Biblical Tall Tales

Watching a show on "Giants" in the History Channel.They brought up an interesting fact -Biblical accounts of Goliath puts him at over 9 ft. all - clearly giganticHowever, the Dead Sea scrolls put him at about 6'9", still extremely tall, and amoung people standing 5'5" or so, very impressive.But this once again raises questions of the veracity of Biblical account.Was Goliath actually 9ft tall for the Creationists?If so, who were the giants that Moses' scouts found? Are those accounts to be taken literally?If we can't take these historical accounts on face, why take any of the numbers given in the Bible as anything more significant than Grampa's old story about the catfish that got away?abe - thread name changeThis message has been edited by Nuggin, 12-30-2005 12:40 PM

King James"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."
1 Samuel 17:4 IBSS - Biblical Archaeology - Dead Sea ScrollsHere's a bit to help on the "4QSama" thing And more confusion - who killed Goliath? It's getting murkier!Being called away from computer will post more later

***Note - Faith, I'm not trying to draw you into a debate or be tricky or anything here. Just replying to your post since the quote is from you. I understand and respect your position. I'm not trying to change your mind. It's just that this stuff irks me***re: Dead Sea Scrolls I'd be inclined to believe that that is true. I'm sure that if you were to do a content comparison of those passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls which also appear in the Bible, they come out around 80% or higher. That's pretty good given translations.However, the sticking point here is the "minor differences".Personally, and philosophically, I don't think the story of David & Goliath is a story about how to kill a specific type of monster.Let's assume that the people and events are true. Then it's a historical recollection of how a future king gained noteriety while defeating the head of an opposing force.Let's assume that it's fictional (like George Washington and the Cherry Tree). Then it's a story about how this great ruler, as a child, showed cunning and bravery in the face of great danger. And, how he managed to defeat an evil that plagued his people.Either way, I think the story works fine.The problem is that an account of Goliath being 6'6" sounds a whole lot more factual than an account of Goliath being 9'9" (Or I've seen some calculations that put him at 10'2").I think everyone can agree that the Dead Sea Scrolls predate the KJ Bible. And, I think we all know how tales grow in the telling. It seems likely to me that the writers of the Dead Sea scrolls got Goliath's height right and that the story was embelished upon in later years.Again, by my recogning, no harm done.However, the problem lies in this idea that every single letter in the modern Bible was guided by God - and therefore factually accurate.If people can't get the height of Goliath right, what else is wrong? The number of loaves and fishes? The number of people Samson killed? The size of the Ark?Personally, I take all of these stories as having a message - and that message is not about the actually number of loaves. I think that the Bible can be 100% true without being 100% fact. And that divorcing Truth from fact would end almost all the debate on these boards.my 2c

Let me ask you this. If 20 different people swear that their account of the accident is the Word of God and therefore infalible, how do you figure out who is right?

The problem is that this argument is held to be ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE by YECs. Since God himself guided every single translation (even contradictory ones) they are all 100% correct and absolute truth.If even 1 mistake, 1 exageration of height (or age), then we can not take the Lightfoot's Biblical Timeline to be absolutely correct.If it's not an inerrant 4500 years since the Flood, then it could be 5000 year, or 15000 years.If we allow for numberic changes to the text, Noah could have brought 20 of every animal on the Ark. Or Creation could have taken 14 days.The YEC possition is, and frankly has to be, that it's all absolutely correct. If they give a little, they aren't YEC, they are OEC.

On it's face, this is a reasonable statement. If we were talking about something like the spelling of a name (David vs Daved) there'd be no good way to judge it.However, since we know the context we can judge the story a little more accurately.Which has more weight?
"A boy kills a man with a rock" or "A boy kills a giant with a rock"?No fisherman ever had a 9ft fish shake the line then came home to tell everyone about the 6ft fish he almost caught.In fact, there is a clear pattern in tales about Giants that they grow in height.

Do you mean this question? I answered that - here it is again: Or do you mean this question: Have I reviewed the original scrolls personally and translated them? No. But this question is ridiculous on it's face.Do you know for a fact that the Hebrew of the original books of the Torah were accurately translated into English? Were you there? Do you do the translations yourself?No, of course not. There have been many scholars who have done the work - neither you nor I are among them.

Science has no intention to.Can religion make the same claim about it's aims?

When twenty people witness an accident, each is saying, "This is what I saw."But if you asked each of them point blank - "Do X happen?" The most common response will be "I only know what I saw."If you tell them, your account of the accident is different from this other witnesses account - "I only know what I saw."They don't say, "He is wrong, I am right. I know that I am right because I am infallible."If you take that witness into a room and show them a video tape of the accident that differs from their account - "Well, that's not how it looked to me."They don't say, "The videotape is wrong, I am right. I know that I am right because I am infallible."What the YECs are asking is that we teach their "infallible" account of (the accident) in public schools and/or that we don't show the videotape.Does that clear it up?

Depends on what you mean by giants. Average height 7ft tall? sure.
Average height 9ft tall? I don't think so.

You asked: The answer is no. There was still an accident.However, your analogy is flawed. Here's why:"Twenty people gave their account of what they saw."YECs are not saying - "Here's one person's account of the Creation."
They are saying - "Here's a factual 100% accurate infallible account of Creation."If you have 20 different personal accounts of an accident, you have 20 different stories. The truth is probably a mixture of the whole.If you have 20 different absolutely 100% accurate infallible accounts of an accident - and they differ, how do you determine which of the 100% accurate accounts is infact the Word of God?

Actually, 1 Chronicles 20 mentions 3 giants - all of them decendents of a race of giants, the Gath.So, there was a whole tribe of 9'9" guys roaming around.And those aren't even the BIG giants of the Bible. In Numbers 13:33 witnesses talk about a race of giants which make normal men seem like grasshoppers in comparison.

Let's be rational about the story and roll back the clock.The story was first a spoken story. An oral tradition, as I'm sure most of the stuff in the Bible was.At some point there was a first scroll - someone was the first person to write it down.Then at some later point (maybe a minute later, maybe 10 years) there was a second scroll.The second scroll was either a copy of the first scroll, or someone writing down a story which they had heard.Then a third scroll, fourth, fifth, etc. I would suppose that as the number of scroll increases the chance of a scroll being a copy of a scroll (as opposed to a transcription of oral history) also increases.The fact that there are 45 "old" scrolls which have Goliath's height at 9ft doesn't necessarily mean that all 45 are correct. The fact that there is 1 "older" scroll which has him at 6ft doesn't necessarily mean that it's correct either.Chances are that the variations occured during the oral histories, not after written down.This explains why we have two creations in Genesis. Both different, both transcriptions of oral histories.The point is that there is no way to say - this one is absolutely correct and that one is absolutely wrong. And claiming that one side is right by divine providence smacks of defensiveness.

Here's an expression you should learn - "put up or shut up"Don't try to belittle me. If you have the facts, post them. You claim that there are tribes of giants living today.I agree that there are groups of people 7ft tall. I disagree that there are groups of people 9ft tall.Care to post some facts supporting a 9ft tall tribe roaming around someplace? Or do you want to do more of this "your need to place stops on what you find acceptable" crap?

This is percisely why I'd assume that there was more than one original. We're talking about a time when parchment (if there even was any) was extremely rare.News of the victory would have to spread all across the land. It would not be spread by people writing down messages and sending them, especially if so few people could read and write.It would be spread by messangers who ride out and tell people what happened. Or by caravans travelling to remote places to trade good and bringing the news along with them.That's how oral traditions spread. I assume you are getting this from 1 Samuel 9:2 - "His son Saul was the most handsome man in Israel--head and shoulders taller than anyone else in the land."Was Saul 6ft? Maybe. Was he the most handsome man in Israel? Maybe. Do people tend to exagerate the heroes and villans when they are telling stories absolutely.Did they hold a beauty contest where they brought every man in Israel together and judged that Saul was the prettiest? I certainly don't think so.In oral traditions height = power. Look to Greek mythology as an example. All the heroes and monsters are taller than normal people.Saul could have been 5'5", in legend he's still going to be "heads and shoulders" above the rest.