Five little stones he took

As I posted, Jim, there were five giants.
{I also gave scripture.}
Hence, five stones.

And Scarlett, if David was still alive and able to fight, so were the other giants.


MR

 

Medically speaking, the body cannot die twice. In hospitals when one is on life support, that one is kept alive by machine until such an one is unplugged from the machine. The machine is doing the breathing, the pumping of the blood, etc.

I had a pregnant cousin recently shot and killed. She could have been considered dead at the scene, but her boy friend administered CPR until paramedics arrived. They flew her to a hospital where they kept her alive long enough to deliver the baby. After that, the machines were taken off and she was pronounced dead. The doctors did not say she died twice.

As a matter of fact, the Bible says there is only one appointment with death, and after this the judgment. If Goliath died twice, then the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews was lying when he said one appointment and then judgment. Many times people are pronounced dead before they are truly dead. Godiath , IMO was possibly in a state where he would have died on his own over time, no telling how long. But David went up and killed him by cutting off his head.

 

I guess David held on to those rocks. He knew there were more giants in his future.

mountainrun, Scarlet has a good point, there is a big time difference between the two stories.

SFIC, We'll understand it better by and by.

 

Hmmm! Noticed that, did ja'?

I agree.

As to what some are speaking of, we often speak of "mortally wounded" even though the actual physical death, may not be exactly instantaneous.

And would not Saul be a good example, as well? He fell, and he knew his wound was mortal, but because it was from a woman, he wanted to be "put out of his misery", and one 'complied'. Whether 'happily' or 'unhappily', I don't remember, and am not taking the time to look it up, but am relying on memory.

Ed

 

Ya'll might also notice, if you read the text, that:

"The first time David saw Goliath, he ran - just like everybody else with brains!"

- a quote from Doug Weed I once heard.

Doug Weed is right on this.

Ed

 

I don't believe David was so simple minded as to carry four rocks around for 15 years or so in case he met up with more giants.
Nor do I believe that these four giants suddenly appeared out of thin air when David became king.
There was obviously a race of giants among the Philistines at the time of Goliath's death.

Five giants to explain five stones is better than any explanation I have otherwise seen, including {Gee, I guess we just can't know.}
Especially since there ARE five giants found in the life story of David.

MR

 

Ya' think maybe David mighta' hollered after Goliath fell, and his head rolled?

"Hey!! Anybody else want to try this? I've got more stones left that are just lookin' for someone to hit! And it's still early in the day!!"

Scripture does tell us a 'great shout' went out.

Ed

 

I have already stated my view concerning the two fatal blows both of which bring death but only one actualy WAS immediately his death. (one figuritive and one literal - Just like its hebrew meaning). I also wanted to just touch on something else pertaing to the passage. I don't want to get off topic but I think it is (sort of) still on topic as many newer bibles try to state that Davids brother killed Goliath in stead of David using the 2 Sam. passages because they "THINK" there is a mistranslation because it speaks of a Goliath so it MUST be The Goliath. It is an error regarding who killed Goliath and I think pertains here.

Scripture does not state Goliath (the Giant of Gath whom David slew) had any brothers or siblings. Those Giants later on who were killed by David’s servants were the Son’s of the Giant of Gath as says the scriptures. And yes one of those sons was named after his father (the Giant of Gath) Goliath. How can we know or conclude this: This way please...

Naming a child after their father was not an unknown custom then any more than it is today. Some people note that because the spear is like Goliath and his hands (6 fingers) and feet (6 toes) were like that of Goliath of Gath, this must be Goliath – except this giant was killed by one of David’s servants and not David so either scripture is incorrect (which I don’t believe) or this is another Giant who is most likely Goliaths son. Also, what about this weapon that resemble the dimensions and weight of Goliaths spear? Is it Goliaths – Most probably, especially if one considers a son whose feature resemble his fathers and that in the event of the death of the father one would inherit something symbolic of their family; such as a spear that would be well known for it size (there would doubtless be more than one such type of spear in existence - they break in battle) and would be a family heirloom from his father much like swords, daggers, armor, and shields were for those whose fathers were warriors.

There is only one giant of Gath - and as we read in 2 Sam. We find this giant had 4 sons. We know that these 4 giants were killed by David’s servants (one of them unnamed) but one called the Giant of Goth was killed by David. It is not uncommon for (even then) for Sons to be named after their fathers especially if the name was descriptive in some way (as mentioned above) -ie like Goliath – meaning Massive, huge.

We see it states:

.
4 were born to and were giants -plus- the giant of Gath -equals 5 total giants
4 giants killed by David’s servants -plus- David Killed the giant of Gath -equals- 5 total dead giants by 5 people. (that equals one per person)

Let scripture interpret scripture. Goliath (who fought David) Died once (but with two fatal blows - the final blow (cutting off his head) was not for good measure but it could be said as an example or symbolic, I think it was for a trophy for Israel showing Gods power and glory AGAINST the ungodly)

Now Goliaths sons would obviously hate the Jewish people would continue to battle with them (as we see in the content of scripture) until they too were put down.

Since it IS speaking here about the SONS of the Giant of Gath, and previously I stated that it was not uncommon to name their children after their fathers especially if the name was descriptive...ie, Goliath - Massive, Huge;
Then this would indicate there were actually two Goliaths, and the text ‘here’ is singling out (in 2 Sam) the son Goliath, as it is speaking of the sons. If it is not 4 sons (one named Goliath as well) then WHO killed the Giant of Gath, since all the other giants (the 4 sons) were killed by David’s servants? (especially since David is named among the slayers of these Giants)

What does scripture say about who killed who:
- David’s servant Abishai - Kills - Giant of Gaths son Ishbibenob
- Davids servant Sibbechai - Kills - Giant of Gaths son Saph
- David’s servant Elhanan - Kills - Giant of Gaths son Lahmi (Goliaths brother)
- David’s servant Jonathan - Kills - Giant of Gaths son (no name)
The fifth Giant OF Gath was Killed by David himself

Parallel verses (speaking of three of the sons of the giant of Gath) in I Chr 20: 1-5

However, since his (the Giant of Gath) sons features resemble both in size and features (fingers, toes) of a previously known giant who was in Gath, and since this Goliath is named as the brother of Lahmi. Also since each of these giants are described in vs 8 as the sons of the Giant of Gath, AND since it names FOUR names concerning these Giants (who are the sons of the Giant of Gath) A description also follows the third giant slain (who is the brother of Goliath) which we can see it goes directly into describing a third giant with no name SPECIFIED but can be implied from previous sentence. And again, since it is a story about the slayings of the SONS of Gath, and Four names are given we can infer and deduce from all the above the name of the third giant is Goliath - the SON OF the Giant of Gath who is ALSO named Goliath the one whom David slew.

- David - Kills - Goliath the Giant of Gath

I Sam 17:4 And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath

 

Now back to our regularly scheduled programing... :wavey:

:tonofbricks:

 

No, he wanted to write a book on "How to get ahead".

 

:laugh: :laugh: Now that was funny! :laugh: :laugh:

 

True, you gave scriptural references for David having killed 5 giants, but do you also have a reference that says that David picked up 5 stones when facing Goliath because he was going to kill four more giants years later?

Every blessing,

 

Uh...David didn't kill '5' giants, he only killed '1' giant but his servants killed the other '4' and that was one a piece.

I guess killing a giant takes alot out you. :tongue3:
However I do agree with you David as I too would like to see the scripture which states he intended to kill ALL 5. The point I made before is David didn't even know about Goliath until being at the battle sight and we find NO record of any telling him more than the discription of Goliath as a warrior and his actaul name [Goliath]. To assume more than scripture indictates is not bad per say, but it sure isn't very advisable when explaining scripture in context.

 

My mistake Allan; thanks for pointing it out. I read 2 Samuel 21:22 too carelessly:

These four were born to the giant in Gath, and fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants. (emphasis mine)

I agree with you that it is not necessarily bad to make assumptions when interpreting scripture. For instance, we have to assume that the very first marriages were between brother and sister, and that Judas Iscariot abused his position as "treasurer" of the Twelve by stealing money for himself. But we must exercise great caution. We must recognise our assumptions for what they are, and not treat them as if they were the inspired and inerrant Word of God. Also, my two examples are about facts, not allegories.

I have just come across a website which says what I believe on this matter far more elloquently than I can. It is a file in pdf format, at: http://www.pneumafoundation.org/resources/downloads/BibleInterpretation-CKeener.pdf. I haven't heard of the author, Craig S. Keener, before, but certainly what he writes here seems to provide a well-reasoned, biblical answer to the matter of the "Five Stones":

"Some principles help us draw lessons from stories accurately. The first principle is a warning, especially for historical narratives in the Bible: Do not allegorize the story. That is, do not turn it into a series of symbols as if it did not happen. If we turn a narrative into symbols, anyone can interpret the narrative to say whatever they want; people can read the same narrative and come up with opposite religions! When we read into a text in this way, we read into it what we already think--which means that we act like we do not need the text to teach us anything new!

For example, when David prepares to fight Goliath, he gathers five smooth stones. One allegorist might claim that David's five stones represent love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, and goodness. Another might claim that he picked five stones to represent five particular spiritual gifts; or perhaps five pieces of spiritual armor listed by Paul in the New Testament. But such interpretations are utterly unhelpful. First, they are unhelpful because anyone can come up with any interpretation, and there is no objective way for everyone to find the same point in the text. Second, they are unhelpful because it is really the allegorist and his views, rather than the text itself, which supplies its meaning and teaches something. Third, it is unhelpful because it obscures the real point of the text. Why did David pick smooth stones? They were easier to aim. Why did David pick five of them instead of one? Presumably in case he missed the first time; the lesson we learn from this example is that faith is not presumption: David knew God would use him to kill Goliath, but he did not know if he would kill him with the first stone."

May God richly bless you all,

 

AMEN to that David!!

And especially to the last line of your quote as it is almost exactly what I stated in and earlier posting.

Your Quotation:

My earlier statement:

 

How about a story filled with analogies.

He choose to go to war for a reason.

He choose a weapon that he was familiar with. Are we familiar enough with our sword to fight the giants of the land?

I do not believe they were little stones first of all there is ample evidence that that a small pebble would hardly do the job (not discounting the Lord). A couple of years ago I read about two 10-12 year olds who decided to go Grizzly bear hunting with a 22 rifle they did not kill the bear but knocked him out truly a shot guided by grace in their ignorance. Since David had already slain a lion and a bear he was aware small stones would not have done the job. If the stones were representative of the Pentateuch then the word of God an bring down any giants in our life.

The five stones represent a life time battle with the forces of evil (my particular view) perhaps if David had not stayed home when "kings go to war" he would have killed the sons/brothers instead of his mighty men. None-the-less he did learn his lesson and went to war even when he was old and a liability to his army.

The question is does your telling of the story exalt the Lord and is it true to scripture? If it does, then preach it.

It is probable though not provable that the cutting off of the head had something to do with making sure that the Philistines knew that their God was defeated as well as their champion.

thjplgvp