How Did David Kill Goliath?

Did David kill the giant, Goliath, with a sling 
and stone or with a sword? From the Topica Discussion list, 8 Feb. 2002:

Re: David and Goliath revisited Feb 08, 2002 

GEISIK
Greetings all.

(NRSV)
1 Samuel 17
49 David put his hand in his bag, took out a stone, slung it, 
and struck the Philistine on his forehead; the stone sank into 
his forehead, and he fell face down on the ground.
50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone,
striking down the Philistine and killing him; there was no sword in
David's hand.

GEISIK
Pretty clear, right? The standard yarn about David killing him with 
the stone. Well, perhaps Goliath was resurrected because we next 
read:

(NRSV)
1 Samuel 17:51 Then David ran and stood over the Philistine; 
he grasped his sword, drew it out of its sheath, and killed him; 
then he cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that 
their champion was dead, they fled.

TILL
The OT is filled with examples of vague pronoun-antecedent 
references, and this could be one of them. The sentence that 
seems to say that David had a sword, which he drew to kill 
Goliath, could have meant this: "He [David] grasped his 
[Goliath's] sword, drew it out of its sheath, and killed him."

If this is what the writer meant, it would still be a mistake in 
my opinion, because I would think that a writer inspired by 
an omniscient, omnipotent deity should have been able to 
write with more clarity than that.

GEISIK
In any case, it does not answer my questions. Exactly how 
did David kill Goliath, stone or sword. 

TILL
Well, you should know that if "dead" didn't always mean dead, 
then "kill" wouldn't always mean kill.

Farrell Till

Another Flaw in the Perfect-Harmony Theory

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1994 / May-June:

by Farrell Till

Inerrantists boast that the Bible possesses a thematic unity so amazing that it can be explained only on the basis of divine inspiration, but the facts do not support this claim. As we have noted in past issues, the biblical writers, like the theologians of all ages, often disagreed in important doctrinal matters. One such disagreement concerned Yahweh's willingness to forego promised vengeance when evil-doers turned away from their wickedness.

The prophet Jeremiah taught that when Yahweh pronounced punishment upon a nation for its sins, the judgment wasn't necessarily final, for if the nation repented and turned from its evil, Yahweh would relent:

Then the word of Yahweh came to me, saying... "The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it" (Jer. 18:5-8, NKJV with Yahweh substituted for the LORD).

New Testament Prophecy Failures

The following is an excerpt from "Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled", by Farrell Till:

NEW TESTAMENT FAILURES

Except for the book of Revelation, the New Testament isn't considered as prophetic as the Old Testament; nevertheless, one can still find examples of unfulfilled prophecies and broken promises in the New Testament.

All twelve apostles to be rewarded: When Peter asked Jesus what reward the apostles could expect for forsaking all to follow him Jesus said, "Assuredly I say to you, that in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you who have followed Me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Matt. 19:28). A lot of theological rhetoric has been expended on the meaning of "the regeneration." Did Jesus refer to the church era that began on the day of Pentecost when he would sit on the "spiritual" throne of David or did he have in mind a period that would follow his second coming? Regardless of the time period he was referring to, the passage poses a problem. How, for example, could Judas, who was one of the twelve at the time this was said, ever be permitted to sit on a throne in a judge's capacity? In another gospel account, Jesus himself called Judas the son of perdition (John 17:12). So will the "son of perdition" be awarded a throne to sit on during the regeneration? That hardly seems possible, because Jesus said at the last supper that it would have been better for Judas if he had not been born (Mark 14: 21). If he should be awarded a throne in Jesus's kingdom that would make this statement false, wouldn't it? How could it, in any sense, be said of a man elevated to such a position as this that it would have been better for him if he had never been born? Some Bible apologists argue that Jesus, omnisciently knowing that Matthias would be chosen to succeed Judas (Acts 1:23-26), said twelve thrones instead of eleven because of his intention to keep his apostolic crew in full force. If that is so, one might argue that he, omnisciently knowing that Saul of Tarsus would later be called into the apostleship as "one born out of due time" (1 Cor. 15:8), would have been more exact had he said thirteen thrones rather than twelve. Others insist that the number twelve should not be interpreted so literally, that this is just a case of the figure of speech known as ampliatio, the retention of a name or designation after the reason for the original designation has ceased to exist. In counterargument, however, the opposition has every right to ask if there will ever be an end to figurative and spiritual interpretations of scriptures that pose serious problems for the inerrancy doctrine. There were twelve apostles present when Jesus made this prophecy, so why should we not believe that he meant twelve?

"When You Lack Evidence..."

by Carl Lofmark
When you lack evidence, the only way to decide whether or not to believe something is to ask: Is it likely? If you tell me a bird flew past my window, I will probably believe you, even though I did not see it myself and I have no evidence. That is because such a thing is likely. I have seen it happen before. It is more likely that a bird flew past my window, than that you are deceiving me. But if you tell me a pig flew past my window, I will not believe you, because my past experience tells me that such things do not happen, and so I presume that what you reported is false. Thus, where there is no evidence we have to rely on our own past experience of the sort of things that really happen (What Is the Bible? pp. 41-42).

Prophecy Fulfillment and Probability

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1993 / July-August:

by Farrell Till

Bible apologists love to use probability arguments, and most readers have undoubtedly encountered them in apologetic literature. Some situation perceived to prove either the existence of God (life developing from nonlife) or the inspiration of the Bible (prophecy fulfillment) is analyzed in terms of likeliness or probability. Most of these arguments, of course, are based on purely arbitrary factors selected to make the theistic or biblical position look good. I have yet to see one that can survive careful scrutiny.

At the debate in Portland, Texas, that Earle Beach referred to in the foregoing article, my opponent applied probability to the prophecy-fulfillment argument. He mentioned several times how truly amazing it was that so many Old Testament prophecies had been fulfilled precisely and exactly in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. His premise was that over 300 such prophecies were made and later fulfilled. At one point when he was under cross-examination, he stated that the probability of any 50 of these prophecies being precisely fulfilled was 11 sextillion 250 quintillion to one. The figure written out would look like this: 11,250,000,000,000,000,000,000. Since the statement was made under cross-examination, I could not respond directly to it without calling for a resumption of time, and at the moment I was pursuing a line of questioning that I wanted to continue. In reviewing the tapes, I was reminded that I forgot to return to this issue to show the absurdity of the statement, so I will do that now. If Mr. Dobbs wishes to respond to my comments, we will gladly publish his statement in the next issue. My prediction is that he won't respond. If he doesn't, I wonder what he would say the odds are that I could make a prophecy like this and have it fulfilled.

The Failure of Isaiah's Prophetic Rantings (7 of 7)

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1999 / September-October:

by Farrell Till

Biblical inerrantists never seem to tire of looking for vindication of the Bible in prophecy fulfillments. No skeptic discussing the Bible with a biblicist can question its divine origin for very long without hearing the biblicist say, "Well, what about all of the prophecy fulfillments?"

The best way to answer this question is with a question of your own: "What prophecy fulfillments?" This alone may be enough to stop the biblicist in his tracks, because he may well be a typical Christian who is uninformed in the Bible and is simply repeating something he has heard but doesn't know enough about to discuss intelligently. If, however, the biblicist is someone who does have specific prophecy fulfillment claims in mind, they can usually be rebutted by just analyzing the alleged prophecy in context to point out parts of the prophecy that seem to be missing in the fulfillment event. Such missing parts can almost always be identified. I have discussed in past articles this approach to debating prophecy-fulfillment claims, so I won't rehash it here.

When Did the Wolf Dwell with the Lamb? (6 of 7)

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1999 / July-August. [This is the sixth of seven posts dealing with alleged biblical prophecies. Number seven will immediately follow this one]:

by Farrell Till

In the past several issues I have been analyzing alleged prophecy fulfillments for Bruce Weston, a subscriber whose biblical skepticism has been restrained by lingering feelings that some prophecies may have been fulfilled. In my last article in this series, I will look at the often-trumpeted claim that creation of the state of Israel in 1948 fulfilled biblical prophecies.

This one seems to be a favorite of prophecy-fulfillment buffs who are desperately looking for something substantial on which to pin their hopes that the Bible is the inspired word of God. The history of Israel was checkered with periods of foreign captivities that began as early as the time of the judges (Judges 3:7-11; 4:1-3; 6:1-6) and extended through the most famous captivity of them all when Nebuchadnezzar removed many of the Judean captives to Babylon (2 Kings 25). For an ethnocentric people who thought that they were the "chosen ones" of their god Yahweh, these captivities were hard to comprehend. That they could be explained by the simple fact of military science that the side with the largest army would usually win a war was foreign to their way of thinking, and so the prophets of Israel always attributed Israel's defeats to "evil" that the people had done "in the sight of Yahweh." This optimism that the Israelites were the chosen people of the mightiest of all the gods inspired many of the prophets to predict that although they were taken into captivity, Yahweh would one day bring them back to their homeland.

When the Fig Tree Puts Forth Its Leaves? (5 of 7)

From *The Skeptical Review*, 1999 / May-June. [This is the fifth of seven posts dealing with alleged biblical prophecies. The remaining two will immediately follow this one]:

by Farrell Till

In the past two issues of TSR, I have discussed various claims of prophecy fulfillment that Bruce Weston expressed concern about in his article "Doubts But Questions about Prophecy" in the January/February issue (pp. 6-7). In one case, he thought it possible that what skeptics consider an example of prophecy failure wasn't necessarily a failure. This was the occasion of an apparent promise that Jesus made that he would come again before "this generation" had passed away. In Matthew 24, the disciples of Jesus asked him to tell them what would be the sign of his coming and of the end of the world (v:3). Over the space of several verses (4-31), Jesus answered their question and told of several "events" that would happen prior to his return and the signs that would accompany his coming, after which he made the statement that Weston inquired about.

Now learn this parable from the fig tree: When its branch has already become tender and puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. So you also, when you see all these things, know that it is near--at the doors! Assuredly, I say to you, this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place (vs:32-34, emphasis added).

Weston wanted me to address "the Christian defense that by saying this generation, Jesus was talking about the same generation that sees the fig tree put forth its leaves (and not to the current generation of His time)" [TSR, January/February 1999, p. 6]. Weston then went on to suggest that the fig tree was "symbolic of Israel, which was reborn as a nation in 1948," and so this interpretation would mean that Jesus was saying that he would return before the generation that witnessed the "rebirth" of Israel had passed away and not before the passing away of the generation of his own time.