Who Killed Goliath?

[Starcrash]

How many talents of gold did Hiram send to Solomon? | Contradicting

https://answersingenesis.org/jesus-christ/when-did-jesus-cleanse-the-temple/

The first answer simply asserts the same thing you did: that there were 2 expeditions. There's no evidence of this, except that the author doesn't believe that Solomon would be wasteful enough to build ships for one single expedition (but 2! that's totally not wasteful). It also picks apart synonyms in the original wording and tries to make them appear to have different meanings. Even if we were to grant this, is the bible made only to be understood in the original language? Why isn't there a clarification in the text, when it would be easy (and natural, as opposed to each scripture only telling half of the relevant story)?

The second answer also rehashes the same answer that I've mentioned I've heard before. The question isn't "would Jesus do this twice" but rather "would Jesus be allowed to do this twice". He was arrested the alleged second time he did it... not immediately after, although that's when the elders plotted to arrest him. One must also wonder why Jesus would do it a second time if the first time apparently didn't fix the problem.It also completely ignores the other point I made, that the gospel of John is the only one that doesn't tell of it happening in the last week of his life. Why not? It would solve the problem, and make us not consider the more probable alternative that the gospel of John was simply mistaken.

While we're on the subject of Jesus clearing the temple, did he do it three times? In Matthew 21, Jesus drove out the moneychangers on the day of his arrival into Jerusalem. In Mark 11, it was the day after arriving in Jerusalem.

 

[posthuman]

i see no contradiction at all.

for one thing, it's not earthshakingly uncommon for two people to have the same name.

for another thing, 1 Samuel 17 - David killing a giant of Gath, as a boy, while Saul is king - takes place decades before 2 Samuel 21 - during the reign of David as king! you might also want to have a look at 1 Chronicles 20:5 while you're out slaying giants.

 

[Atwood]

Is that your argument for why Muslims are wrong when they claim that the Qur'an is holy, correct, and perfect? They "try to justify murder" and "they are... torturing innocent ppl and slaughtering Children"? That's a red herring -- it has literally nothing to do with whether their holy book is correct. If you tried to make the point that their actions are "wrong", I'm sure they'd justify it by saying that they were commanded by God to do it in his holy book (the Qur'an, from their point-of-view) and you wouldn't be able to prove them wrong because they simply wouldn't accept any argument that showed that the Qur'an could be mistaken.

What is your proof that they would justify it that way?
What is your proof that "you wouldn't be able to prove them wrong"?
How do you know that their lack of argument-acceptance would imply not being able to prove them wrong?

It's also funny that you think that I must be "blind to the deep secrets of Gods word" because I am not saved. Can only Christians understand the bible? That would mean that one could not become saved by reading the bible for oneself, because to understand salvation one would have to already have it. Furthermore, I'm sure Muslims use that same excuse to defend their holy book. "You just don't understand it because you're not a Muslim" (and obviously if you were, you wouldn't question it, thus making the Qur'an immune to criticism)

How do you know that
1) it is funny?
2) lack of salvation does not go with being unsaved?
3) Christians are not the only ones who deeply understand the Bible?
4) Failure to comprehend deep matters would mean that one could not be saved by reading the Bible for oneself?
5) Understanding the Bible is a binary matter (yes vs no), instead of scalar?
6) Muslims use the same excuse?
7) Christians have the same attitude towards the Bible as Muslims do towards Al-Qurʾān?
8) It is a red herring?
it has nothing to do with whether their book is correct?
[10) it has literally nothing to do with whether their book is correct?

What is your proof of all that?

 

[Starcrash]

Look I have to go to bed I will say this, just because the muslums will not accept what I say doesnt make them right.

You've got it -- it doesn't make it right!!! They can assert the authority of their scriptures as much as they want, but that doesn't make them true. How does one know whether a book is true? One must have a method, and it can't involve simply assuming it (otherwise we'd both have to agree that the Muslims are right).

I'm not trying to prove "only [my] own view and opinion". I source my claims and try to argue that you'd agree with me if not for the bias. I keep bringing up Muslims to show that, if we were using your arguments to defend someone that neither of us wants to defend, you'd easily see through those arguments and find them false. I'm trying to put you in my shoes so that you'll stop using poor defenses that you yourself would not accept.

I have "studied bible prophecy and the predictions the bible made", and found them to be unconvincing for a variety of good reasons. Again, one only needs to look at the Muslim claim that prophecy in the Qur'an makes it true to see why one could make this claim about a book that isn't true.

My purpose here is to make you doubt the accuracy of the bible. I believe that the only reason you think the bible is perfect is because you're ignorant of the contradictions (perhaps even willfully ignorant), and because you don't even question whether it could possibly be imperfect. How can you know if you won't even consider the possibility? If the bible actually is true, as you claim it is, it should stand up to scrutiny. In fact, scrutiny ought to be welcome because it would give the bible a chance to shine... assuming it stands up to it.

 

[The_Wanderer]

The first answer simply asserts the same thing you did: that there were 2 expeditions. There's no evidence of this, except that the author doesn't believe that Solomon would be wasteful enough to build ships for one single expedition (but 2! that's totally not wasteful). It also picks apart synonyms in the original wording and tries to make them appear to have different meanings. Even if we were to grant this, is the bible made only to be understood in the original language? Why isn't there a clarification in the text, when it would be easy (and natural, as opposed to each scripture only telling half of the relevant story)?

The second answer also rehashes the same answer that I've mentioned I've heard before. The question isn't "would Jesus do this twice" but rather "would Jesus be allowed to do this twice". He was arrested the alleged second time he did it... not immediately after, although that's when the elders plotted to arrest him. One must also wonder why Jesus would do it a second time if the first time apparently didn't fix the problem.It also completely ignores the other point I made, that the gospel of John is the only one that doesn't tell of it happening in the last week of his life. Why not? It would solve the problem, and make us not consider the more probable alternative that the gospel of John was simply mistaken.

While we're on the subject of Jesus clearing the temple, did he do it three times? In Matthew 21, Jesus drove out the moneychangers on the day of his arrival into Jerusalem. In Mark 11, it was the day after arriving in Jerusalem.

About Hiram (excerpted from the link I provided):
We know that the first expedition was that of 2 Chronicles 8:17, “Then Solomon went to Ezion-geber …” (Hebrew: ‘Az’, then …), that is immediately after the completion of the temple. This resulted in 450 talents. The expedition of 1 Kings took place at a later point of time with the result of 420 talents. Instead of ‘Az’, the conjunction ‘W-’ is used, meaning ‘And’, referring to an indefinite period of time after the former subject; “And Hiram sent his servants with the fleet…”.

As for Jesus Christ, who's to say He didn't cleanse the temple twenty times?
John 21:25 - And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

I've given you the explanation for your two questions. You're free to reject them, as you apparently have decided to do.

 

[Atwood]

There's no evidence of this

How do you know that?

How do you know that
1) Synonyms do not differ in meaning?
2) Synonyms imply original language only for understanding?
3) Understanding is a binary matter -- you either do or don't?
4) Original language is not a matter of increasing understanding?
5) Why isn't there is a valid question?
6) speculations about ease of writing implies necessity?
7) that the question isn't this, but something else?
8) it is valid to speak of what God the Son is allowed to do?
9) one must wonder?
10) fixing the problem was the issue?
11) the Gospel of John should rehash the synoptics?
12) there is a problem?
13) recording a 2nd cleansing implies the author is wrong?
14) Matthew 21 gives a different day from Mark 11?
15) three times is impossible?

What is your proof for your allegations?

 

[Starcrash]

What is your proof of all that?

Do you simply want a lesson in epistemology?

Let's look at what I don't take as proof: mere assertion. When people make factual claims without evidence, I typically accept them if they are probable and not likely to be biased ("I have a friend named Bob") but I never claim to be certain of such a fact, even with evidence (because more evidence against it could show that I'm wrong). I typically will not accept a claim that is improbable that has no evidence ("My religion is true but the thousands of competing religions are false").

But some of my claims should be obvious to prove. "It is funny" because I have access to my own feelings of amusement. "Lack of salvation does not go with being unsaved" by the logical axiom of non-contradiction (one cannot have salvation and not have salvation). I wasn't claiming that "Christians are not the only ones who deeply understand the Bible", but rather I was challenging your claim and I brought up an obvious counterexample to that claim. I could go on, but I think you're just being pedantic. You're trying to make it sound like nothing could be known so that arguing is useless... again, I would refer you to the Wikipedia link above. Epistemology is the study of how one knows things.

Are you going to stay on topic, or are you purposely trying to subvert it?

 

[Atwood]

You've got it -- it doesn't make it right!!! They can assert the authority of their scriptures as much as they want, but that doesn't make them true. How does one know whether a book is true? One must have a method, and it can't involve simply assuming it (otherwise we'd both have to agree that the Muslims are right).

I'm not trying to prove "only [my] own view and opinion". I source my claims and try to argue that you'd agree with me if not for the bias. I keep bringing up Muslims to show that, if we were using your arguments to defend someone that neither of us wants to defend, you'd easily see through those arguments and find them false. I'm trying to put you in my shoes so that you'll stop using poor defenses that you yourself would not accept.

I have "studied bible prophecy and the predictions the bible made", and found them to be unconvincing for a variety of good reasons. Again, one only needs to look at the Muslim claim that prophecy in the Qur'an makes it true to see why one could make this claim about a book that isn't true.

My purpose here is to make you doubt the accuracy of the bible. I believe that the only reason you think the bible is perfect is because you're ignorant of the contradictions (perhaps even willfully ignorant), and because you don't even question whether it could possibly be imperfect. How can you know if you won't even consider the possibility? If the bible actually is true, as you claim it is, it should stand up to scrutiny. In fact, scrutiny ought to be welcome because it would give the bible a chance to shine... assuming it stands up to it.

'

You make a lot of claims. Now what is your proof of them?
How do you know that nothing is self-evident?
How do you know what we would do with Moslems?
How does Moslems prove your theories?
Why should we be in your shoes?
What is your proof that Moslems prophetic claims for the Qur'ān are the same as Biblical claims?
Where are the prophecies in the Qur'ān?
What do you think of Isaiah 52-53 & Psalm 22? Where is anything like that in the Bible?
How can you compare the scrambled eggs Q with the Bible?
What is your proof that the Bible doesn't stand up?

 

[posthuman]

Are you going to stay on topic, or are you purposely trying to subvert it?

what is the topic? how it is your life's mission to discredit the scripture, and how you perpetually fail to do so, as so many before you also have?

honestly?

 

[Atwood]

I don't. And I'm claiming that you can't know it, either.

What is your proof that I can't know it?

It's not "the original"... what I mean to say is that it is as original as can we have.

How do you know that it is as original as can we have?

None of the scriptures we have are "the original",

What is your proof of that?

 

[Starcrash]

About Hiram (excerpted from the link I provided):
We know that the first expedition was that of 2 Chronicles 8:17, “Then Solomon went to Ezion-geber …” (Hebrew: ‘Az’, then …), that is immediately after the completion of the temple. This resulted in 450 talents. The expedition of 1 Kings took place at a later point of time with the result of 420 talents. Instead of ‘Az’, the conjunction ‘W-’ is used, meaning ‘And’, referring to an indefinite period of time after the former subject; “And Hiram sent his servants with the fleet…”.

As for Jesus Christ, who's to say He didn't cleanse the temple twenty times?
John 21:25 - And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

I've given you the explanation for your two questions. You're free to reject them, as you apparently have decided to do.

I told you exactly why I rejected them. I read the link, and I hoped my answer made that clear. You're simply copying & pasting the semantics argument that tried to make "then" and "and" seem like completely different words with different meanings. I answered that:

Even if we were to grant this, is the bible made only to be understood in the original language? Why isn't there a clarification in the text, when it would be easy (and natural, as opposed to each scripture only telling half of the relevant story)?

...and even though I gave you the courtesy of responding to the argument in the link that I read, I'm starting to wonder if you even read my response. You certainly didn't answer it.

When I questioned whether Jesus cleared the temple three times, I was joking. It's obvious from the contexts of the links that it was supposed to be the same event. In Matthew, the fig tree immediately withers, then Jesus clears the temple, and then Jesus goes to stay in Bethany. In Mark, Jesus curses the fig tree, stays in Bethany, and then returns to find that the fig tree withered overnight. He then clears the temple. Not only does the context show that this event happens after the fig tree withering, but I would again raise the objection: why do it again if it didn't work the first time? It would make even less sense a mere day after it was ineffective.

I'm free to reject your arguments, but only to a point. I care deeply about rational behavior. I have an audience, and in this case it's a very skeptical audience that would be willing to pounce on my bad arguments. You're among friends, and I'm guessing that your arguments will get a free pass no matter how weak (although I think they were fine up until this last post). I want an unbiased observer to be able to see that I respond reasonably -- without logical mistakes and without bias. I'd like biased observer to at least be hard-pressed to find a problem with my response. So you can claim that you've "given [me] the explanation for [my] two questions", but I'm asserting that they are insufficient, and I will reject them until you can satisfy me with an argument that I myself can defend rationally.

 

[Tintin]

Oh, look! It's a star that has crashed to earth. Nothing to see here.

 

[Starcrash]

Oh, look! It's a star that has crashed to earth. Nothing to see here.

I was going to read the second half of your name, but then realized I already had.

 

[Nick01]

If you compare 1 Chronicles 20:5 and 2 Samuel 21:19, the most likely origin of the divergent readings is a textual error. Jair=Jaareoregim, mostly because oregim in the Hebrew is the word for 'weaver', and it is exceedingly likely the copyist simply read the word from the wrong line and the error crept into the copy.

Secondly, the difference between "Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim the Beth-lehemite slew Goliath the Gittite" (in 2 Sam) and "Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite" (in 1 Cor) is also likely due to transcription errors in the original Hebrew. 1 Chr has probably misread the word for '[accusative indicating the direct object of the proceeding clause] Lahmi' (אֶת לַחְמִי) and instead written 'Bethlehemite' (בֵּית הַלַּחְמִי) . Conversely, it is also possible the reverse has happened, and that the reading was originally Bethlehemite. There are probably internal grounds for favouring one over the other, but I haven't studied this particular case enough to find out.

In 2 Samuel, the word for brother has been confused in the same way, for a word indicating a direct object (brother is אַח, the accusative word is אֵת). It is most likely this error that gave rise to the first, because of the change to the underlying structure of the sentence and the need to resolve the object grammatically.

In other words, the problem is that someone somewhere got a defective manuscript, and this was perpetuated in the MT (also noting that out of the all the OT, 2 Samuel is probably the book with the fewest Hebrew MSS for us to work with, and is the least well preserved). Fortunately, the problem is easily identified, particular as 2 Samuel and 1 Chr are obviously working from the same source, given the otherwise identical wording of this event.

Looking at the the textual situation, it seems to me beyond question that the text originally was referring to a brother of Goliath. I personally don't know whether Bethlehmite or Lahmi is the correct reading, so I'm interested in whether anyone has a text critical rationale for that side of things. Either way, that part of the text doesn't really relate to the question of the OP, which is 'Who killed Goliath".

 

[Starcrash]

what is the topic? how it is your life's mission to discredit the scripture, and how you perpetually fail to do so, as so many before you also have?

honestly?

The topic is "Who Killed Goliath"? I finished my post with a question, and hoped I'd get an answer. TheWanderer didn't seem to have a problem with understanding that, and even gave me a cogent response. Your response appears to be ad hominem with an assertion that " perpetually fail" at pointing out the bible's mistakes. You may be right. It certainly isn't because I can't spot them or lead you to them, but because even when you're looking right at them you see nothing.

Muslims still believe the Qur'an. It isn't because everyone has failed to spot the mistakes but because Muslims are convinced that their book is without mistake, and so they continue to believe even long past having good reason to do so. But I'm sure you're different. You have a bible that can't possibly be wrong, but they do, and even though you both defend your books exactly the same (presupposition of absolute truth), their defense is wrong but yours is right.

 

[The_Wanderer]

I told you exactly why I rejected them. I read the link, and I hoped my answer made that clear. You're simply copying & pasting the semantics argument that tried to make "then" and "and" seem like completely different words with different meanings. I answered that:



...and even though I gave you the courtesy of responding to the argument in the link that I read, I'm starting to wonder if you even read my response. You certainly didn't answer it.

When I questioned whether Jesus cleared the temple three times, I was joking. It's obvious from the contexts of the links that it was supposed to be the same event. In Matthew, the fig tree immediately withers, then Jesus clears the temple, and then Jesus goes to stay in Bethany. In Mark, Jesus curses the fig tree, stays in Bethany, and then returns to find that the fig tree withered overnight. He then clears the temple. Not only does the context show that this event happens after the fig tree withering, but I would again raise the objection: why do it again if it didn't work the first time? It would make even less sense a mere day after it was ineffective.

I'm free to reject your arguments, but only to a point. I care deeply about rational behavior. I have an audience, and in this case it's a very skeptical audience that would be willing to pounce on my bad arguments. You're among friends, and I'm guessing that your arguments will get a free pass no matter how weak (although I think they were fine up until this last post). I want an unbiased observer to be able to see that I respond reasonably -- without logical mistakes and without bias. I'd like biased observer to at least be hard-pressed to find a problem with my response. So you can claim that you've "given [me] the explanation for [my] two questions", but I'm asserting that they are insufficient, and I will reject them until you can satisfy me with an argument that I myself can defend rationally.

I simply get tired of having to explain something over and over. This line of questioning reminds me of someone who might ask me to prove to them, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that God exists. I cannot do that. Faith enters into the equation. I am satisfied, however, that mine is not a blind faith and the evidences I see are sufficient for me. You, on the other hand, would likely argue against the evidences I see. I cannot think of an answer which I may provide that will satisfy you. You can deride my explanations as weak as much as you like, although I think they're quite sound. I find that people often resort to that when the explanation still doesn't win them over. I'll leave it to someone else then.

 

[Atwood]

Let's look at what I don't take as proof: mere assertion.

How do you know that mere assertion is not proof?
Is that an assumption?

When people make factual claims without evidence, I typically accept them if they are probable and not likely to be biased ("I have a friend named Bob") but I never claim to be certain of such a fact, even with evidence (because more evidence against it could show that I'm wrong). I typically will not accept a claim that is improbable that has no evidence ("My religion is true but the thousands of competing religions are false").

How do you know that your canons are correct?

But some of my claims should be obvious to prove.

How do you know that they should be obvious?
Does one prove the obvious?

"It is funny" because I have access to my own feelings of amusement

Are you retracting the statement or claiming that if you feel it is funny, then it is funny?
If so, how do you know that?

"Lack of salvation does not go with being unsaved" by the logical axiom of non-contradiction

How do you know that your axiom is correct? Are you assuming it without proof?

I wasn't claiming that "Christians are not the only ones who deeply understand the Bible", but rather I was challenging your claim and I brought up an obvious counterexample to that claim.

What is your proof that I made such a claim?
How is your example obviously counter?
How does failure to understand deep matters imply failure to understand simple matters?

again, I would refer you to the Wikipedia link above. Epistemology is the study of how one knows things.

How do you know that I don't understand epistemology?
What leads you to think that Wikipedia is an authority?

You may expect to be asked for proof when you make an assertion.
If you assert it, the burden is on you.

 

[Starcrash]

Why can't I "like" your post, Nick01? I wanted to, but I seem to be missing the button.

 

[Starcrash]

If you assert it, the burden is on you.

How do you know that "if you assert it, the burden is on you"?

Do you understand why this doesn't further conversation? This is a childish game, and I'm not going to play it. Come back to the adult table when you're ready to act like one.

 

[Nick01]

Why can't I "like" your post, Nick01? I wanted to, but I seem to be missing the button.

I'm just that unlikable

EDIT: I think there might be a time lapse required before you can like. I can't see the button on your most recent pot, but I can on your others. Beats me.