Quote:


the ancient greeks knew a lot about astronomy, did God tell them, or did they use their intelligence to develop the maths and discover the facts? saying that the earth is "round" is hardly proof of a divine presence. in any case it's a flattened sphere, not round.  "Job" is a book in which God makes a bet with Satan to see if Job will renounce God, and is not a book about science in any shape or form.

Quote:


here are NO roman records, or comtemporary records, which mention Jesus himself.
yes, there are Roman records and artifacts which prove that early Christians existed, but the only written record by an actual Christian is that of Paul, who was converted to christianity after the death of jesus. he did not see Jesus, but was converted to the Christian religion. paul knew Christians existed, and he came to believe in their message, but that is no different than anyone who becomes a Chrisitan today. he did not actually see Jesus

this doesn't prove that JC did or did not exist, it just means that there is no corroborating evidence as yet.
 
Quote:


agreed - the spiritual "truths" are not verifiable by science.    

Quote:


Qirinius is mentioned in Luke, but he was not (according to Roman records) contemporaneous with the census, which Luke says was carried out under his authority. but it would be remarkable if there was nothing in the historical background of the Bible which wasn't actual fact, such as the slavery of the hebrews

the point remains that there is no story or account of any individual or event (prior to st Paul) which can be verified by any other source.

SV

OrangeDuck wrote on Oct 26^th, 2007 at 7:06pm:

very interesting, you obviously have some belief that the bible has some historical values, (most people do you know)
look at it this way, because the boy cried wolf three times and their wasn't a wolf any of those times, the workers where quete sure their wasnt one when their was one because he was not trustable, however if their was a wolf all of those times the workers would've come and killed the wolf, because they could trust him. (that's only an exaple, but i think it's a good one.)

interesting opinion, i don't expect you to reply to this but........ it never says that david killed goliath with the sling, in fact it indicates that he only knocked him out (did i say "only"), because after knocking him down he proceded to cut of goliaths head (why would he do that if goliath realy was dead?) it might have been a point of honour, cutting of a vanquished enimies head, but personally i think he did it to kill him.

axon50 wrote on Oct 30^th, 2007 at 1:15am:

Why go on "defending" it? There is nothing to "defend", really!

I´d say everyone on this forum knows very well that David was perfectly able to kill or stun Goliath with a shot from his sling. Piece of cake, really! The story can very well be real. The described event is possible.

In my opinion, the point to be debated is that many Christians make such a great fuss about it, calling it a "miracle" and "Act Of God" - which only shows that they don´t know what a skilled slinger is capable of. If there is a God, and if said God saw it necessary to intervene on David´s behalf, all that was really needed was a little whisper in David´s ear, saying: "Hey, man, use your sling! That´s what you´re good at, you know!"

I´m really quite unable to understand why so many Christians seem to demand that God must make a personal appearence everywhere, everytime and for every little thing! To me it is really not a sign of respect towards their God if they think him so unable to create the world in such a way that things (at least for most of the time) work as intended by themselves. Nope, instead they demand their God to run around all the time, tweaking and twiddling on every little thing in creation, like some not-so-competent mechanic keeping an old run-down machine (more or less) working. In my eyes that means they consider their God to be both clumsy and… well… not that smart. Not to mention that they seem to think their God should come running as soon as they snap their fingers! That sure ain´t respect and reverence, if you ask me!

Lasse

axon50 wrote on Oct 31^st, 2007 at 10:29pm:

Ah, the naivity of youth   What makes you so quick to assume that other people haven't read it?  Cover to cover.  Several times.  Including bits like Leviticus, Kings, and the nasty parts of Timothy I and II that most bible study groups skip.  In the interests of fairness, I also made my way through the Zend Avesta of Zoroaster, the Koran, various Christian apocrypha, the Bhagavad Gita, the Book of Mormon, the Tibetan and Egyptian books of the Dead, the Tao Te Ching, any number of sutras, and some ancient Summerian religious texts.  It was an eye-opening experience, that I can heartily recommend to anyone with an open mind and too much time on their hands.

Like all human creations, these different scriptures each have their strengths and weakness, good bits and bad bits, parts so beautiful that they seem almost divine, and parts so silly that one cannot help but wonder about the deities that inspired them.  Ancient Greek religious tradition had the best beach parties, the Summerians were the most unnerving, and as J. Robert Oppenheimer pointed out in 1945, the Bhagavad Gita has the all-time best quote for use during nuclear weapons tests.   But as far as I know, the Old Testament is the only holy book that mentions slings.  Which are less expensive than nuclear weapons, and considerably more fun!

Getting back to David vs Goliath, the standard overhand throw from a sling is a lot like the standard head shot with a broadsword.  Back when I was in the SCA, the best sword-and-shield fighters seemed to win approximately 10% of their fights with a single blow.  Extrapolating this to slings, and assuming that Goliath knew how to block, this suggests that with any given shot,  David might have had a 10% chance of taking out his opponent and a 90% chance of watching the shot bounce off his opponent's shield.

This means that if David stood his ground while Goliath rushed him, he might have a 90% chance of getting creamed.  (Whoosh!  Thippity.   "Bugger."  "Ho ho!"  JAB!  Die.  Et cetera).  But if he carried five stones, as some posts to this thread suggest, and never allowed Goliath to close within spear thrusting range, the mathematics of probability gives him at least a 41% chance of taking the big guy out -- more if Goliath's shield arm gets tired.  Those aren't great odds, but they aren't that bad either.  If you were a poor shepherd, doomed to a life of poverty, would you wager that life on 40/60 odds if you could claim the kingdom as a reward for victory?  You might.  It's a tough call, isn't it?

Of course, this means that God's advice to David might well have been, "Run, Luke, run!  Oops, sorry, wrong movie." 

axon50 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2007 at 2:20am:

I haven't read the Book of Mormon, but how many enemies did Jesus have? How did he die? "So much for a blessed man of god" to cite you. A blessed person can have a lot of enemies, though not every person who has a lot of enemies is blessed.

axon50 wrote on Nov 1^st, 2007 at 2:20am:


Hmm.. no.. not much sign of an open mind there . Why do you regard the book of Mormon that way? Because your Sunday School teacher tells you so? You might gain much from reading such as the Bhagavad Gita ( Sanskrit not obligatory ) and many other texts from faiths other than your own. You have been given a brain, why not use it?

The original topic was the matter of whether people believe that Goliath could have been defeated by David. I think the general sense is that purely on grounds of raw mechanics it was possible to deliver a fatal or near-fatal blow, without the intervention of a supreme being to render the sling somehow more potent. This does not deny the existence of such a being. This may be at variance with the version generally taught in Sunday School - yes! I remember! - where perhaps the teacher implies that the sling would not have that power without 'something extra'. This latter view comes from a general ignorance of the lethality of the sling.

What you are left with is the matter of a boy's courage in the face of an intimidating enemy. His faith and belief come in at this point, and the story is no less powerful IMHO for that. I believe that was the intent of scripture when it was written, when people would surely have been far more aware of the potential of the sling.