billywheaton

:banghead: Of course! Regardless of whether the story is true or not, Goliath clearly had a substantial disadvantage.

Let’s look at the story of David vs. Goliath:

Saul was head and shoulders taller then any other person in Israel (I Sam. 9:2). He had a son named Saul, a handsome young man. There was no one among the Israelites more handsome than he was; he stood head and shoulders above all the people. David was tall. David had to be roughly the same size as Saul as he tried on his armor [I Sam. 17:38-39]. Then Saul clothed David with his own fighting attire and put a bronze helmet on his head. He also put body armor on him. David strapped on his sword over his fighting attire and tried to walk around, but he was not used to them. David said to Saul, “I can’t walk in these things, for I’m not used to them.� So David removed them. So now, David armed with a projectile that can be flung at tremendous speeds at long distances fights wearing only light clothing, thus being far more mobile then a weighed down Goliath. Who do you think wins? In modern terms, would you put your money on: 1) A 6 foot 4 inch tall boy carrying a loaded 9mm hand gun or (2) Heck let’s make or modern day Goliath 20 feet tall 1000 pounds in full armor and carrying a 16 pound sword. Who has the upper hand?

Obviously, nearly every Evangelical Christian has heard this story and believed that David pulled off an upset. Shockingly, however, despite having personally confronted preachers and Sunday school teachers with this obvious gross exaggeration of David’s disadvantage, they nearly all continued telling the David and Goliath story in exactly the same way. They teach David as an underdog. Some defensively argue that David may have had an advantage, but that the point of the story was that David’s courage exceeded his peers. They suggest his courage came from God. That seems reasonable doesn’t it? Well, it seems reasonable if you don’t read the story. David was keenly interested in a reward [I Sam. 17:25-27]. The men of Israel said, “Have you seen this man who is coming up? He does so to defy Israel. But the king will make the man who can strike him down very wealthy! He will give him his daughter in marriage, and he will make his father’s house exempt from tax obligations in Israel.� David asked the men who were standing near him, “What will be done for the man who strikes down this Philistine and frees Israel from this humiliation? For who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he defies the armies of the living God?� The soldiers told him what had been promised, saying, “This is what will be done for the man who can strike him down.� This story is crystal clear about David’s interest in a reward as he presses the issue [I Sam. 17:30]. Then he turned from those who were nearby to someone else and asked the same question, but they gave him the same answer as before. Regardless, David seemed to feel little risk in losing based on his experience as he explained to Saul [I Sam. 17:34-36 David replied to Saul, “Your servant has been a shepherd for his father’s flock. Whenever a lion or bear would come and carry off a sheep from the flock, I would go out after it, strike it down, and rescue the sheep from its mouth. If it rose up against me, I would grab it by its jaw, strike it, and kill it. Your servant has struck down both the lion and the bear. This uncircumcised Philistine will be just like one of them.

A tiny bit of reality based thinking completely discredits the David and Goliath story as it is intended to be understood by Evangelical Christian leaders.
billywheaton from billywheaton.com
:huh:

ISVfan

Well the Bible says Goliath was a gaint. And David was not a very big man. I watched 'Epic Battles' on the History Channel and they said most were in agreement David was probably 5'6-5'8. Might have been as tall as 6'0. But does it really matter is this not nit picking slightly! If you have ever taught kids then you know they are board by history. You have to spice things up a bit. I see no problem with teaching David was an underdog. But that said you might be correct and in fact David was probably not a whole lot smaller than Goliath.

Tigers!

I never thought that David fighting for a reward would invalidate his success or somehow cheapen it.

NZSkep

but the main point was that david had a sling - quite an accurate and deadly ranged weapon when used correctly. Goliath may have been bigger and stronger but that makes no difference when david didn't need to get up close to him.
The analogy stands:
Also I believ 5'8" was pretty tall back then. 6' would have been considered a giant.

besides which the point is moot as it is not really history anyway. It's fiction

hatsoff

What sort of sling was it? As a child, I picture a children's toy, a leather pouch and tie connected to a solid Y-shaped branch, but of course that can't be what David used.

What is the original Hebrew for "sling," what did it mean and how deadly might it have been?

Whatever the case, a handgun analogy is wholly inappropriate.

Also--and I will have to check this out to be sure--but it seems to me that wearing somebody else's "armor" doesn't mean you have the same (or even similar) physiques or heights. Also, were there any modifications performed on the armor? Was the armor necessarily Saul's to *wear*, or just Saul's to *own*? Etc.

Anat

hatsoff, see sling. Still in use by shepherds.

NZSkep

seconded - the handgun analagy is accurate too insofar as you have to assume that david was proficient with a sling. If you are good with a sling it is very deadly (anyone who has played Rome:total war will know those rhodian and balearic slingers are awesome.)

Splarnst

What you say might be true, but using a video game to substantiate a claim about the effectiveness of a real-life weapon is laughable.

NZSkep

Well the videogame is noted for its historical accuracy (not in everything) but it still applies. just thought I would add something that might appeal more to the masses than reading a long article about the historical effectiveness of the sling. (plus I was just playing it last night and it was still fresh in my mind)
The point remains, if you read the article, that the sling was a very effective weapon, used extensively on the battlefield around the time of the romans.

The only way the analagy does not stand is if you argue that it is much easier to point a gun than to use a sling, but as david was supposed to be well versed in the use of a sling (why else would he take it?) then that point is moot.

Eldarion Lathria

A sling stone or lead sling bullet, slung by a proficient slinger, will crush an eye, fracture a skull at the temples, or knock the target unconscious enabling someone to despatch him with a blade, or crush the windpipe or jugular vein. A proficient slinger can kill a fox or a wolf at fifty meters.

I have seen slingstones put dents in 18ga and 16ga steel helmets.

Eldarion Lathria