Finding Said to Boost Proof of Goliath
14 November 2005 by Rockstar RyanNo, it doesn’t.
Archaeologists have recently found a shard of pottery with the name “Goliath” inscribed on it.
The shard dates back to around 950 B.C., within 70 years of when biblical chronology asserts David squared off against Goliath, making it the oldest Philistine inscription ever found, the archaeologists said.
So does that lend any significance to the historical account in the Bible? Let me get my shoehorn outhere. Urrrgghh, that data is hard to force in there!
No. While the finding is incredible, it proves exactly dick when it comes to Biblical chronology.
While the discovery is not definitive evidence of Goliath’s existence, it does support the Bible’s depiction of life at the time the battle was supposed to have occurred, said Dr. Aren Maeir, a professor at Bar-Ilan University and director of the excavation.
No. It proves that the name “Goliath” goes back to 950 B.C. That’s all. Reading anything else into the finding is shoehorning it in to what you want to believe. It’s just not intellectually honest.
sex free movie clips gaymovies twink gay freemovies free fucking horsemovies free porn lesbomovie galleries mature freescenes sex movie freemovies free mpeg pissingmovies free sapphic Map
14 November 2005, on 12:56 pm
See what I mean? They’re desperate to prove anything about their religion is real. I’m embarassed for them now.
14 November 2005, on 1:02 pm
While finding the name ‘Goliath’ may not back up the inerrant nature of the scripture, should the name ‘David’ also be found to date to that time, well then we have a whole new ball game! That’s just good ole’ Christian common sense my friends.
14 November 2005, on 1:55 pm
I thought they contested carbon dating? Apparently not when it “supports” their mythology.And even if there were a “giant” named Goliath, that hardly lends credence to anything else in the Bible. I’m sure that many of the people mentioned in the bible were real, but that doesn’t mean that ALL of the bible is true, or even that the events that the bible recounts about those people were true. And depending on which definition of “cubit” you use in the bible, goliat could have been about 6′8″ or 6′9″, which would have been over a foot and a half taller than the average height at the time, so he could easily have existed and been considered a “giant”, especially among warriors.
14 November 2005, on 2:09 pm
I don’t know. I think they’re onto something. Why, just the other day I saw some dude in Mexico on TV. His name? Jesus. Coincidence? I think not.
14 November 2005, on 3:29 pm
And after the recent spate of fakes (eg the ossuary) what are the odds that this is a fake too?
15 November 2005, on 3:12 am
And dog spelled backwards makes god!!! Coincidence? I think not…
15 November 2005, on 9:26 am
What if the bible is shown to be accurate regarding some historical people and places?… how does that extrapolate to “God exists”?… isn’t that similar to saying that since Kansas is a real place, then Oz is too…
15 November 2005, on 10:47 am
I think this means “Gargoyles” has been popular for a really long time.
15 November 2005, on 12:17 pm
“While the discovery is not definitive evidence of Goliath’s existence, it does support the Bible’s depiction of life at the time the battle was supposed to have occurred, said Dr. Aren Maeir, a professor at Bar-Ilan University and director of the excavation.”
NOT DEFINITIVE? Is he kidding… Dr. Maeir should be stripped of any credibility with this joke of a comment. Tell it like it is asshole… this is speculative at best… even speculating this is a stretch.
From this we can also speculate that Goliath was a pot maker that put his name on his pottery …or that Goliath was a crazed graffiti artist at the time who put his name on every piece of pottery he got his hands on …or that Goliath was the man who was made into a stew and eaten in that pot.
15 November 2005, on 12:24 pm
Dr. Maeir should be stripped of any credibility with this joke of a comment
Agreed 100%. One should not let their faith interfere with science. The two are incompatible.