Untrue anti-KJVO-doctrine points

[Salamander]

Salamander:And you still haven't shown that Goliath was actually wearing his helmet.

1 Samuel 17:4And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

5And he had an helmet of brass upon his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail; and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of brass.

6And he had greaves of brass upon his legs, and a target of brass between his shoulders. (KJV)

Notice that past tense word "had" a helemt of brass upon his head.

Are you really that gullible to think that a warrior would be so ignorant that his forehead, the most obvious debilitating point for an opponent to strike, would wear a helmet that left his forehead exposed???? Well, you do believe some pretty strange stuff, so I'll award you this one, NOT!:laugh:

It is rather concluded that at some point when faced with the ruddy lad, David, that Goliath saw no threat and took his helmet off that exposed the
"target" for that one of five smooth stones to penetrate.

Not exactly, but you would think something different from what I said.:laugh:

Helmets are almost as old as warfare. The first known ones were worn by the ancient Mycenaenians(Greeks). And many a helmet, even modern ones, leaves the forehead exposed. (Look at the hubcaps{Brodie helmets} worn by British & American WW1 troops) And at any rate, Scripture sez Dave's stone sank into G's forehead.

Um, do you really believe that?

All the helmets I can picture make exclusive effort to protect the forehead as well as the crown of the skull, even to the point of a bridge of the nose guard.

So? I don't get your objection.

I'm not objecting; I an adding it to the list of untrue alleged goofs in the KJV.

There's still hope for you then.:godisgood:

 

[Salamander]

Don't wanna get another "Easter/Passover" thingie going, Kubel, but lemme just say that the older GENEVA BIBLE has PASSOUER in Acts 12:4, the AV translators clearly knew Easter & Passover apart, as they placed an "Easter-Finder" in the AV1611, & whenever Luke referred to Passover he wrote 'pascha', & whenever he referred to resurrection, he wrote 'anastasis'.

And when we identify the Passover we know of the Resurrection, and when we study "easter" we find it to be a heathen holiday before the Pascha when Peter was to become beheaded.

"Easter" is now awarded the time of the Resurrection to disassociate a heathen practice just as Christmas is celebrated as the birth of our Saviour to displace the day to worship the sun god.

I think every heathen practice should be over-riden with a Christian replacement, just as the KJB replaced other versions that led up to its inception. That inception making it the pinnacle of all translations just as it is the pinnacle of all version discussions.:godisgood:

 

[Trotter]

Are you really that gullible to think that a warrior would be so ignorant that his forehead, the most obvious debilitating point for an opponent to strike, would wear a helmet that left his forehead exposed????

This was not during the Middle Ages, Sal. They didn't have the types of helmets we normally think of, such as worn by Roman centurions.

The helmets of the time was a metal shell worn over the head. It sometimes covered the top and back of the head in most cases, but not the front of sides. Most of the time the helmet was actually a metal cap with a chinstrap attached. The nasal piece came much later in the history of warfare.

 

[robycop3]

Salamander:Notice that past tense word "had" a helemt of brass upon his head.

OF COURSE it was in past tense! The events had already occurred when the writer penned them! The Scriptures aren't a play-by-play with a color commentator.

Are you really that gullible to think that a warrior would be so ignorant that his forehead, the most obvious debilitating point for an opponent to strike, would wear a helmet that left his forehead exposed???? Well, you do believe some pretty strange stuff, so I'll award you this one, NOT!:laugh:

evidently you've not been in any fights, the military, or learned about 'weak points'. The most vulberable point on the head after the eyes and nose are the temples. And I highly recommend you look at some pics of helmets, ancient and modern. As trotter said, most ancient helmets were CAPS with chinstraps. And think about it...how hard would it have been for a swordsman to strike an opponent's forehead, compared with other parts of the head? [/i]

It is rather concluded that at some point when faced with the ruddy lad, David, that Goliath saw no threat and took his helmet off that exposed the
"target" for that one of five smooth stones to penetrate.

it is rather concluded that you are guessing.



Um, do you really believe that?

All the helmets I can picture make exclusive effort to protect the forehead as well as the crown of the skull, even to the point of a bridge of the nose guard.

Um, better adjust the "focus" & picture again. MEDIEVAL helmets often protected the face, but most ANCIENT helmets did not.

You are arguing for the sake of arguing now, Sal. The fact is, David's stone sank into G's forehead. I doubt if anyone coulda hurled a stone with sufficient force to have penetrated a bronze helmet and the forehead. While a modern expert of ancient weapons can sling a steel ball accurately through a 3/4" piece of plywood, a bronze helmet would likely have stopped even that missile.

The sub-discussion in this thread was about whether or not G wore a shield or a javelin on his back, & the KJV is not wrong for saying "target".

 

[robycop3]

Salamander:And when we identify the Passover we know of the Resurrection, and when we study "easter" we find it to be a heathen holiday before the Pascha when Peter was to become beheaded.

Luke makes no mention of any heathen holiday. He mentions only PASSOVER. Ancient pagan observances had names, same as rites ordained by GOD do. And the word Luke used was pascha, for PASSOVER, which was ordained fot Israel by God.

"Easter" is now awarded the time of the Resurrection to disassociate a heathen practice just as Christmas is celebrated as the birth of our Saviour to displace the day to worship the sun god.

"Easter" was formed when Constantine's missionaries worked the Resurrection story into the Germanic tribes' spring rites, called "Ostern", in the 300s AD. As this fest worked its way into the British Isles, it eventually came to be called "Easter" in English. It has nothing to do with Passover. Easter, unlike Passover, is NOT ordained by God.

I think every heathen practice should be over-riden with a Christian replacement, just as the KJB replaced other versions that led up to its inception.

Well, please clue us in for a Christian replacement for Saturnalia or Bacchalarueate.


That inception making it the pinnacle of all translations just as it is the pinnacle of all version discussions.

The KJV was the pinnacle in the 1600s. New pinnacles have come along since then.

You have gotten entirely off-topic. That topic was alleged goofs in the KJV which aren't really goofs. if ya wanna discuss the REAL goofs again, start another thread.

 

[Salamander]

Salamander:Notice that past tense word "had" a helemt of brass upon his head.

OF COURSE it was in past tense! The events had already occurred when the writer penned them! The Scriptures aren't a play-by-play with a color commentator.

Are you really that gullible to think that a warrior would be so ignorant that his forehead, the most obvious debilitating point for an opponent to strike, would wear a helmet that left his forehead exposed???? Well, you do believe some pretty strange stuff, so I'll award you this one, NOT!:laugh:

evidently you've not been in any fights, the military, or learned about 'weak points'. The most vulberable point on the head after the eyes and nose are the temples. And I highly recommend you look at some pics of helmets, ancient and modern. As trotter said, most ancient helmets were CAPS with chinstraps. And think about it...how hard would it have been for a swordsman to strike an opponent's forehead, compared with other parts of the head? [/i]

It is rather concluded that at some point when faced with the ruddy lad, David, that Goliath saw no threat and took his helmet off that exposed the
"target" for that one of five smooth stones to penetrate.

it is rather concluded that you are guessing.



Um, do you really believe that?

All the helmets I can picture make exclusive effort to protect the forehead as well as the crown of the skull, even to the point of a bridge of the nose guard.

Um, better adjust the "focus" & picture again. MEDIEVAL helmets often protected the face, but most ANCIENT helmets did not.

You are arguing for the sake of arguing now, Sal. The fact is, David's stone sank into G's forehead. I doubt if anyone coulda hurled a stone with sufficient force to have penetrated a bronze helmet and the forehead. While a modern expert of ancient weapons can sling a steel ball accurately through a 3/4" piece of plywood, a bronze helmet would likely have stopped even that missile.

The sub-discussion in this thread was about whether or not G wore a shield or a javelin on his back, & the KJV is not wrong for saying "target".

I'd rather believe that Goliath removed his helmet exposing his forehead due to his astonishment that such a little fellow would confront him.

We have to remember that a "giant" in metaphorical terms represents a very high level of pride in an individual.

My word of God is alive. I just cannot fathom why so many are trying to kill it with exact interpretations on a word for word basis!

The word of God means what it says and the applications are endless, just as the One who inspired it is endless.:godisgood:

 

[Salamander]

Salamander:And when we identify the Passover we know of the Resurrection, and when we study "easter" we find it to be a heathen holiday before the Pascha when Peter was to become beheaded.

Luke makes no mention of any heathen holiday. He mentions only PASSOVER. Ancient pagan observances had names, same as rites ordained by GOD do. And the word Luke used was pascha, for PASSOVER, which was ordained fot Israel by God.

"Easter" is now awarded the time of the Resurrection to disassociate a heathen practice just as Christmas is celebrated as the birth of our Saviour to displace the day to worship the sun god.

"Easter" was formed when Constantine's missionaries worked the Resurrection story into the Germanic tribes' spring rites, called "Ostern", in the 300s AD. As this fest worked its way into the British Isles, it eventually came to be called "Easter" in English. It has nothing to do with Passover. Easter, unlike Passover, is NOT ordained by God.

I think every heathen practice should be over-riden with a Christian replacement, just as the KJB replaced other versions that led up to its inception.

Well, please clue us in for a Christian replacement for Saturnalia or Bacchalarueate.


That inception making it the pinnacle of all translations just as it is the pinnacle of all version discussions.

The KJV was the pinnacle in the 1600s. New pinnacles have come along since then.

You have gotten entirely off-topic. That topic was alleged goofs in the KJV which aren't really goofs. if ya wanna discuss the REAL goofs again, start another thread.

Once anyone takes the time to examine the days, one can only conclude that "Easter" then referred to a time prior to the Passover.

I have yet to see any goofs except the goofs that keep claiming the KJB has goofs.

There is no pinnacle since the KJB in English, or prior, in English, to relate the intent and exact thoughts of God towards man.:sleeping_2:

 

[Salamander]

This was not during the Middle Ages, Sal. They didn't have the types of helmets we normally think of, such as worn by Roman centurions.

The helmets of the time was a metal shell worn over the head. It sometimes covered the top and back of the head in most cases, but not the front of sides. Most of the time the helmet was actually a metal cap with a chinstrap attached. The nasal piece came much later in the history of warfare.

I understand that, but the forehead was the most sought after striking point during a frontal attack. Goliath would have even possibly attempted to cover his head if it weren't for the implicated arrogance he had in his confidence of strength and the low consideration of the abilities of David/ a ruddy young lad.

I belive the harmony of the Scriptures agrees with what I am saying on this one.

"Is there not a cause?"

( the answer to David's question as to what that cause is will also validate my stand):godisgood:

 

[Trotter]

I understand that, but the forehead was the most sought after striking point during a frontal attack. Goliath would have even possibly attempted to cover his head if it weren't for the implicated arrogance he had in his confidence of strength and the low consideration of the abilities of David/ a ruddy young lad.

I belive the harmony of the Scriptures agrees with what I am saying on this one.

"Is there not a cause?"

( the answer to David's question as to what that cause is will also validate my stand)

But that would be eisegesis, Sal. We are to divide the word of truth rightly, not the way we want it to read. When the word is silent, we look to recorded history to give us insight into what was going on at the time.

A sling was not a conventional weapon. The bow and arrow was, but the archer aimed for the body, not the head. In a melee, the target was the top and sides of the head. And it was very important for the warrior to be able to see where he wa going...

God guided David to hit Goliath in an unprotected area. Had David killed Goliath by smashing the stone through his armor and chest, David would have been hailed as the strongest warrior to ever live, but not as God's champion. Had David charged Goliath with his staff and beat him to death, it would have been David, not God, getting the glory. By God using a smooth stone flung from a shepherd's sling to slay the giant, there was no doubt as to Who the glory belonged.

I have often wondered if Tolkien was thinking of this battle when he wrote how Smaug was killed...

 

[EdSutton]

With all this talk of Goliath, I wondered if you were familar with this news story --

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1131367063187

All I know is, were a Goliath type individual alive today, with his abilities (he was a champion, you know), and at 9'9" tall, he'd be the biggest center and star in the NBA, making such as Dwight Howard, Yao, and Shaq look like 8th graders, by comparison. (Ol' P. T. Barnum would not have had a chance of signing him, considering the bucks he'd get for lacing on BB shoes.) Might not do too well in a running game, but in 1/2 court sets and on defense, given his 'wingspan', he would be able to block about any shot inside of 10' standing flatfooted at that. [Even Kareem's vaunted 'sky-hook', which was blocked only one time in his NBA (by 7'7" Manute Bol, from a slight angle, at that) would have been swatted back, unceremoniously and habitually]; his rebounds, still standing flatfooted, would eclipse anyone who has ever played in the NBA including Chamberlain and Russell, when they were, literally, "head and shoulders" above any other centers of their time; and he could 'dunk' a ball from 7' in standing flatfooted, as well as literally shooting down toward the basket from 10' in (any successful block of a shot would have been 'goaltending' and an automatic 2 pt.), making him unstoppable on offense, as well.

In fact, somebody said that David, that tenacious point guard, was the only one to ever "get into Goliath's head".

BTW, just don't get either David or G. riled, 'cause either of 'em might literally "take off your head"! :laugh:

Ed

P.S. Also heard a rumor that ol' "Golly" was from a big family of five, who also were all tall dudes.

 

[Salamander]

But that would be eisegesis, Sal. We are to divide the word of truth rightly, not the way we want it to read. When the word is silent, we look to recorded history to give us insight into what was going on at the time.

It's not the way I want it to read, it is the way it reads.

A sling was not a conventional weapon. The bow and arrow was, but the archer aimed for the body, not the head. In a melee, the target was the top and sides of the head. And it was very important for the warrior to be able to see where he wa going...

And the sling was aiming the smooth stone at the forehead, where it sunk. it was as conventional a weapon as david needs to defeat the defiant Goliath. That weaponry was ultimately placed in the hands of God, which your following comments prove.

God guided David to hit Goliath in an unprotected area. Had David killed Goliath by smashing the stone through his armor and chest, David would have been hailed as the strongest warrior to ever live, but not as God's champion. Had David charged Goliath with his staff and beat him to death, it would have been David, not God, getting the glory. By God using a smooth stone flung from a shepherd's sling to slay the giant, there was no doubt as to Who the glory belonged.

David aimed, God guided!

I have often wondered if Tolkien was thinking of this battle when he wrote how Smaug was killed...

I'm sure, everything we see in allegory and fiction, as well as non-fiction, revolves around truth/ the Truth of the Word of God.

 

[Salamander]

In fact, somebody said that David, that tenacious point guard, was the only one to ever "get into Goliath's head".

David/ Pistol Pete Maravich?:thumbsup:

 

[Trotter]

The point was that the helmets used in that time period were not the full face helmets of the middle Ages. Did that make hitting Goliath in the forehead any easier? By no means.

The forehead is an extremely hard, thick area of the skull. It can withstand a bullet impact under certain condidtions. given this fact, the effects of the sling stone is even more remarkable. David felled the giant with the stone... the sword was used to cut the head off, not kill.

None of this detracts from what happened, but we must remain honest with the text and the facts. Adding our own thoughts and interpretations may make it sound better to our ears, but doing so is wrong, plain and simple. Liberty is not to be taken with God's word, period.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

It's not the way I want it to read, it is the way it reads.

And the sling was aiming the smooth stone at the forehead, where it sunk. it was as conventional a weapon as david needs to defeat the defiant Goliath. That weaponry was ultimately placed in the hands of God, which your following comments prove.

David aimed, God guided!

I'm sure, everything we see in allegory and fiction, as well as non-fiction, revolves around truth/ the Truth of the Word of God.

I would add slings are the shepherd's traditional weapon. Later, the Romans hired slingers from the Balearic Islands.

 

[Bob Alkire]

I wold add slings are the shepherd's traditional weapon. Later, the Romans hired slingers from the Balearic Islands.

Come to think about it, I believe, I've read the same thing.

 

[Salamander]

The point was that the helmets used in that time period were not the full face helmets of the middle Ages. Did that make hitting Goliath in the forehead any easier? By no means.

The forehead is an extremely hard, thick area of the skull. It can withstand a bullet impact under certain condidtions. given this fact, the effects of the sling stone is even more remarkable. David felled the giant with the stone... the sword was used to cut the head off, not kill.

None of this detracts from what happened, but we must remain honest with the text and the facts. Adding our own thoughts and interpretations may make it sound better to our ears, but doing so is wrong, plain and simple. Liberty is not to be taken with God's word, period.

So we would both agree that the impact of the stone wasn't what caused it to sink into that thick forehead, but the force given from behind Goliath's head that caused the penetration.:godisgood:

He did fall forward. Every movie I've seen when some one got hit in the head they fell backwards.:wavey:

It is very reasonable that Goliath would have removed his helmet in a prideful manner and to taunt David. That is not making admixture, but is very determinable due to the way which we interpret passages to deal with the characteristics of men.:BangHead:

See,ms Goliath's head waasn't as hard as some.:laugh:

 

[EdSutton]

Every movie I've seen when some one got hit in the head they fell backwards.:wavey:

MOVIES?

You're interpreting Scriptural statements based on what happens in movies??

You have got to be kidding, on this one. At least I would hope so.

Ed

 

[Mexdeaf]

MOVIES?

You're interpreting Scriptural statements based on what happens in movies??

You have got to be kidding, on this one. At least I would hope so.

Ed

That would of course be only KJV-inspired movies. :smilewinkgrin:

(Sorry, couldn't help myself.)

 

[EdSutton]

That would of course be only KJV-inspired movies. :smilewinkgrin:

No doubt.

Ed

 

[AntennaFarmer]

It seems that the thread got a bit off track.

Robycop3, you had some interesting things to say. Thanks for your efforts.

A.F.