Who Killed Goliath?

[Starcrash]

Upon reading the title to this thread, I'm sure you planned to walk right in and write "David", knowing that's the obvious answer. After all, even non-Christians know the story of David & Goliath found in 1 Samuel 17.

But did you know that the death of Goliath is briefly recapped in 2 Samuel? Chapter 21, verse 19 and reads as follows (NIV):

In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jairthe Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.

This passage may confuse you. "It's talking about the brother of Goliath," you say. "Not Goliath". No, it's not. If you check out the link above (or read the subscript that is undoubtedly in your own bible) you'll see that the Hebrew verse doesn't contain "the brother of"... those words were added because of the obvious contradiction between this story and the one we all know about David being Goliath's killer. Note further this list from Biblehub of the various versions, some which include this fabrication and some which faithfully transmit the original Hebrew.

There's a discussion of this verse below that list (as there usually is of every verse). The "Pulpit Commentary" sticks with the original Hebrew and suggests that "Elhanan" must be a nickname for David and "Jair" is a nickname for his father, Jesse. This isn't because either of them is known by those nicknames, but because the writer of the commentary here is incredulous that such un-famous people could be the famous killers of Goliath. This is followed by "Gill's exposition" which claims that the fabricators were correct in assuming that it was Goliath's brother rather than Goliath himself because he notes that there are further contradictions in who the famous father of Elhanan was (Dodo, not Jair) and Goliath's death in the valley of Elah, not Gob.

As an atheist, I find this to be the common way that apologists deal with contradictions -- they don't even consider the possible alternative that the bible contains contradictions, even when the KJV translators deliberately mistranslated the bible and we know for a fact that they did. They were mistranslating to avoid a non-contradiction? That sounds silly, but I'd like to know what you think. Even if the bible isn't contradictory, these two commentaries can't both be right. Which one is right (if even one of them is)?

 

[FireHeart]

Upon reading the title to this thread, I'm sure you planned to walk right in and write "David", knowing that's the obvious answer. After all, even non-Christians know the story of David & Goliath found in 1 Samuel 17.

But did you know that the death of Goliath is briefly recapped in 2 Samuel? Chapter 21, verse 19 and reads as follows (NIV):



This passage may confuse you. "It's talking about the brother of Goliath," you say. "Not Goliath". No, it's not. If you check out the link above (or read the subscript that is undoubtedly in your own bible) you'll see that the Hebrew verse doesn't contain "the brother of"... those words were added because of the obvious contradiction between this story and the one we all know about David being Goliath's killer. Note further this list from Biblehub of the various versions, some which include this fabrication and some which faithfully transmit the original Hebrew.

There's a discussion of this verse below that list (as there usually is of every verse). The "Pulpit Commentary" sticks with the original Hebrew and suggests that "Elhanan" must be a nickname for David and "Jair" is a nickname for his father, Jesse. This isn't because either of them is known by those nicknames, but because the writer of the commentary here is incredulous that such un-famous people could be the famous killers of Goliath. This is followed by "Gill's exposition" which claims that the fabricators were correct in assuming that it was Goliath's brother rather than Goliath himself because he notes that there are further contradictions in who the famous father of Elhanan was (Dodo, not Jair) and Goliath's death in the valley of Elah, not Gob.

As an atheist, I find this to be the common way that apologists deal with contradictions -- they don't even consider the possible alternative that the bible contains contradictions, even when the KJV translators deliberately mistranslated the bible and we know for a fact that they did. They were mistranslating to avoid a non-contradiction? That sounds silly, but I'd like to know what you think. Even if the bible isn't contradictory, these two commentaries can't both be right. Which one is right (if even one of them is)?

To be clear David did not kill Goliath it was God. David had the Faith to know God would aid him and that faith allowed david the win. But in my opinion the bible does not contradict itself our views or understanding of it only make it seem that way

 

[The_Wanderer]

Check out 1 Chronicles 20:5 - And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.

 

[Starcrash]

David used the sling to hurl the stone that killed Goliath. You can credit God also if that makes you feel happy, but natural causation would make David the killer. Also, giving God the credit doesn't make the claim "Elhanan was Goliath's killer" true, either.

The bible does contradict itself, and the reason that you can't see that is because, when you're faced with a contradiction, you try to excuse it away. Imagine the Muslims who are certain that their Qur'an is correct because nobody has been able to demonstrate that there's a single wrong passage, and their defense is based on this same standard that obvious contradictions are an error in "understanding of it". Isn't it obvious what their problem is? And, by extension, yours?

 

[Atwood]

There are a few copist errors in the Masoretic text:

Gleason L. Archer saith

First Samuel 17:50 states that David cut off Goliath's head with the giant's own sword, after he had first felled him with a sling and a stone. Because of this amazing victory over the Philistine, David became the foremost battle-champion among the Israelite troops, even though he was still a mere teenager.

But 2 Samuel 21:19 in the Hebrew Masoretic text states that "Elhanan the son of Yaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam." As this verse stands in the Masoretic text, it certainly contradicts 1 Samuel 17.

But fortunately we have a parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 20:5, which words the episode this way: "And Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite." It is quite apparent that this was the true reading, not only for the Chronicles passage but also for 2 Samuel 21:19.

The earlier manuscript from which the copyist was reading must have been blurred or damaged at this particular verse, and hence he made two or three mistakes. What apparently happened was the following:


1. The sign of the direct object, which at Chronicles comes just before "Lahmi," was '-t; the copyist mistook it for b-t or b-y-t ("Beth") and thus got Bet hal-Lahmi ("the Bethlehemite) out of it.


2. He misread the word for "brother" ('-h) as the sign of the direct object ('t) right before g-l-y-t ("Goliath"). Thus he made "Goliath" the object of "killed" (wayyak), instead of the "brother" of Goliath (as the Chron. passage does).


3. The copyist misplaced the word for "weavers" ('-r-g-ym) so as to put it right after "Elhanan" as his patronymic (ben Y-'r-y'-r--g-ym, or ben ya'arey 'or'e-gim - "the son of the forest of the weavers" - a most unlikely name for anyone's father!). In Chronicles the 'oregim ("weavers") comes right after ("a beam of") - thus making perfectly good sense.
In other words, the 2 Samuel 21 passage is a perfectly traceable corruption of the original wording, which fortunately has been correctly preserved in 1 Chronicles 20:5.


​

 

[Starcrash]

That still doesn't make the verse in 2 Samuel true. It would only seem to make that passage a transcription error in the original Hebrew. A transcription error is still an error.

 

[The_Wanderer]

So it very well could be a transcription error. The Bible can always be proofed against itself. Hence, 1 Chronicles 20:5 clarifies the issue.

 

[Atwood]

40 Skeptical Errors: 40 Moth Swatters

Those who charge the Bible with error will probably find their errors listed below:


1. Out of a hard heart, one denies the obvious.
2. One refuses to acknowledge the existence and propriety of figures of speech.
3. One fails to interpret a difficult passage by other passages (on the same subject) that are clear.
4. One ignores the legitimacy of God’s using humans with their human vocabulary.
5. One takes a directive given to a specific person or people (in some historic culture) and insists (a) that the directive was meant to be applied to everyone everywhere for all time, or
(b ) that the directive was meant as God’s ideal course of action.

6. One insists that regulations limiting man's sinful conduct in the Mosaic Law express God's ideal course of conduct, as in "Love your neighbor as yourself."
7. One insists that a passage must speak comprehensively on a subject although the passage is only giving a partial revelation.
8. One claims that a rounded number is an untrue number.
9. One fails to realize that general statements may have exceptions.
10. One demands that an allusion by the New Testament to the Old Testament, must be a verbatim quote or an exact word-for-word translation.

11. One maintains that because something has not been explained, there can be no explanation.
12. One assumes that if some other ancient source disagrees with the Bible, the Bible is wrong.
13. One insists that because 2 accounts of the same event differ, one or both must be wrong, instead of complementary witnesses.
14. One takes scripture out of context.
15. One refuses to accept that the Word of God could have minor copying errors in the multitude of manuscripts, or one insists that the existence of minor copying errors invalidates our knowledge of God’s word.

16. One alleges that a multiplicity of translations indicates that the text has no integrity.
17. One assumes that what a majority of scientists teach must be correct if it disagrees with the Bible.
18. One jumps to an unnecessary interpretation of an obscure passage.
19. One refuses to validate the use of common language and insists that the text should use technical precision.
20. One insists that if the Bible is not politically correct, the Bible must be wrong.

21. One maintains that a Bible passage is in error because one does not know any proof that the Bible is right. (One finds that the Bible is guilty because one cannot prove it innocent.)
22. When 2 passages could be interpreted either as harmonizing or as in conflict, one insists that the conflicting interpretation is correct.
23. One expects that human understanding of a passage must be the same thing as what an infinitely intelligent God meant when He revealed truth.
24. One maintains that when scripture records a behavior, therefore the scripture approves of that behavior.
25. One dogmatically advocates opinions contrary to the Bible, although one has no source of ultimate truth with which to support those opinions.

26. One believes that a behavior contrary to the Bible, must be acceptable if one wants to do it.
27. One insists that God must be the way one wants Him to be.
28. One confuses a statement about what SHALL be with a statement about what SHOULD be (confounding prophecy with commandment), as if a statement predicting the death of 1,000 babies, were the same as a commandment to kill 1,000 babies.
29. One imagines that one should tell the Lord how He ought to have written His book and govern the universe.
30. One cynically lies about what the Bible says.

31. One plays the Paul vs. Jesus game & claims that Paul changed Christ's teaching, though one has not carefully compared.
32. One twists the meaning of one passage of scripture to make it seem to contradict another.
33. When two interpretations of a passage are possible, one insists on an unnecessary interpretation to try to make it contradictory to another passage.
34. One insists that ungodly interpreters are correct and the Bible is thus wrong.
35. One insists that the majority of scientists who advocate some theory must be correct vs. a minority who disagree.

36. One insists that the majority of historians must be correct vs. a minority who agree with the Bible.
37. One pretends that one has a higher standard by which one could judge God or His Word.
38. One arrogantly presumes to judge God, forgetting that God is one's judge.
39. One assumes that the "Sayings of Jesus" are superior to the rest of God's Word.
40. One exalts human tradition or demonic document over God's Word.

 

[Atwood]

That still doesn't make the verse in 2 Samuel true.

How do you know that it doesn't establish the true reading of 2 Samuel?

It would only seem to make that passage a transcription error in the original Hebrew.

How can the original be the product of transcription?
Is it self-contradictory to speak of "transcription error in the original"?

A transcription error is still an error.

How do you know that there was only 1 Goliath and that there really was a transcription error?

How does a transcription error prove an error in God's Word?

 

[Starcrash]

"The bible can always be proofed against itself". Hm. How many talents of gold did Hiram give Solomon: 420 or 450? Both numbers are only given once, and there's no context with which to pick an obvious right answer. You may think this example is pedantic or inconsequential, but I hope my point is made: you can't know when the bible is in error unless you happen to be lucky enough to have the story told twice. Things like Genesis through Deuteronomy aren't backed up by a second source. Do you just assume all the details to be correct, even though they can't be verified by another source and can obviously be subject to transcription errors?

 

[Starcrash]

How do you know that it doesn't establish the true reading of 2 Samuel?

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

How can the original be the product of transcription?
Is it self-contradictory to speak of "transcription error in the original"?

It's not "the original"... what I mean to say is that it is as original as can we have. None of the scriptures we have are "the original", and have all been copied many times over before they came into the possession of translators. I assumed this was common knowledge.

 

[The_Wanderer]

"The bible can always be proofed against itself". Hm. How many talents of gold did Hiram give Solomon: 420 or 450?

Separate expeditions?

 

[Starcrash]

Re: 40 Skeptical Errors: 40 Moth Swatters

Those who charge the Bible with error will probably find their errors listed below:

Muslims claim the same thing when you try to show them that the Qur'an is in error. If one starts with the premise that the bible can't be wrong (question-begging) then one will also come to the conclusion that the bible can't be wrong. If it was wrong, and someone pointed out an error, how could you know? It would seem that you don't have a mechanism for teasing out errors, but rather have a defense against finding them.

 

[Tintin]

It's a copyist error, nothing more. Here's one explanation for the differences.

Who killed Goliath, David or Elhanan? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

 

[FireHeart]

David used the sling to hurl the stone that killed Goliath. You can credit God also if that makes you feel happy, but natural causation would make David the killer. Also, giving God the credit doesn't make the claim "Elhanan was Goliath's killer" true, either.

The bible does contradict itself, and the reason that you can't see that is because, when you're faced with a contradiction, you try to excuse it away. Imagine the Muslims who are certain that their Qur'an is correct because nobody has been able to demonstrate that there's a single wrong passage, and their defense is based on this same standard that obvious contradictions are an error in "understanding of it". Isn't it obvious what their problem is? And, by extension, yours?

I dont excuse anything away, if i dont understand something I just put my faith in God I dont use my own logic. The muslums try to justify murder because we are Christians they are at this moment torturing innocent ppl and slaughtering Children because they Choose Jesus Christ. The bible doesnt contradict itself at all, but unless you are saved you will be blind to the deep secrets of Gods word

 

[Starcrash]

Separate expeditions?

Are you asking me, or did you bother to check? I gave the references to you. If you check them, you'll find that both events happened just after the construction of the tabernacle and both involve the navy meeting Solomon's servants in Ophir. Even if they were "separate expeditions", one would assume that the bible would mention both. This sounds like the excuse I hear when I mention Jesus clearing out the tabernacle with whips in John 2 at the beginning of his ministry rather than in his last week, and people say, "he must have done it twice", seeming not to notice that John is the only gospel in which that story doesn't appear in Jesus' final week.

 

[The_Wanderer]

Are you asking me, or did you bother to check? I gave the references to you. If you check them, you'll find that both events happened just after the construction of the tabernacle and both involve the navy meeting Solomon's servants in Ophir. Even if they were "separate expeditions", one would assume that the bible would mention both. This sounds like the excuse I hear when I mention Jesus clearing out the tabernacle with whips in John 2 at the beginning of his ministry rather than in his last week, and people say, "he must have done it twice", seeming not to notice that John is the only gospel in which that story doesn't appear in Jesus' final week.

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

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

 

[Starcrash]

I dont excuse anything away, if i dont understand something I just put my faith in God I dont use my own logic. The muslums try to justify murder because we are Christians they are at this moment torturing innocent ppl and slaughtering Children because they Choose Jesus Christ. The bible doesnt contradict itself at all, but unless you are saved you will be blind to the deep secrets of Gods word

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.

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)

 

[Atwood]

Are you asking me, or did you bother to check? I gave the references to you.

Starcrash, why should someone do your homework for you?
If you make an assertion, the burden of proof is yours.

you'll find that both events happened just after the construction of the tabernacle and both involve the navy meeting Solomon's servants in Ophir.

What is your proof of that?

Even if they were "separate expeditions", one would assume that the bible would mention both.

Why would you assume that?

This sounds like the excuse I hear when I mention Jesus clearing out the tabernacle with whips in John 2 at the beginning of his ministry rather than in his last week, and people say, "he must have done it twice", seeming not to notice that John is the only gospel in which that story doesn't appear in Jesus' final week.

How do you know that
1) it is an excuse?
2) the Lord Jesus could not have cleansed the Temple twice?
3) How does a cleansing recorded in 3 gospels in the final week prove that a cleansing did not also happen early?

What is your proof?

 

[FireHeart]

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.

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)

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. If they do these things because God told them so they are lying to themselves because God is about love he would not tell them to slaughter and torture innocent ppl who have done them no wrong. and yes if you do not have a loving relationship with God you cannot fully understand his word. You can only read the first layer of many layers that the bible has and use your own logic to interpret the meaning of it. I honestly dont even know the point of this thread, I dont know what your intentions are. You are on a Christian forum trying to disprove the bible in which ultimately you will fail. you can say all you want about the muslums and their bible and about Christians and our bible but basically you prove nothing only your own view and opinion.

I have a deep love even for the muslums as they are merely Gods lost children that need to be saved, I am not wise nor do I have great understanding as I have severe brain damage so I cannot debate at the level you can but you cannot disprove the bible. If you studied bible prophesy and it the predictions the bible made then look at today and the past siince Jesus death you will find so many of those prophesies have been fulfilled and are even now being fulfilled. either the ppl who wrote the bible were extremely lucky at prediction or God must be at work.