Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 11-10-2005, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Following intense examination of the inscription,
Prof. Maeir (along with his colleagues Prof. Aaron Demsky, an expert in
epigraphy at Bar-Ilan University, and Dr. Stefan Wimmer, of Munich
University) has concluded that the two names which appear in the inscription
are remarkably similar to the etymological parallels of Goliath.

"It can be suggested that in 10th-9th century Philistine Gath, names quite
similar, and possibly identical, to Goliath were in use," says Prof. Maeir.
"This chronological context from which the inscription was found is only
about 100 years after the time of David according to the standard biblical
chronology. Thus, this appears to provide evidence that the biblical story
of Goliath is, in fact, based on a clear cultural realia from, more or less,
the time which is depicted in the biblical text, and recent attempts to
claim that Goliath can only be understood in the context of later phases of
the Iron Age are unwarranted."

NZSkep · 11-10-2005, 03:39 PM

an inscription that suggests the name goliath was used at around the right time in history. so what. thats like saying that because Jesus was a common name the biblical jesus must also have existed.

judge · 11-10-2005, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NZSkep

an inscription that suggests the name goliath was used at around the right time in history. so what. thats like saying that because Jesus was a common name the biblical jesus must also have existed.

I don't think the article in any way tries to suggest Goliath (the person in the bible) existed or that the stories about him happened.

Chris Weimer · 11-10-2005, 08:33 PM

No, it's more about the dating of the Old Testament. All its denying are the revisionist historians (but aren't we all?) who say that Goliath is best understood in a later context. To make your parallel better, it would be saying that Jesus was a common name in the late 2nd centruy CE and thus the gospels were written then. Comprende?

NZSkep · 11-11-2005, 02:07 AM

mucho, gracias

butswana · 11-11-2005, 06:53 AM

According to the Yahoo article, they are in fact claiming that this proves Goliath was a real dude.....sort of. If you just read headline and the first paragraph that is. Which I imagine that is all some will need to read.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/...eology_goliath

mata leao · 11-11-2005, 09:57 AM

yes, but his head is missing!

Steven Carr · 11-11-2005, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

No, it's more about the dating of the Old Testament. All its denying are the revisionist historians (but aren't we all?) who say that Goliath is best understood in a later context. To make your parallel better, it would be saying that Jesus was a common name in the late 2nd centruy CE and thus the gospels were written then. Comprende?

'Thus, this appears to provide evidence that the biblical story of Goliath is, in fact, based on a clear cultural realia from, more or less, the time which is depicted in the biblical text, and recent attempts to claim that Goliath can only be understood in the context of later phases of the Iron Age are unwarranted."

So the discover of a person called 'Stephen' in the first century AD is an argument against those stupid revisionists who claim that postings by 'Steven Carr' are best understood in the context of the Information Age?

Chris Weimer · 11-11-2005, 01:14 PM

Come on, Steve, now you're just being facetious. If they are actually arguing for the historical existence of Goliath and the fight between David etc..., then they are wrong in their assumptions. But they are correct that, if their evidence is correct and the conclusions match their evidence, that Goliath wasn't made up much later to fit cultural contexts. Note that only the name Goliath has historical credence, and not anything to do with the narrative of what happened.

Steven Carr · 11-12-2005, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Come on, Steve, now you're just being facetious. If they are actually arguing for the historical existence of Goliath and the fight between David etc..., then they are wrong in their assumptions. But they are correct that, if their evidence is correct and the conclusions match their evidence, that Goliath wasn't made up much later to fit cultural contexts. Note that only the name Goliath has historical credence, and not anything to do with the narrative of what happened.

Their logic is obviously facetious, and where exactly did they find the name 'Goliath' again? In their heads?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-10-2005, 03:39 PM	#2
NZSkep Contributor Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: auckland nz Posts: 18,090	an inscription that suggests the name goliath was used at around the right time in history. so what. thats like saying that because Jesus was a common name the biblical jesus must also have existed.

11-10-2005, 08:33 PM	#4
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	No, it's more about the dating of the Old Testament. All its denying are the revisionist historians (but aren't we all?) who say that Goliath is best understood in a later context. To make your parallel better, it would be saying that Jesus was a common name in the late 2nd centruy CE and thus the gospels were written then. Comprende?

11-11-2005, 02:07 AM	#5
NZSkep Contributor Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: auckland nz Posts: 18,090	mucho, gracias

11-11-2005, 06:53 AM	#6
butswana Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Indianapolis, IN Posts: 1,804	According to the Yahoo article, they are in fact claiming that this proves Goliath was a real dude.....sort of. If you just read headline and the first paragraph that is. Which I imagine that is all some will need to read. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/...eology_goliath

11-11-2005, 09:57 AM	#7
mata leao Banned Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: tampa,florida Posts: 342	yes, but his head is missing!

11-11-2005, 01:14 PM	#9
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Come on, Steve, now you're just being facetious. If they are actually arguing for the historical existence of Goliath and the fight between David etc..., then they are wrong in their assumptions. But they are correct that, if their evidence is correct and the conclusions match their evidence, that Goliath wasn't made up much later to fit cultural contexts. Note that only the name Goliath has historical credence, and not anything to do with the narrative of what happened.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.