Goliath's name found in archaeological dig

[MissileMan]

It would have taken many years for the David and Goliath story to be written and published with any type of large circulation. Goliath was one of the Phillistine's most valiant warrors, so it would make sense that his name be inscribed on pottery, as a memorial to his abilities.

And this name isn't necessarily "proof" of anything in the Bible. But it is collaborating evidence (I believe that's the right term) regarding claims that the Bible made, i.e. there was a Phillistine warrior named Goliath, who lived around 1000 B.C. This proves further that the Bible is historically accurate.

I think what Powerman is trying to say in his usual offensive manner, is that the existence of references to real places and real people in any book, including the Bible, in no way makes that book 100% factual.

 

[Powerman]

It would have taken many years for the David and Goliath story to be written and published with any type of large circulation. Goliath was one of the Phillistine's most valiant warrors, so it would make sense that his name be inscribed on pottery, as a memorial to his abilities.

And this name isn't necessarily "proof" of anything in the Bible. But it is collaborating evidence (I believe that's the right term) regarding claims that the Bible made, i.e. there was a Phillistine warrior named Goliath, who lived around 1000 B.C. This proves further that the Bible is historically accurate.

Let me ask you this. How do we know he was a warrior. I didn't see anything that said on the pottery that he was a warrior. Just his name.

 

[Powerman]

I think what Powerman is trying to say in his usual offensive manner, is that the existence of references to real places and real people in any book, including the Bible, in no way makes that book 100% factual.

I really don't see what is so offensive about what I'm saying here. I'm just saying that it doesn't tell us much.

Evidence suggesting that the Phillistines were in fact technologically advanced for their time is more proof that the bible was wrong than finding a name of a biblical character on a piece of pottery is proof that the bible was correct.

I think what we have here is what we usually have. Some parts true, some parts not true.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So that tells us these things.

1. Goliath was a common name used at the time

or

2. Someone at that time had heard the story.


It doesn't verify that it happened.

But even if it did happen the story portrayed in the Bible is probably at best an exaggeration.

If we had video tape of it, 5000 witnesses and your MOM told you it happened, you still wouldnt believe it.

 

[manu1959]

If we had video tape of it, 5000 witnesses and your MOM told you it happened, you still wouldnt believe it.

now that is just wrong to accuse him of sex with his mum

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I actually fail to see how this proves anything about the Bible.

Yea, but probably when archeologists discover a quarter inch fragment of a skull in ancient south america, wala! somehow its the magic "missing link" !! and proves all of evolution true!

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Maybe we should just believe everything that’s written down.
Afterall, someone took the time to write it down.

Yea, Im sure people inscribing and drawing on pottery 3000 years ago wanted to put lies on them. " Hey Joshua, ya think if we put some false stuff on this, they will dig it up thousands of years from now, and we could have fooled em?"

 

[LuvRPgrl]

One of the things I find really odd about this story:

"This is a groundbreaking find," he said of the rust-colored ceramic. "Here we have very nice evidence the name Goliath appearing in the Bible in the context of the story of David and Goliath ... is not some later literary creation."


But then a couple sentences later he claims that this was found and thought to be from around 900 BC and that the story of David and Goliath was from around 1000 BC.

So something that you find 100 years after something allegedly happened proves that it isn't some later literary creation? That sounds like some bullshit to me.

Im not sure what you are saying here. Would you have preferred the pottery "predate" the Biblical version by 100 years?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

And another interesting part of the article:

"Up until now most of what we know about the Philistines is from the Bible's point of view. ... We get a very, very subjective view. They're the bad people, the barbarians, we don't get anything nice about them," he said.

"When we look at the Philistines from an archaeological point of view we get evidence of a very rich, dynamic, fascinating and advanced culture."


It sounds like there is more evidence that the Bible was wrong than right. If the Bible portrayed these people as barbarians when in fact by comparison they were somewhat advanced then who is to say that the Jews weren't really the barbarians that were running around and being a nuisance to the rest of the civilized world? It's a possibility that we must now consider if we are going to give any creedence to these findings.

so, the archeologist makes two claims. ONe, that this suggests that the Biblical story of David and Goliath is true, and the other, that the Biblical version of the Philistines being barbaric, isnt so accurate.

Yet, you CHOOSE to accept the later, and question the former? GO FIGURE

 

[Powerman]

so, the archeologist makes two claims. ONe, that this suggests that the Biblical story of David and Goliath is true, and the other, that the Biblical version of the Philistines being barbaric, isnt so accurate.

Yet, you CHOOSE to accept the later, and question the former? GO FIGURE

Apparently you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. I stated in an earlier post that this could mean one of 3 things.

1. It's proof that the bible was correct
2. Nothing
3. Proof that the bible is incorrect

What we have hear is a report that claims that the bible must have some validity to it but it ignores the obvious falsehood of the bible at the end of the article. Pretty much this means nothing until further evidence is shown. It makes cases for both sides. That's all that can be interpreted from this.

 

[Powerman]

Im not sure what you are saying here. Would you have preferred the pottery "predate" the Biblical version by 100 years?

No of course not. I'm just trying to figure out how the name of one person appearing in a story 100 years after the story allegedly took place is absolute proof that the story isn't a later literary creation? I would hope that you are never on a jury if you consider such nonsense as absolute proof. Like I said in previous posts, this tells us absolutely nothing.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Yea, but probably when archeologists discover a quarter inch fragment of a skull in ancient south america, wala! somehow its the magic "missing link" !! and proves all of evolution true!

What the hell does that have to do with what I said?????
Uhhh nothing, which is exactly what some pottery with a name on it proves.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Yea, Im sure people inscribing and drawing on pottery 3000 years ago wanted to put lies on them. " Hey Joshua, ya think if we put some false stuff on this, they will dig it up thousands of years from now, and we could have fooled em?"

First off, I was speaking about the Bible.
Second, The pottery only reveals a name, THAT'S IT PEOPLE!!!
Nothing more, nothing less. Doesn't provide or take away from any story,
myth, fact, legend, or fairytale out there. Sorry, keep reaching.

 

[dmp]

It sounds like there is more evidence that the Bible was wrong than right. If the Bible portrayed these people as barbarians when in fact by comparison they were somewhat advanced then who is to say that the Jews weren't really the barbarians that were running around and being a nuisance to the rest of the civilized world? It's a possibility that we must now consider if we are going to give any creedence to these findings.

Your analytical skills are horrible. You have a very hard time with comparisons and causes.

IF the bible portrayed these people as barbarians...

then you draw a conclusion on the statement as if it were fact.

It's not fact. You are NOT smarter than anyone else here. You are not more logical. You do not use reason and context when you argue. Frankly, you're seeming more and more like somebody who is breaking Forum Rule number 1: Must be over 14 years old to join.

(sigh)...I should ban you from the Religion forum. You're comments here are useless.

 

[Max Power]

It would have taken many years for the David and Goliath story to be written and published with any type of large circulation. Goliath was one of the Phillistine's most valiant warrors, so it would make sense that his name be inscribed on pottery, as a memorial to his abilities.

And this name isn't necessarily "proof" of anything in the Bible. But it is collaborating evidence (I believe that's the right term) regarding claims that the Bible made, i.e. there was a Phillistine warrior named Goliath, who lived around 1000 B.C. This proves further that the Bible is historically accurate.

I believe the word you're looking for is corroborating.

Why would the name of a valiant warrior be inscribed on pottery 100 years after he lived?

I wouldn't say this proves the Bible is historically accurate, as it's just a tiny bit of evidence relating to just a tiny bit of the Bible.
There are many parts of the Bible that I can take historically, as it is the best written record from the time, but I wouldn't take much of it literally or historically.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

No of course not. I'm just trying to figure out how the name of one person appearing in a story 100 years after the story allegedly took place is absolute proof that the story isn't a later literary creation? I would hope that you are never on a jury if you consider such nonsense as absolute proof. Like I said in previous posts, this tells us absolutely nothing.

Well, thank you for the personal insult. May I have some more Major General?

Fact is, I served on a jury once, they voted me ,,,ahhh, whats that term? Oh well,,,,Foreman, thats it.

To say it means absolutely nothing is EXTREME. You are exactly the same as anyone who would say it PROVES it. There is a middle ground, it is one of many pieces that lead us in a direction. Nothing more, nothing less.

the fact that it is on a piece of non Jewish pottery, says its not just a story created by the JEWS.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Apparently you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. I stated in an earlier post that this could mean one of 3 things.

1. It's proof that the bible was correct
2. Nothing
3. Proof that the bible is incorrect

What we have hear is a report that claims that the bible must have some validity to it but it ignores the obvious falsehood of the bible at the end of the article. Pretty much this means nothing until further evidence is shown. It makes cases for both sides. That's all that can be interpreted from this.

Please quit with the personal insults...if you want to engage in such a thing, it will be a waste of time, but I assure you, I can sling shit with the best of them.

Now, you did out of hand claim that the pottery statement by the author is suspect, yet your reaction of acceptence of the validity of his statement questioning how accurate the Bible is regarding the barabrism of the philistines was totally different, and much more accepting. It just shows how you view such things, ANYTHING leanging towards verifying the BIBLE you will NEVER accept and question as much as possilbe. ANYTHING proving the BILBLE "wrong" you will eat with the hunger of a man starving.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Well, thank you for the personal insult. May I have some more Major General?

Fact is, I served on a juy once, they voted me ,,,ahhh, whats that term? Oh well,,,,

To say it means absolutely nothing is EXTREME. You are exactly the same as anyone who would say it PROVES it. There is a middle ground, it is one of many pieces that lead us in a direction. Nothing more, nothing less.

the fact that it is on a piece of non Jewish pottery, says its not just a story created by the JEWS.

But it never says that the story wasn't "created".
Which I think SHOULD be his point.

 

[5stringJeff]

I believe the word you're looking for is corroborating.

Thank you!

Why would the name of a valiant warrior be inscribed on pottery 100 years after he lived?

I wouldn't say this proves the Bible is historically accurate, as it's just a tiny bit of evidence relating to just a tiny bit of the Bible.
There are many parts of the Bible that I can take historically, as it is the best written record from the time, but I wouldn't take much of it literally or historically.

Maybe I misphrased that. This piece of evidence gives greater weight to the claim that the Bible is historically accurate.

 

[Max Power]

Thank you!



Maybe I misphrased that. This piece of evidence gives greater weight to the claim that the Bible is historically accurate.

Well..

The way I look at it, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The idea that a man named David defeated a "giant" (the average height of people was probably 5 feet back then, so Goliath could've been just 6 or 7 feet tall, and it also could've been exagerated with some poetic license) is not an idea that has to be met with a great deal of skepticism.