific theories or math;  they are common sense ones that really any intelligent person should notice - yet few do.  I really don't know how to explain that phenomenon, which I find miraculous almost at the level of a flood.   You are aware that 99% of the species that have ever lived are now extinct, right?  Yet they were all on the ark together.

First of all, I would like to apologize for any insinuation that you are not a christian.  That was out of line.  But I do have to ask.  Can anyone show me anywhere in my statement where I say that I speak for all christians?  And when do I say that not believing the bible makes anyone an atheist?  I know christians that disbelieve parts of the bible.  And when do I say that having preconceived notions means that the person hasn't read the bible?  Many people are well read experts on subjects and still have preconceived notions.  It seems to me that these are the unsupported assumptions.  I have no desire to question anyones intelligence just because we disagree.  Please don't question mine either.  There is much I could say to dispute your beliefs but it's obvious that it would be fruitless and we are getting off topic so I'll let my side of this discussion die here.

It may be a good time to separate the events around King David, dating from relatively historical times, from things that were legends back before the Sumerians. Both are worthy of discussion, but their only connection beyond taking place in the Near East is that they appear in Scripture.

You also have to remember that the Old Testament is pre-Christian. It's the Scripture of the Jewish people. If certain Christians want strict interpretation they need to observe Kashruth, maintaining the laws outlined in the Old Testament, you know, no work on Saturday (the real Sabbath), a man mustn't walk between two women or two dogs, no eating shrimp, lobster, or fish without scales, all that fun stuff. And when you go to Temple you must wear a hat. If it's literally the word of God you can't pick and choose what's comfortable or convenient.

Recently I found some nice rounded stones, much larger than an egg but still smaller than a tennis ball.  The perfect size for hunting and hurting enemys at reasonably close range.  If I want to stay agile enough for running and dodging (like when fighting one single enemy), more than five of those might be considered quite a bother.

If I was a slinger in a battle I would be willing to carry a lot of them and then some, though :)
But I would carry smaller (egg-size) stones for distance slinging.  Can carry more of them, too.

The odd issue as I see it, is; didn`David carry any ammo at all at a regular basis, not even when an enemy army was around?  
timann

There is evidence (not a lot, but some) that certain sections of the David story were more recent additions than others. The parts that said David was visiting his brothers and where Saul didn't recognize David don't match the rest of the text and are absent from some older versions. We just don't know if they were taken out of some versions because they don't fit or if they don't fit because they were added later. 1 Samuel 16:17-22 proves that Saul knew David before the battle with Goliath. If David was Saul's shield bearer before and during the battle, then he'd be carrying all of Saul's heavy, giant sized armor and weapons. I can understand him not wanting to carry stones in addition to everything else.

actually, david was saul's harpist to relieve the stress and depression of bieng first king of israel.

paracordslinger wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 5:59pm:

actually, david was saul's harpist to relieve the stress and depression of bieng first king of israel.

Actually the passage calling him a minstrel is one of those that doesn't fit with the rest of the text, but I don't remember if there are versions where it was taken out so I'm not sure whether I believe David was a minstrel or not. The whole text is 1 Samuel 16:14-19.

Quote:

"Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him. Saul’s attendants said to him, “See, an evil spirit from God is tormenting you. 16 Let our lord command his servants here to search for someone who can play the lyre. He will play when the evil spirit from God comes on you, and you will feel better.” So Saul said to his attendants, “Find someone who plays well and bring him to me.” One of the servants answered, “I have seen a son of Jesse of Bethlehem who knows how to play the lyre. He is a brave man and a warrior. He speaks well and is a fine-looking man. And the LORD is with him.” Then Saul sent messengers to Jesse and said, “Send me your son David, who is with the sheep.” 20 So Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread, a skin of wine and a young goat and sent them with his son David to Saul. "

1 Samuel 16:21 says that Saul made David his armor bearer (or one of his armor bearers depending on translation), though. Just like I'm not convinced that David was a harpist, I'm also not convinced that Goliath was killed by the biblical King David the way it is written. Google "Elhanan son of Jair" or PM me to learn why.

part of the book of psalms was written by david when he was king, and recorded by his servants

get the greek version of the bible, and use google translator ;)

I don't dispute that he wrote some of the songs in Psalms, just that Saul may not have summoned him as a musician.

masi, i just studied that part of the bible this year! i know he was minstrel! i can show you that he is! i will take a picture of by bible!

paracordslinger wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 10:04pm:

masi, i just studied that part of the bible this year! i know he was minstrel! i can show you that he is! i will take a picture of by bible!

Go back and reread my last post on the previous page. Yes, it is in the Bible that David was a minstrel. But there is archeological evidence that it was either added to 1 Samuel after the rest of the story was recorded or that it was taken out of the story in a version of 1 Samuel that didn't survive to the present. I don't know which, but I want to know as much about the Bible as possible including it's history. Especially because there is so much archeological debate over the David and Goliath story. How tall was Goliath? How tall was Saul? Why was David there? How old was David? Why did David choose 5 stones? Why is the number of stones important to the story? Did Goliath really taunt David for using the sling? Was Goliath killed by the sling stone or by the beheading? Did David really kill Goliath? These questions have more than one answer depending on which version of the Bible (or Torah) you read or where in the Bible you look.

The point of my posts is that in every version of 1 Samuel dug up, David was Saul's armor bearer before he was the Israeli champion and therefore carried Saul's heavy equipment. Not carrying stones before the battle makes more sense if you look at it from that perspective.

You guys were being pretty harsh earlier, timothy42b I wouldn't have posted the thread if I didn't have any faith in the interpretation. My source was Grant Jeffery's (who is one of best, well knowing Christian authors out there) "The Signature of God" My theory was not "mystical" by any means Just interpretation of the Bible. Also David did not kill the rest of Goliaths brothers his best soldiers did later under David's command. More on the Flood Later.    

Dan wrote on Jun 8^th, 2011 at 5:39pm:

You guys were being pretty harsh earlier, timothy42b

Sorry.

I will try to be more tactful, but I am unlikely to accept your interpretation as revealed truth when there are many other interpretations with more scholarly support.  

Dan, in the early days of Christianity disagreements over interpretations of Scripture were likely to end up in bloody confrontations, not to mention mutilations or death for those who ran afoul of the views of those in authority. As in a minor difference over the nature of the Trinity could get your ears and nose cut off. You ain't seen harsh.

And please don't take it the wrong way, but it seems that those you choose to cite as authorities are considered pretty borderline by a lot of knowledgeable people. There's a ton of sloppy scholarship and outright fraud in popular religious writing. Be wary of accepting things without examining then closely.

And always decline KoolAid from a guy named Jones.

HurlinThom wrote on Jun 9^th, 2011 at 12:52pm:

Dan, in the early days of Christianity disagreements over interpretations of Scripture were likely to end up in bloody confrontations, not to mention mutilations or death for those who ran afoul of the views of those in authority. As in a minor difference over the nature of the Trinity could get your ears and nose cut off. You ain't seen harsh. And please don't take it the wrong way, but it seems that those you choose to cite as authorities are considered pretty borderline by a lot of knowledgeable people. There's a ton of sloppy scholarship and outright fraud in popular religious writing. Be wary of accepting things without examining then closely. And always decline KoolAid from a guy named Jones.

:-?

paracordslinger wrote on Jun 9^th, 2011 at 3:40pm:

HurlinThom wrote on Jun 9th, 2011 at 12:52pm: Dan, in the early days of Christianity disagreements over interpretations of Scripture were likely to end up in bloody confrontations, not to mention mutilations or death for those who ran afoul of the views of those in authority. As in a minor difference over the nature of the Trinity could get your ears and nose cut off. You ain't seen harsh. And please don't take it the wrong way, but it seems that those you choose to cite as authorities are considered pretty borderline by a lot of knowledgeable people. There's a ton of sloppy scholarship and outright fraud in popular religious writing. Be wary of accepting things without examining then closely. And always decline KoolAid from a guy named Jones. :-?

What are they teaching kids these days?! Oh, wait I know. I am one. :P Look up Jim Jones, the Jonestown Massacre, or the phrase "Don't drink the Koolade" and you'll see what Thom means.

[quote author=HurlinThom link=1276961659/75#84 date=1307638354]Dan, in the early days of Christianity disagreements over interpretations of Scripture were likely to end up in bloody confrontations, not to mention mutilations or death for those who ran afoul of the views of those in authority. As in a minor difference over the nature of the Trinity could get your ears and nose cut off. You ain't seen harsh.

[quote]

Yes and but since we are just online insults are really as harsh as you can go, but we usually have a pretty civil group. I am familiar with church history and I once even heard of a split of a church that came about arguing as to how long the tassles on the clearicle robes should be.

You have long toes Dan. You yourself haven´t been above casually insulting those that don´t share your religious views.

I think this thread needs to go to where threads go when they die.  Bill

Bill Skinner wrote on Jun 11^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

I think this thread needs to go to where threads go when they die.  Bill

sourpussy

I am very sorry if I came off insulting, for I really have no reason to, and I do realize I was kinda splitting hairs. This interpration isn't bullet proof, but just somthing cool I'd thought I'd share. I just don't like it when people take God out of David and Goliath. David was just a shepherd boy who may have been a darn good slinger but, was given faith and courage by God that is very admirable. That's really the moral of the story.

If anyone has any further lesser-known cool things about David and Goliath it may be started in another thread.

The End.

Dan wrote on Jun 12^th, 2011 at 3:47pm:

I just don't like it when people take God out of David and Goliath. David was just a shepherd boy who may have been a darn good slinger but, was given faith and courage by God that is very admirable. That's really the moral of the story. The End.

For generations of Sunday School kids the lesson was that God allowed the hopelessly outmatched kid to triumph over the invincible warrior.

That image has entered our lexicon - that is what is meant by a David vs Goliath.

That image is largely based on ignorance of the effectiveness of the sling in warfare.  (and the confusion with the slingshot, which in the old inner tube days was a relatively weak child's toy)  

This thread has touched on a different interpretation of the military tactics, and the appreciation for the effectiveness of a lethal projectile weapon in the hands of a mobile opponent.  That may make the deeply religious uncomfortable.

If I had any decent skill with the sling, I'd prefer to be David rather than Goliath.  I think the odds were with him.

And as pointed out, Goliath (unlike modern civilized man) would have had some knowledge of the weapon he faced.  Therefore one could argue he possessed MORE courage than David, or at least needed it.  And had not the benefit of faith in Yahweh.  

I think just about all of us can agree that the sling is underestimated

I imagine there were probably other slingers in the entire Israelite army (other than David who wasn't even in the army) or perhaps even another peltist all of which did not stand up to face the giant even.

Tim's view and mine are pretty much the main ones and you can choose to believe either, or somthing else entirely, either way there is no further need for discussion.

If you have any lesser known cool facts about DvG please start another thread.

The End, again.

News flash Dan, discussions here don´t "end" where you find they are getting uncomfortable, not even when you started the topic.
If you don´t like what people are saying you could choose to ignore the tread.
Not that I am saying you should though, your input is as valid as anyone elses.

It sounds like everyone is getting a little heated, it may be time to kill this thread.

Seems that there are a number of things one can believe on the story:

It's literally true and accurate.

It's based on the truth but may have some details wrong.

It has some historical basis but is largely made up.

It's basically a fairy tale.

I don't see anyone being persuaded to change his mind, and ill will is being generated, so maybe we could put a slingstone in the topic's forehead (or knee) and cut off its head.

I used to have a cartoon of David and Goliath, where Goliath is depicted as bent over clutching his private parts, and the caption is "Let the record show he was struck on the head."  I did a google and couldn't find it.  

Well, the topic started with a statement that the five stones was because David killed five brothers, "with headshots"-- which doesn't make sense because he didn't sling 5 men to death, but it's a number put together from Philistines killed later, when David was king. So this is yet another possibility:

It's a true story and its details somehow symbolize even more true events.


It's a particular, symbolical interpretation. I don't buy it either, it's not particularly thought through-- or what the basis for this has to be made clear.

Dan wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 8:59am:

I think just about all of us can agree that the sling is underestimated Tim's view and mine are pretty much the main ones and you can choose to believe either, or somthing else entirely, either way there is no further need for discussion. .

I think that I have accurately described the message the average Sunday School draws from this story.  (hopelessly overmatched child against fierce warrior)  

And I think it is a message very different from what the OT writers would have intended.  Their context was regular exposure to the sling as an effective weapon of war.  

The modern message we draw is much different, based on the modern ignorance of ancient weaponry.  I have always argued the Bible needs to be understood in the context and culture of the times.  I guess whether David or Elhanan really killed Goliath is a topic for another thread!

timothy42b wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 9:16pm:

Dan wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 8:59am: I think just about all of us can agree that the sling is underestimated Tim's view and mine are pretty much the main ones and you can choose to believe either, or somthing else entirely, either way there is no further need for discussion. . I think that I have accurately described the message the average Sunday School draws from this story.  (hopelessly overmatched child against fierce warrior)   And I think it is a message very different from what the OT writers would have intended.  Their context was regular exposure to the sling as an effective weapon of war.   The modern message we draw is much different, based on the modern ignorance of ancient weaponry.  I have always argued the Bible needs to be understood in the context and culture of the times.  I guess whether David or Elhanan really killed Goliath is a topic for another thread!

I think we can all agree with pretty much everything said here.

The End.

So, T42b, according to the ancients, Goliath took a sword to a sling fight?

HurlinThom wrote on Jun 13^th, 2011 at 12:16pm:

Seems that there are a number of things one can believe on the story: It's literally true and accurate. It's based on the truth but may have some details wrong. It has some historical basis but is largely made up. It's basically a fairy tale. I don't see anyone being persuaded to change his mind, and ill will is being generated, so maybe we could put a slingstone in the topic's forehead (or knee) and cut off its head.

I agree entirely, religion isn't something people change their views on easily. On a side note, there are several other interpretations worth looking at, including a propaganda piece. Think about how this would look from an outsiders perspective at the time, it might well be along these lines: "We have shepherds so good at slinging, they can put a rock into a man's forehead in one try. Do you really want to mess with us?".

Bill Skinner wrote on Jun 14^th, 2011 at 8:33pm:

So, T42b, according to the ancients, Goliath took a sword to a sling fight?

YES!  That's what I'm suggesting happened.

Now, why is another story, and I have some private musings on that.  (assuming that the story itself is factual at least in broad outline)  But I am reluctant to go that much further off topic.

Imagine how much different Homer's epic would be, if Odysseus on his return had to quickly knit a sling rather than string that overly powerful bow.    Hee, hee.  

He could probably throw that javelin pretty far (probably at least 50 yds) being of large stature, so I'm guessing he thought that would be his main distance weapon.

I think if I was a larger guy I would use my strengths to match my weapons. Slinging is one of those things that doesn't really require much muscle although he would probably easily be able to throw brick sized rocks with his sling, most of the size and reach advantage would be wasted.

David being more average size did have a substancial reach disadvantge in a sword fight which may have been one of the reasons he chose the sling (beside all around more expierince with a sling).

Does anyone know a good slinging style witha staff in the other hand? I imagine it would probably be more difficult.

Just turn the stick horizontal and hold it in your off hand.  That cuts down on your reload speed considerablely.  Bill

For most ancient Eurasian cultures, the sling is a contemptible weapon. And yes, they knew it was pretty powerful, just as they knew bows were pretty powerful, and everyone really used them. BUT the honorable thing is close combat in heavy weaponry. This is, of course, decided by the rich and socially powerful-- since they can equip themselves. The slinger hits from afar, and doesn't stay to argue his point, but runs off, aided by his light gear-- a slavish weapon, as Xenophon says.

I read somewhere that the top 7% of a population would be a professional military class, with most of the rest laboring to support them. So the slingers would be from that population of serfs or the equivalent.

So maybe i should modify this. Slings were contemptible for members of the military, rent-extracting elites. Easy enough to show.

So, maybe, the real purpose to the story is that David was smart enough to use a weapon that would let him win easily instead of fighting on the enemys' terms in a contest that he would probably lose.  Our king is so smart that even as a young man, he killed the enemy's best fighter by fighting smarter.  You can use the brute force approach or you can use your head, if you are one of the smaller kingdoms in the area, the fact that your king is intelligent and uses his strengths on the enemies weaknesses had to be really good news for his subjects.  Bill

Bill Skinner wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 3:34pm:

So, maybe, the real purpose to the story is that David was smart enough to use a weapon that would let him win easily instead of fighting on the enemys' terms in a contest that he would probably lose.  Our king is so smart that even as a young man, he killed the enemy's best fighter by fighting smarter.  You can use the brute force approach or you can use your head, if you are one of the smaller kingdoms in the area, the fact that your king is intelligent and uses his strengths on the enemies weaknesses had to be really good news for his subjects.  Bill

Very insightful, good post. That sounds pretty good, there were several other times when God tested the upcoming king and I imagine wisdom and courage were both necessary traits. So I wouldn't doubt it.

David may have lost a sword fight but I wouldn't say it was too unlikely (I could see killing a lion being pretty tough). I would say it the was the same reason he didn't wear the armor, it's just cause he wasn't used to it. And when you are going up against a nations best fighter you probably want to use the weapon you are most comfortable with.

Dan wrote on Jun 17^th, 2011 at 4:55pm:

Bill Skinner wrote on Jun 17th, 2011 at 3:34pm: So, maybe, the real purpose to the story is that David was smart enough to use a weapon that would let him win easily instead of fighting on the enemys' terms in a contest that he would probably lose.  Our king is so smart that even as a young man, he killed the enemy's best fighter by fighting smarter.  You can use the brute force approach or you can use your head, if you are one of the smaller kingdoms in the area, the fact that your king is intelligent and uses his strengths on the enemies weaknesses had to be really good news for his subjects.  Bill Very insightful, good post. That sounds pretty good, there were several other times when God tested the upcoming king and I imagine wisdom and courage were both necessary traits. So I wouldn't doubt it. David may have lost a sword fight but I wouldn't say it was too unlikely

I'm inclined to think a sword fight would have been a bad idea especially for someone so small as to not be able to wear armor.  The simple stuff they had back then would have fit most people, and Saul is not described as that big.

David on the other hand is never described as "manly," but only as an unusually attractive and slim youth with a ruddy face and "pleasant eyes." Likely he was somewhat effeminate in appearance, which may account for some of Goliath's contempt and apparent carelessness.  

timothy42b wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 11:00am:

And Saul is not described as that big...

1 Samuel 10:23-24 Describes Saul as being head and shoulders taller than the other Israelites. He was probably shorter than Goliath, but not by much. Since Saul offered David his armor we can assume that David was close to the same height, because it wouldn't make sense for Saul to offer his armor to David if it wouldn't come close to fitting him. Reading back through, I haven't come across a version of the Bible where David refuses the armor because it's too big. In 1 Samuel 17:39 David says something to the effect of (depending on the translation) "I don't need armor," "Armor would hinder me," or "I'm not used to wearing armor," as the reason he refuses Saul.

Does anybody have a picture of what the armor of that time frame looked like?  Not the Hollywood junk or even the much later Roman/Greek armor.  Bill

Bill Skinner wrote on Jun 18^th, 2011 at 10:16pm:

Does anybody have a picture of what the armor of that time frame looked like?  Not the Hollywood junk or even the much later Roman/Greek armor.  Bill

I believe we will never truly know what Goliath's armor looked like, as speculation and exaggeration have blurred our understanding of what goliath may have been wearing. But in my research from awhile back, and I found many discussions and contradicting arguments over modern day depictions and descriptions from text.

http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/k583/Wayarer/PhilistineArmor.jpg

"The head gear is unlike the distinctive feathered helmets of the Egyptian reliefs at Medinet Habu; Goliath’s chain mail (שריון קשקשים) is Mesopotamian-Syrian; and the great shield, requiring a shield bearer, is unlike the small round shields of the Philistines portrayed in Egyptian reliefs."

"Archaeologists discovered carvings of Philistine soldiers in the temple of Ramses III in Egypt. According to these carvings, the Philistines wore feathered helmets secured under their chins by leather straps. Headbands holding the feathers in place were probably made of metal. The Philistines wore breastplates and short skirts with wide hems and tassels. They were clean-shaven and quite tall. Sometimes, they carried small round shields and straight swords. In the Bible, Goliath wore brass greaves on his legs and a coat of mail (scales). Scale armor was important because it protected a soldier without restricting his movements. It was first used in the Aegean, where the Philistines originated."

http://www.followtherabbi.com/Brix?pageID=5057
http://ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com/ancient_hebrew_poetry/2010/01/daniel-mcclellan-on-goliaths-armor.html

I don't think that shield is very practicle, it's too large and the shield bearer is too short.  That means after about 3 minutes, the shield bearer is going to get tired of holding the shield up over his head and the shield will sag lower and lower.  Also, the shield is a weapon and the bearer is a trained warrior just like Goliath, when David  threw and smacked Goliath, what did the shield bearer do, stand there and watch as David cut his head off?  Also maile and scale are two very different types of armor, I think the translators screwed that one up.  It looks like the story may have happened but the details got changed each time it was rewritten and retranslated, so it would reflect the perspectives of the time of the translation and the biases of the translator or his patron.  Bill  

The shield bearer carries the shield for the warrior, but, as his "batman", hands it over before the fight.

The Hebrew clearly says " a corslet of scales" (I think the same word in mod. Hebrew means "dandruff", i.e. scaly scalp). It was translated by modern translators as "mail", but that's techically incorrect. Lots of translations, of course, but the only version is 1 Samuel 17.  

Bill I respect you and your opinion very much but please don't go into "The Bible changed over time" thing. The Jews were extremely meticulous in their writing method that if the middle letter in the middle word of each manuscript didn't match up (they used other methods as well), the bad manuscript was burned for fear of mis translation over time. Only recently has the NIV (nothing against it in fact it is usually the traslation I use) not translated everything word for word but used most of the same words but modern sentence composition and more common words. If you really want to look somthing up though look it up in the KJV which is a word for word translation and then look it up in an exaustive concordance and it will give you the original hebrew word, or just give me the verse and word and I can look it up for you (I do have an exaustive concordance).

I am just speculating but I think Goliath just had the shelid bearer to defend from a possible projectile weapon till he could get close enough to do his usual sword thing. And If you just watched the best fighter for your nation get whooped with one shot, chances are only the most courageous fighters would fight for revenge (maybe) and that was against the rules of the duel as well.  

Dan wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2011 at 8:28am:

The Jews were extremely meticulous in their writing method that if the middle letter in the middle word of each manuscript didn't match up (they used other methods as well), the bad manuscript was burned for fear of mis translation over time.

That goes against what I have seen. The manuscripts of the bible definitely changed by degrees in the original Hebrew; the Greek translation of the Septugint is very different from what we westerners consider the Bible, and even the Targum (a translation of the Bible into Aramaic which is very similar to Hebrew) shows some differences. Before these stories were written down we think they were part of a Jewish oral tradition so just imagine how much change happened when someone was telling the story to their grandchildren who told it to their grandchildren who told it to their grandchildren who finally wrote it down. There is also "language drift" in which words begin to mean different things, change spelling, and change pronunciation. That's why you can't pick up Canterbury Tales and read it even though it was written in English just 600 years ago, and it's why Thearos thinks that the word for lamellar in Ancient Hebrew now means dandruff. The Bible was changed to account for that, at least. Believe me when I tell you that it's impossible to make a 100% accurate word-for-word translation into another language because some words have more than 1 meaning. For example, is you read the word "cahones" (cajones is the correct spelling, really) in Spanish you could translate it into English as "guts," "testicles," or "chest of drawers."

Dan wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2011 at 8:28am:

Bill I respect you and your opinion very much but please don't go into "The Bible changed over time" thing.

Why not?  Should your opinions, however precious, automatically be exempt from questioning?  This is a common stance on the part of certain segments of the religious, but it is not defendable.  You can say "my opinion is that the Bible changed very little or not at all over time," but what you said is equivalent to "you are not allowed to speculate on how much the Bible may have changed."  


Quote:

The Jews were extremely meticulous in their writing method that if the middle letter in the middle word of each manuscript didn't match up (they used other methods as well), the bad manuscript was burned for fear of mis translation over time.

Simply a myth, promulgated by apologists like McDowell or Strobel.  No serious Biblical scholar argues this.  



Quote:

If you really want to look somthing up though look it up in the KJV which is a word for word translation and then look it up in an exaustive concordance and it will give you the original hebrew word,

Now here's where I really disagree, on several levels.  The KJV is the worst translation available for three reasons.  It was written before many of the more accurate sources had been found.  It was written by translaters less skilled and less knowledgable than modern ones.  And finally, it is written in British of the 1500s, a language that while melodious is not comprehensible in 2011.  Suffer the children, anybody?


Quote:

it will give you the original hebrew

Nope.  The KJV translators looked at several documents and made guesses at which word might have been the original.  Modern translators look at many times the number of ancient documents, because so many more have been found since then, and they make better guesses at the original words.  But NOBODY can know for sure what the original words were.  Particularly since these tales were oral for at least 1000 years before the redactors started.  

Let us get back to the actual fight.  Has there been a Philistine grave or two that has been excavated and the contents posted somewhere? Preferably with some pictures.  What did the armor actually look like?  The references cite some pictures in Egypt, from roughly the same time frame, they may or may not be correct in the actual area where the fight took place.  

The only pictures of armor from that time frame that I have seen looked like a tube skirt, made of bands of copper or bronze that covered the torso to about the knee, it was flared, it looked like the guy was wearing a bell.  The helmet was made of boar hide and covered with tushes.  That's the long teeth that come out of the bottom of the boars' mouth.  That would leave the face wide open.

The Philistines just watched some goat smelling shepard boy use a peasant's weapon to kill their champion before the duel actually began, in their place, I would have been enraged and charged, I wouldn't have shown any mercy to someone who mocked my honor and my champion.  Slings were common in that time and used extensivily in warfare, they weren't anything new, why would they run away if a slinger got in a lucky hit?  Bill

You have touched on an interesting point. You say that as a Philistine you would have been enraged by David's 'dirty trick' victory and have attacked the Israelites in a rage of vengeance. Actually according to the pre-fight deal the losers were supposed to submit to the victors without a fight but neither your vengeful attack or a submission took place. The Philistines lost heart and ran pursued by the Israelites who slaughtered many of them. Evidently the loss of their invicible champion was too much for the Philistines. I expect Goliath's armour bearer was leading the pack. Seeing his master go down right next to him would have been quite a shock.

However the really interesting thing that puzzled me for years is the comparative ease with which Goliath allowed himself to be defeated. Perhaps the notion that the sling was universally used and understood is incorrect, or at least its use as a close-in accurate weapon.

In lots of re-enactments David is shown as telling Saul how he will defeat Goliath with his sling. In fact the Bible records no such conversation. David speaks of killing a lion and a bear with his staff not a sling. In fact the first reference to the the sling is when David selects the smooth river stones prior to the battle. Goliath berates David for coming armed with a stick, a reference to the staff, not the sling at all. Could he not see tht David had a sling in his hand? Or did he merely discount it as of no consequence?

The Philistines were not a shepherding people as I understand. They may never have seen the sling used in such close combat, only as 'long distance artillery' where slingers shot only at a body of troops not at individual targets.

There is now speculation that David hit Goliath on the knee not on the forehead. Perhaps so. Whichever is the case it is clear that the disabling shot was close-range and accurate, something that Goliath did not expect.

So, possibly, from a distance, it would look to the Philistines that David waved his arm and pointed at Goliath and he did a face plant.  That would mean that David obviously was guided by God and that they should go someplace else before he pointed at them.  Interesting, if the Philistines were famaliar with Egyptians, slings were pretty common in the Nile Delta, so it shouldn't have been a complete suprise.  And the Philistines came from the Aegean and slings were pretty common there, also.  Bill

This thread took a while to catch up with, and all for nothing I guess.

Anyway,
I would imagine David and Goliath was exaggerated, David was probably a regular sized person, and he would have denied the armor because it would have limited his mobility, or it just didn't fit. Maybe Goliath was a larger person, or maybe he was a regular sized person, and he was exaggerated too. For all we know, they were two regular sized people and to make the story more gripping, they wrote it the way it is written. Maybe Goliath was a giant, and David was in the Israeli army at the time, maybe he took down Goliath with one shot into the crowd and struck fear into the enemy, to make the story more gripping, maybe they said it was one-on-one.

The bible is mostly exaggerated in my opinion. I'm agnostic, and my personal belief is that the old testament is false, and the new testament was a mix of lies, and coincidences that were said to be God's work. I hope my opinions don't offend anyone, I'm just sharing what I believe, and some of my theories about David and Goliath.

Bill Skinner wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2011 at 8:58pm:

So, possibly, from a distance, it would look to the Philistines that David waved his arm and pointed at Goliath and he did a face plant.  That would mean that David obviously was guided by God and that they should go someplace else before he pointed at them.  Interesting, if the Philistines were famaliar with Egyptians, slings were pretty common in the Nile Delta, so it shouldn't have been a complete suprise.  And the Philistines came from the Aegean and slings were pretty common there, also.  Bill

Interesting possibility about them not being able to seeing that David had slung a stone. I've had people not notice that I was using a sling, they just thought I was a really powerful throw.

Aussie wrote on Jun 23^rd, 2011 at 11:56pm:

Bill Skinner wrote on Jun 23rd, 2011 at 8:58pm: So, possibly, from a distance, it would look to the Philistines that David waved his arm and pointed at Goliath and he did a face plant.  That would mean that David obviously was guided by God and that they should go someplace else before he pointed at them.  Interesting, if the Philistines were famaliar with Egyptians, slings were pretty common in the Nile Delta, so it shouldn't have been a complete suprise.  And the Philistines came from the Aegean and slings were pretty common there, also.  Bill Interesting possibility about them not being able to seeing that David had slung a stone. I've had people not notice that I was using a sling, they just thought I was a really powerful throw.

Possible, but I don't buy it.  These were experienced warriors in a culture that used the sling.  

I would like to know more about what armor would be common at that time.  

I'd like to point out that this was a duel, not combat.  In combat the only rule is survival, but duels require that both parties honor some set of rules.  ("seconds" keep both parties from cheating)  One could argue that David in effect brought a gun to a sword fight, which would be quite an ethical violation and may have horrified some present, even on his side.  Could that also have contributed to Goliath's apparent contempt and overconfidence?  

Possibly, though we don't really know the terms of the duel. It could have been "use whatever means necessary to eliminate your opponent," and both armies agreed to not cheat or attack afterwards.

Timothy42b, you make some good points, to me the story is interesting because it is probably one of the better late Bronze/early Iron Age stories that survived to this day.  The problem is seperating the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, and trying to tell what actually happened.  One problem moderns have is a lack of understanding.  We don't understand the mind set, the weapons, the tactics, or any of the personal baggage that makes somone fight to the death or run away in panic, back then.  One way is to get a very diverese group to discuss it, hopefully without coming to blows, you must give everones' ideas equal merit, even though you disagree wildly with them.  Bill

Bill is right all of the ideas on this thread do have a possiblity to them and not to mention this was definitley successful on getting a ton of info and opinions on David and Goliath though I imagine they will never all match up exactly. Which means we can all keep learning from each other.  :)

A lot of it will be spliting a frogs hair 4 ways but, as long as you learned somthing it was worth it.

Knaight wrote on Jun 15^th, 2011 at 4:15am:

HurlinThom wrote on Jun 13th, 2011 at 12:16pm: I agree entirely, religion isn't something people change their views on easily. On a side note, there are several other interpretations worth looking at, including a propaganda piece. Think about how this would look from an outsiders perspective at the time, it might well be along these lines: "We have shepherds so good at slinging, they can put a rock into a man's forehead in one try. Do you really want to mess with us?".

this iswhat i think. more importantly it also points out to potential invaders that EVERY sheperd, andfarmer, is a potentially lethal enemy. meaning they will be constantly harrassed. arguably the israelites were the bronze age viet cong.

actually this reminds meof a line attributd to the swiss
Shortly before World War I, the German Kaiser was the guest of the Swiss government to observe military maneuvers. The Kaiser asked a Swiss militiaman: "You are 500,000 and you shoot well, but if we attack with 1,000,000 men what will you do?" The soldier replied: "We will shoot twice and go home." http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/stagnaro5.html
several times the interview/ article arges that any nazi attack on switzerland wold encounter 'a sniper behind every tree and every rock

back to david and golioth,. remember also that david uttered a curse of sorts towards golioth as well

David said "This day the LORD will deliver you into my hands, and I’ll strike you down and cut off your head. This very day I will give the carcasses of the Philistine army to the birds and the wild animals, and the whole world will know that there is a God in Israel",  so it would also look to the philistine army sanding back and watching that he struck golioth down with a curse.

About David not wanting to use armor,what use that be for a slinger against a big warrior with a sword?If a slinger gets in close combat,he won't be alive for too long even wearing armor that is even limiting his movement(assyrian slingers are shown wearing lamellar armor and helmets)
About the philistines not knowing what hit Goliath,i seriously doubt it was the case..Slings must have been a common sight and when David turned up someone surely replied loudly that a shepherd with a sling faces Goliath.Many of the soldiers must have heard it,seen it,or the gossip reached the lines in the back.

So, if slings were so effective, why was everybody laughing at David?  Bill

Bill Skinner wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2011 at 6:54pm:

So, if slings were so effective, why was everybody laughing at David?  Bill

I agree with you. David brought a knife to a gun fight, pun intended. ;)

Bill Skinner wrote on Sep 2^nd, 2011 at 6:54pm:

So, if slings were so effective, why was everybody laughing at David?  Bill

The typical situation people would have seen them used in is army scale skirmishing and volley fire. That doesn't translate to sniping ability, particularly when the number of shots you can expect to get is extremely low.

One thing seems clear to me, as Bill and Masi pointed out. The people there did not take David or his weapons seriously. It seems like not even the Israelite took David's sling and staff seriously, otherwise why were they trying to give him "real armor and weapons"?

To me the most obvious answer is pride. As the old saying goes, pride goeth before a fall. No one took David or his chosen fighting style seriously and Goliath paid a heavy price for it. How many times in history has the favored side lost because they underestimated their opponent? Put simply... quite a bit.

This is not the first time we know of in history that weapons like the sling and bow were considered "lesser" than "real weapons". Many of the knights of the middle ages considered the bow as a weapon without honor. A real man used armor, sword and shield. At least according to them.

As far as breaking the terms of the duel, I think we are applying customs to them that they may not have had. Or at least were not so widespread as later times.

In the 18th and 19th centuries duels became extremely formal. But it's possible at this time it was just kill or be killed.

Morphy wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 12:20pm:

This is not the first time we know of in history that weapons like the sling and bow were considered "lesser" than "real weapons". Many of the knights of the middle ages considered the bow as a weapon without honor. A real man used armor, sword and shield. At least according to them.

Its more a matter of wealth really. The weapon that has been prized has always been the one that the fewest could afford, regardless of utility. Consider the arming sword, which was expensive for hundreds of years, and has been prized since that time - even though it isn't really any more effective than a spear, and is less effective in many situations. The bow was the same way, sure, they were somewhat difficult to make and acquire, but its not as if mass production of them was actually difficult. Now consider the sling, which basically anyone could make with anything. Its not a weapon of the wealthy elite, its a weapon of basically everyone, so it gets disregarded. Obviously, any real warrior would be in a phalanx with their expensive shield, or later some form of heavy cavalry or other*.

*I'm ignoring professional armies here, so much of Roman and Chinese history can basically be disregarded, as the troops were equipped en mass with what was given to them, including armor.

You may be right that that is part of it. Actually to be more inclusive I would say it's simply more of a pride thing.

Bling had something to do with it but so did the stories that were passed down from the beginning of time about a fighter or fighters that found themselves surrounded by their enemies and cut their way out. From the Bible, to the Arthurian legends to modern day movies like the Lord of the Rings,  the idea of coming face to face with your enemies and beating them by your superior skill and muscle has pretty much been ingrained in us from the beginning.

Morphy wrote on Sep 7^th, 2011 at 11:27pm:

You may be right that that is part of it. Actually to be more inclusive I would say it's simply more of a pride thing. Bling had something to do with it but so did the stories that were passed down from the beginning of time about a fighter or fighters that found themselves surrounded by their enemies and cut their way out. From the Bible, to the Arthurian legends to modern day movies like the Lord of the Rings,  the idea of coming face to face with your enemies and beating them by your superior skill and muscle has pretty much been ingrained in us from the beginning.

Yeah, certainly. Still, notice how ridiculously overrepresented expensive things are? There are a lot of mythical swords, and only a scant handful of mythological spears, or axes, and those almost universally date back to periods before the sword was even relevant in the area.

Absolutely. I don't know about you, but I've been suckered in by a new toy in the past simply because it was more expensive then the next thing, therefore it had to be better right?...  I am ashamed to admit it, but there is definitely something to it.  ;D

Morphy wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 3:34am:

Absolutely. I don't know about you, but I've been suckered in by a new toy in the past simply because it was more expensive then the next thing, therefore it had to be better right?...  I am ashamed to admit it, but there is definitely something to it.  ;D

The expensive thing being seen as better than the effective utilitarian one? It can't be.
http://images.usedcheapcars.org/used-lamborghini/2004-lamborghini-murcielago-lamborghini-6-2l-12-cylinder-6-speed-manual/2004_lamborghini_murcielago_r-gt-ucc.jpg
http://www.thesupercars.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Volvo-850.jpg
Nah. Nobody would ever do that.  ;)

Morphy wrote on Sep 4^th, 2011 at 12:20pm:

As far as breaking the terms of the duel, I think we are applying customs to them that they may not have had. Or at least were not so widespread as later times. In the 18th and 19th centuries duels became extremely formal. But it's possible at this time it was just kill or be killed.

Duels were already very formal as early (if not earlier) as Viking times, with the holmgang. Formalised tests of martial prowess to prove issues of justice, with specific rules. It was never something to be entered into lightly as to fail may lead to being proved wrong in the eyes of the "law" and/or killed. If you survived the duel you could still be executed as the "guilty" party. Formalise judicial duelling features strongly in the italian treatise of Fiore dei Liberi, the earliest copy dates back to approx. 1409.

Ok, there's still a huge jump back to Biblical times.

Snowcelt, that's true. Who knows? There is so many things about that story I would like to know more about. What type of stones did David prefer? What type of sling and length did he use for the battle? And more than anything else, what style of throw did he use? I would love to know that one...

Knaight wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 9:44am:

Dan wrote on Jun 19th, 2010 at 11:34am: I found the answer to why David chose 5 stones in the book: The Signature of God by Grant Jeffery. David did not lack faith in the Supernatural power of God, Goliath had 4 brothers, all of which were Giants !  :o In the book of 2nd Samuel chapter 21:15-22 ( please feel free to read it yourself ) it mentions 2nd Samuel 21:22 "These four (Goliaths brothers) were decendants of Rapha in Gath , and they fell to the hands of David and his servants (soldiers). Try finding sombody knowadays that can make a head shot on a target 9ft tall 5 times in a row! Please do more reaserch in the topic by reading 2 Samuel 21 and also pick up the well written Signature of God by Grant Jeffery which also answeres many other questions in Bible text. 9 feet tall is unlikely. What's worth noting is that the average height at that point would have been low, if they were even 6 feet tall then they would be bigger and heavier than most everyone else, with reach to boot, big advantages. And strictly speaking it would be easier to make a head shot on a bigger target, plus there are still people around who can pull that off. The bible is of dubious validity as an objective historical resource, not only has it gone through a great many translations, it is a heavily biased piece to begin with. Goliath would have been exaggerated as tougher than he was, David would have been exaggerated as less physically impressive, so as to make the story seem more miraculous. Its likely there is a grain of truth in that story, which boils down to in a war, the Israelites fielded a slinger as champion who took down someone who had a reputation as very dangerous. With five stones, and lighter armor, multiple tries would have been near guaranteed, though extreme bravery is still needed. Furthermore, the cited incident with Goliath's brothers occurred after David had become a leader and acquired soldiers, so the stones collected in the initial battle are completely irrelevant anyways. Its another point that serves largely to point out that A) Gods on our side, look at this champion, and B) Seriously, look at this champion, he's pretty awesome.

The original text from the Dead Sea Scrolls has Goliath at 2 meters

Mac wrote on Nov 15^th, 2011 at 10:59pm:

The original text from the Dead Sea Scrolls has Goliath at 2 meters

Interesting. I was unaware that the Judaeans measured things in meters. Or the Israelites in the time of David.

HurlinThom wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 10:13pm:

Mac wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 10:59pm: The original text from the Dead Sea Scrolls has Goliath at 2 meters Interesting. I was unaware that the Judaeans measured things in meters. Or the Israelites in the time of David.

 ;D


If you believe in the account of David and Goliath in the Bible as non fiction (you should cause it is), Goliath wasn't just "a big guy" he had a little nephilim genetics in him as did his brothers, meaning he was really a giant.

HurlinThom wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 10:13pm:

Mac wrote on Nov 15th, 2011 at 10:59pm: The original text from the Dead Sea Scrolls has Goliath at 2 meters Interesting. I was unaware that the Judaeans measured things in meters. Or the Israelites in the time of David.

The Dead Sea Scrolls had Goliath atjust over 4 cubits instead of 6, but I've said before how I think that any modern measures for Goliath's height need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Oct 30^th, 2010 at 7:08pm:

Greenmanbacchus wrote on Oct 30th, 2010 at 6:21pm: we're not sure exactly how many inches the referenced 'cubit' translates to. We'll never get to the bottom of that, but somewhere between 7'5" and 9' seems likely. I've heard 12'....but honestly...if we're taking about a 'healthy giant' rather than a pituitary giant, 7'5"  is not an incredible height. A cubit is the length of a forearm and a span is the width of a spread hand, from thumb tip to pinkie finger tip. The first recorded cubit was the Egyptian cubit, slightly longer than the average forearm and was probably based on the cubit of a taller pharaoh. Jewish cubits were borrowed from Greek, or more likely Babylonian cubits in other cases so they can be assumed to apply here. Saying 7 to 9 feet overlooks the fact that the average height and arm span, and by derivation cubit and span, were shorter in antiquity than in modern times because of dietary and lifestyle differences. We may not know how tall Goliath was but we absolutely should not use modern sized cubits and spans as a reference.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2011 at 10:39am:

I like the fact that the guy is trying to make people think critically about the story in an actual historical sense, but he makes 1 critical mistake that seems to crop up everywhere. He's assuming how long the lengths of measure are! There are multiple types of cubit, and Jewish people had a tendency of borrowing them from all over. If you read the wiki article on cubits it makes you think "okay, so they used this measure during this period and after that they started using this one," but in reality different tribes used different measures of cubit depending on where they lived and who they traded with the most. The person who wrote down the measure of Goliath could have been from south Judea and traded with Egyptians (cubit was between 518.5 and 525 mm) and the measure we think is standard could have been from Northern Israel which they used because they traded with Mesopotamians (cubit=533.4 mm). That leads to an error as great as 89.4 mm (3.5") when measuring Goliath's height. 3.5 inches may not be much, but it's the difference between being considered average (5'10") and tall (6'1.5"). We know that the ancient Jews used the Babylonian cubit at one time (428 mm) and the largest cubit I know of is the Hashimi cubit (650.2 mm), so if someone accidentally used the hashimi cubit to figure the height of Goliath and used the 6 cubit measure the possible error could be as high as 1333.2 mm (52.5") if the Babylonian cubit was the correct measure.

One reason for the near-universal adoption of the metric system is that various countries would use the same name for a slightly different amount. Like an Imperial quart versus a US quart. One's larger than a liter and the other is smaller.

The cited differences in cubits is instructive. If the definition of a cubit is the distance from the elbow to somewhere in the middle finger (tip, first joint, wherever) those Hashemites must have been part Orangutan. (This is a joke, all you literalists.)

And I still want to know where the height data originated. Philistine publicity? I doubt Saul's side measured him, especially while his head was still in place.

But the story must be true because you can't prove it's not, right? (Irony here.)

Let's not get into the, "It's a total myth" v. the "It's in the Bible therefore it must be true", controversy. Let's merely discuss it on face value as recorded. Essentially the story is about a little guy with a sling who defeated a big guy who didn't have one. Perfectly plausible as far as I'm concerned.

Exactly how big Goliath was is unclear and really largely irrelevant. Even other figures are probably glosses added by the writer. For example would the armies have faced off for 40 days without any action? Unlikely. How would they have been supplied? Imagine how boring it would be just hanging around in camp waiting for Goliath to do his 'defiance number' every day. Four days, maybe even a week, but not 40.

I once heard that 40 was a sort of literary device in the Bible used to signify "a lot", as in raining 40 days and nights and wandering in the desert for 40 years.

Aussie wrote on Nov 18^th, 2011 at 12:09am:

Let's not get into the, "It's a total myth" v. the "It's in the Bible therefore it must be true", controversy. Let's merely discuss it on face value as recorded. Essentially the story is about a *little guy with a sling who defeated a big guy who didn't have one. Perfectly plausible as far as I'm concerned. Exactly how big Goliath was is unclear and really largely irrelevant. Even other figures are probably glosses added by the writer. For example would the armies have faced off for 40 days without any action? Unlikely. How would they have been supplied? Imagine how boring it would be just hanging around in camp waiting for Goliath to do his 'defiance number' every day. Four days, maybe even a week, but not 40.

* Little guy, or not.  Remember Saul, head higher than the other Isrealites, offered to lend David his armor.  Unless this was done out of scorn, it would have had a chance to fit David, which would have to be a big guy to make the idea come up ;).
timann

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.

I absolutely agree that the notion that David was some little kid doesn't hold up for the very reason you cite. Saul's armour would have had to be at least a close fit or it would never have been tried and Saul was above average in height; it is one of the reasons he was chosen as king. Also, Saul never suggests that Goliath is invicible because of his height but because, "he has been a warrior from his youth". David was the youngest of several brothers but he was likely already in his late teens at the time.

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

I once heard that 40 was a sort of literary device in the Bible used to signify "a lot", as in raining 40 days and nights and wandering in the desert for 40 years.

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.  

Aussie wrote on Nov 18^th, 2011 at 5:00pm:

I absolutely agree that the notion that David was some little kid doesn't hold up for the very reason you cite. Saul's armour would have had to be at least a close fit or it would never have been tried and Saul was above average in height; it is one of the reasons he was chosen as king. Also, Saul never suggests that Goliath is invicible because of his height but because, "he has been a warrior from his youth". David was the youngest of several brothers but he was likely already in his late teens at the time.

At the same time, the whole matter of height would be known. That passage was written sometime during the bronze age, and even if it is fictional the author knew that anyone reading could connect the dots that big people are more dangerous in melee combat. Goliath was mighty because of his time as a warrior in addition to that, not instead of that, and given that most anyone who heard the story at the time it was written would know that pointing it out is kind of pointless.

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  :)

Jabames wrote on Nov 29^th, 2011 at 5:12am:

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  :)

i've heard something about in the arctic small was better because you required less resources to function. of course too small and your surface area would be too big and too much heat could be lost.  

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

Jabames wrote on Nov 29^th, 2011 at 5:12am:

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  :)

Well, fit and trained. Anyone who wins decathlons with some frequency is undeniably fit, but if you take one of them at random, stick a spear in their hand, and put them against a trained spearman who doesn't really do cardio, and doesn't lift weights, and isn't really all that healthy my money is on the guy with the training every time.

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

Jabames wrote on Nov 29th, 2011 at 5:12am: 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  :) Well, fit and trained. Anyone who wins decathlons with some frequency is undeniably fit, but if you take one of them at random, stick a spear in their hand, and put them against a trained spearman who doesn't really do cardio, and doesn't lift weights, and isn't really all that healthy my money is on the guy with the training every time.

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

HurlinThom wrote on Dec 6^th, 2011 at 10:20am:

Knaight wrote on Dec 6th, 2011 at 8:14am: Jabames wrote on Nov 29th, 2011 at 5:12am: 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  :) Well, fit and trained. Anyone who wins decathlons with some frequency is undeniably fit, but if you take one of them at random, stick a spear in their hand, and put them against a trained spearman who doesn't really do cardio, and doesn't lift weights, and isn't really all that healthy my money is on the guy with the training every time. I guess you aren't counting javelin throwing as spear training.

It isn't really applicable for melee combat. That said, if the question is about two people lobbing javelins at each other, the decathlon guy counts as trained. Very trained.

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 imagine that dedicated slingers carried their own ammo, and that other types of troops which only had slings as a secondary/tertiary weapon would forgo carrying stones with them.

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

On the choice of five:

A soldier going into battle wants all the ammo he can carry plus a little more.  

A warrior about to fight a one-on-one duel has very different needs.  The more ammo he carries the less mobility he has, but also the less ability to recover from a miss.  It is not impossible that five stones is the max one can carry and still move quickly over rough terrain while fighting a duel.  

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.

I'm not sure I agree that he was not an expert. The development of this weapon skill was not for sport or learned as unimportant past time. Due to the high learning curve, someone who needed this weapon to survive or protect the flock from dangerous animals would have developed the skill to meet those demands. This was a way of survival both on and off the battlefield. I would think his skills were rather well-developed. Just a thought.

Todd

My angle on this is if he was a true expert slinger, he wouldn't have needed to pick up five stones as one would have got the job done. I have a stinking suspicion that if the story holds any weight, he suspected he may have missed Goliath more often than not and through experience knew it would take him at least five stones to finally achieve a good solid "hit".

That's why I suggested a non-practical reason for detail of five stones. I could see "several stones", a "few stones" but "five" stones just sounds strange. It is interesting that the author made the point they were smooth. Maybe the author knew something about slinging. :) It could be superflous but I think it had symbolic meaning.

I'd like to know the basic load of bullets a slinger would be expected to carry with him.

I can say from personal experience that I can carry 5 lb. loose on my hip, a 10 lb. sack in my hand, or 12 lb. on my back without any noticeable decrease in mobility or speed. Unless the stones were 1 lb. each, any unarmored slinger could have carried more. On the other hand, it is very foolish to not carry as much as possible. Those two things together seem to point to a less apparent reason for the five stones.

It is no coincidence that Goliath challenged the Israelites for forty days, the rain that caused the great flood lasted for forty days, Noah waited another forty days before opening the ark, and moses was on Mt. Sinai for forty days receiving God's work, etc. Numbers always have very specific, symbolic meaning in the Bible. Four is the number of man, one is the number of divinity in the Bible, and five is the number of grace. It's one added to four in order to strengthen it. Another instance of this is the changing of Abram's name to Abraham when he was called to walk before God. It's significant because God added the number five (represented by the 5th letter of the hebrew alphabet, hei) to the middle of Abram's name. "Av-ram" became "Av-ra-ha-um." When Jesus (one) fed the crowd on the mountain (four), he did it by giving them five loaves, which represent grace especially well within the context of his feeding people. Add the 2 fish to the five loaves and you get seven, the symbol of perfection, which refers to Jesus being the only prefect man. IMHO, almost every number in the Bible was inserted there to convey a specific meaning and we've lost the cultural context with which to understand a lot of them.

Extra-biblical evidence points to David having been Saul's shield bearer as well as his well known job as a shepherd. Given this, David was likely older than 15 and an adept fighter in his own right. He'd need to be in order to protect himself while weighed down by Saul's equipment and his own. We can also gather that regardless of whether David was good with the sling, we are supposed to think he was. Otherwise he wouldn't have gone into battle with a sling as his primary weapon and there'd be no point in his bragging about killing a lion and a bear while tending his flock.

Masiakasaurus wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 9:09pm:

Unless the stones were 1 lb. each, any unarmored slinger could have carried more. On the other hand, it is very foolish to not carry as much as possible. Those two things together seem to point to a less apparent reason for the five stones.

Your point about significant numbers is well taken.  Even if the choice is not deliberate, the important numbers in any culture tend to get attached to events and stories.  

I'm not sure though that it makes sense to carry "as much as possible."  A soldier slinger would have a need for large amounts, would have LBE (modern military term, load bearing equipment) suitable for carrying it, and would not expect to be able to scavene ammo from the terrain.  

None of that applies to the shepherd boy or armor bearer, whichever he was (and there are some contradictions in the Biblical text.  Ah, I'd better say apparent contradictions, don't want to offend the literalists. )  The terrain where sheep grazed very possibly had stones lying around.  Certainly there would be no need for the average shepherd to carry more than a couple, so he might not have had a comfortable bag, holster, etc.  During periods of boredom he probably collected a pile, threw them all, and did it again.  He might even have been able to reuse most of them if he were throwing at a creek bank or similar.  It would have been a hobby that was occasionally useful, so he would not have been equipped the same as a professional slinger.  

Perhaps half a sentence is missing;...which he added to the four already laying there. ;)
timann

paleryder wrote on Feb 9^th, 2012 at 4:34pm:

That's why I suggested a non-practical reason for detail of five stones. I could see "several stones", a "few stones" but "five" stones just sounds strange. It is interesting that the author made the point they were smooth. Maybe the author knew something about slinging. :) It could be superflous but I think it had symbolic meaning.

I would say the author almost certainly knew about slinging. Slings have always been the weapon of the common man, especially so in shepherding societies. The author makes the point that David went to a stream to select his stones because that's where he would find the nice smooth stones necessary for top accuracy. You may have seen the video posted recently, of a woman in Morocco using a sling to round up her goats. She just picks up any old stone off the ground and slings in the goats direction to get them moving. She doesn't want to hit them. But for a special job, David selects top grade ammunition.