Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: R. Scott

You sit are correct. Even if you just read it, without analyzing the word definition (see above), in context it only makes sense that he felled Goliath with the stone, and killed him with the sword. Digging deeper will still provide more evidence of that. The answer is simple, he knocked him out (prevailing in the contest), and cut off his head (killing and taking his trophy).


9 posted on 01/13/2012 5:08:38 AM PST by JDW11235 (I think I got it now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: R. Scott

sit=Sir. Sorry for the typo.


15 posted on 01/13/2012 5:17:21 AM PST by JDW11235 (I think I got it now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

To: JDW11235
in context it only makes sense that he felled Goliath with the stone, and killed him with the sword.

I don't see it this way. The text says; verse 50, "he struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was no sword in David's hand."

Read on, verse 51. The cutting off of the head was to convince the army of the Philistines that their champion was dead.

The stone killed him, the decapitation proved it to his army.

20 posted on 01/13/2012 5:33:19 AM PST by good1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson