http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051111/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_archaeology_goliath

Is it just me, or are they really stretching the significance of that find? I doubt the name Goliath was copyrighted.

Of all the stories in the bible to dispute, this is one of the more reasonable ones. Why couldn't a small boy take out a "giant" or rather large guy by hitting him in the head with a rock traveling pretty fucking fast?

I think the Bible should be looked at the same way the Constitution should, that it was pretty good for the time it was written. Should you take it as law and follow it blindly? Of course not ... modern science once thought the world was flat, if that was written in the bible I certainly wouldn't buy that one. We can't keep following written documents created hundreds or even thousands of years ago blindly with a disregard to reality and the growth of our civilization.

Actually, I think the best way to look at it was summed up by Aaron Sorkin in West Wing (via Toby's Rabbi): "You know what it also says? It says a rebellious child can be brought to the city gates and stoned to death. It says homosexuality is an abomination and punishable by death. It says men can be polygamous and slavery is acceptable. For all I know, that thinking reflected the best wisdom of its time, but it’s just plain wrong by any modern standard."

Do I believe David and Golliath existed? Yes. Moses (aka Ankhnaten, King Tut's daddy)? You betcha. Jesus? Yeah. However, do I think that Moses really turned a staff into a serpent with Gods help, or even that God created the entire planet in just 7 days time when they are scientific impossibilities? No, I doubt anyone is truly that nieve.

or even that God created the entire planet in just 7 days time when they are scientific impossibilities?

LOL Such ironies.

Amazing Kel, we shouldn't follow the concepts put down in the Constitution? LMAO errrrrr care to expound on that statement?

Fandros

Of all the stories in the bible to dispute, this is one of the more reasonable ones. Why couldn't a small boy take out a "giant" or rather large guy by hitting him in the head with a rock traveling pretty fucking fast?

I think the Bible should be looked at the same way the Constitution should, that it was pretty good for the time it was written. Should you take it as law and follow it blindly? Of course not ... modern science once thought the world was flat, if that was written in the bible I certainly wouldn't buy that one. We can't keep following written documents created hundreds or even thousands of years ago blindly with a disregard to reality and the growth of our civilization.

Actually, I think the best way to look at it was summed up by Aaron Sorkin in West Wing (via Toby's Rabbi): "You know what it also says? It says a rebellious child can be brought to the city gates and stoned to death. It says homosexuality is an abomination and punishable by death. It says men can be polygamous and slavery is acceptable. For all I know, that thinking reflected the best wisdom of its time, but it’s just plain wrong by any modern standard."

Do I believe David and Golliath existed? Yes. Moses (aka Ankhnaten, King Tut's daddy)? You betcha. Jesus? Yeah. However, do I think that Moses really turned a staff into a serpent with Gods help, or even that God created the entire planet in just 7 days time when they are scientific impossibilities? No, I doubt anyone is truly that nieve.

However, do I think that Moses really turned a staff into a serpent with Gods help, or even that God created the entire planet in just 7 days time when they are scientific impossibilities? No, I doubt anyone is truly that nieve.Considering the number of religious followers (in any religion) worldwide, that last statement would seem to be a bit naive.

From a historical/literary standpoint it's a pretty cool find, religion aside. The article has one little line, "It shows us that David and Goliath's story reflects the cultural reality of the time." Study of mythologies is always interesting to me because of the culture that's passed down through the stories, which is more the point of the stories anyhow. It's neat to see small connections like that.

My point wasn't that anyone should or shouldn't believe what they choose to. I just think it's ridiculous to take some piece of pottery with a name engraved on it as any sort of evidence that the Goliath was real.

"Amazing Kel, we shouldn't follow the concepts put down in the Constitution?"

Because the constitution was merely the best wisdom of its time doesn't mean it needs to be the best wisdom of our time. Thats why you can ammend it. (see: ammendments) To quote Thomas Jefferson (author of the Foreward of America, A Citizens Guide to Democracy), "We created a blueprint for a system that would endure, which means your lazy asses shouldn't be coasting on our accomplishments. We were imperfect. It was imperfect. And we expect our descendents to work as hard as we did on keeping what we think is a profoundly excellent form of government supple, evolving and relevant."

And actually the Earth being created in 7 days was one of the first things disproven by science and fairly common knowledge. Evolution OR Intelligent Design both realize the scientific fact and the Christian Dogma has been altered to reflect science. It also could go back to the hebrew translation where the word for "day" in hebrew also means "a period of time", and we could currently be living in the 7th "day" of creation.

Now looking back at the point ... I suppose you're right, it could have been Goliath the Shepherd or Goliath the Figure Skater that owned that very nice bowl at one time. However, I'll trust these archeologists are much smarter than I and if they believe it belonged to Goliath the Champion of the Philestines well not quite sure what else to say. I mean, the likelyhood this big fella existed is probably pretty high since there was quite a good deal of documentation about his exploits from a number of sources.

My point wasn't that anyone should or shouldn't believe what they choose to. I just think it's ridiculous to take some piece of pottery with a name engraved on it as any sort of evidence that the Goliath was real.

LOL but Sanchek it's just like you said, "Goliath" is copyrighted ;) In all seriousness though I agree with you. Too often than not people find some miniscule thing and try to use it to prove something grand.

Read the article again, it wasn't proving the Biblical story at all. The find simply points to evidence that the name was in use in culture at that time.

Many possible explanations here:
*The story could be true as written, with David slinging Goliath.
*A big fellow named Goliath may have been killed in such a way, and later generations ascribed the kill to David.
*The entire story is legendary in some way, and the pottery commemorates the legend in the same way the artwork of other cultures commemorates the heroes, gods and legends of their myths.
*Forgery. Not likely in this case, but at least one expert forger has been uncovered who sold antiquities to Israeli museums/universities. The extent of the forged artifacts is as yet unknown.