Goliath's name found in archaeological dig

[5stringJeff]

Goliath's name found in archaeological dig

By Allyn Fisher-Ilan
Sun Nov 13,10:19 AM ET

RAMAT GAN, Israel (Reuters) - An Israeli researcher said he has made a Goliath of a find -- the first archaeological evidence suggesting the biblical story of David slaying the Philistine giant actually took place.

A shard of pottery unearthed in a decade-old dig in southern Israel carried an inscription in early Semitic style spelling "Alwat and "Wlt," likely Philistine renderings of the name Goliath, said Aren Maeir, who directed the excavation.

"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."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=62&u=/nm/20051113/ts_nm/israel_goliath_dc_1

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Goliath's name found in archaeological dig

By Allyn Fisher-Ilan
Sun Nov 13,10:19 AM ET

RAMAT GAN, Israel (Reuters) - An Israeli researcher said he has made a Goliath of a find -- the first archaeological evidence suggesting the biblical story of David slaying the Philistine giant actually took place.

A shard of pottery unearthed in a decade-old dig in southern Israel carried an inscription in early Semitic style spelling "Alwat and "Wlt," likely Philistine renderings of the name Goliath, said Aren Maeir, who directed the excavation.

"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."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=62&u=/nm/20051113/ts_nm/israel_goliath_dc_1

I can't get your link to work. It makes sense that Goliath's name would show up every now and then on Jewish pottery. Afterall, David and Goliath is a huge story in the Torah. And David was one of their greatest kings. His exploits were probably well documented on pottery all over his kingdom for hundreds of years.

 

[Powerman]

I can't get your link to work. It makes sense that Goliath's name would show up every now and then on Jewish pottery. Afterall, David and Goliath is a huge story in the Torah. And David was one of their greatest kings. His exploits were probably well documented on pottery all over his kingdom for hundreds of years.

Of course. So how is this any proof that the story took place? It's proof that the story has been told. Or proof that someone at the time was named Goliath.

 

[5stringJeff]

I can't get your link to work. It makes sense that Goliath's name would show up every now and then on Jewish pottery. Afterall, David and Goliath is a huge story in the Torah. And David was one of their greatest kings. His exploits were probably well documented on pottery all over his kingdom for hundreds of years.

The story mentions that the name was found on a piece of Phillistine pottery, about 100 years after the David/Goliath battle occurred.

 

[Powerman]

The story mentions that the name was found on a piece of Phillistine pottery, about 100 years after the David/Goliath battle occurred.

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.

 

[theHawk]

Of course, we should assume everything in the Bible is a lie untill proven otherwise by science.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

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

 

[no1tovote4]

I can't get your link to work. It makes sense that Goliath's name would show up every now and then on Jewish pottery. Afterall, David and Goliath is a huge story in the Torah. And David was one of their greatest kings. His exploits were probably well documented on pottery all over his kingdom for hundreds of years.

The name was rendered on Philistine pottery as noted by the fact that the name was written in the Philistine language.

 

[no1tovote4]

Of course. So how is this any proof that the story took place? It's proof that the story has been told. Or proof that someone at the time was named Goliath.

I wonder what context it was written in. The scholar seems to believe that it is evidence of the existence of Goliath of biblical reference.

 

[Powerman]

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.

 

[Powerman]

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.

 

[Abbey Normal]

What a surprise. Powerman desperately trying, yet again, to debunk the Bible.

Thanks for the link, Jeff.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

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

 

[no1tovote4]

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

It would be historically relevant if it were the Goliath story told from the Philistine perspective. I agree with your assessment. A shard of pottery with a name seems inconsequential even if it is a name mentioned in the Bible.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

It would be historically relevant if it were the Goliath story told from the Philistine perspective. I agree with your assessment. A shard of pottery with a name seems inconsequential even if it is a name mentioned in the Bible.

It's like finding the name Joshua (aka Jesus) on a pottery shard. Joshua was and is a relatively common name. Who knows if Goliath was a common Phillistine name?

 

[no1tovote4]

It's like finding the name Joshua (aka Jesus) on a pottery shard. Joshua was and is a relatively common name. Who knows if Goliath was a common Phillistine name?

Wouldn't that be Jeshua? And yes, it was relatively common. Even when they found the crypt with "James, brother of Jesus" on it (I believe it was later to be found a forgery) they calculated that that combination could have been found in 1047 people based on the popularity of the names and the population of Jerusalem at the time.

 

[theHawk]

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

I agree, it would be lame to believe that everything thats ever been written down. I wouldn't qualify the bible as just anything that someone jotted down. Its a religious book, so why do people want "proof" of anything in it? Faith asks you to believe in something that cannot be proven. Hell, I think the Koran is a piece of trash full of lies, but you don't see me posting about it trying to convince moslems that what the believe in is a bunch of crap. Which is all powerman seems to do here to people who choose to believe things in the bible without needing proof.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

I agree, it would be lame to believe that everything thats ever been written down. I wouldn't qualify the bible as just anything that someone jotted down. Its a religious book, so why do people want "proof" of anything in it? Faith asks you to believe in something that cannot be proven. Hell, I think the Koran is a piece of trash full of lies, but you don't see me posting about it trying to convince moslems that what the believe in is a bunch of crap. Which is all powerman seems to do here to people who choose to believe things in the bible without needing proof.

My best advice would be not to respond. That way no one will respond in
defense of.

 

[Powerman]

What a surprise. Powerman desperately trying, yet again, to debunk the Bible.

Thanks for the link, Jeff.

I'm just offering a different perspective. This could be evidence to support the Bibles claim, it could be nothing, or it could be evidence against the bible's claims. You have to take the facts at face value and realize that from what we know of this story there isn't really any proof that the story happened as told.

 

[5stringJeff]

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.

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.