You're viewing a single thread.
Fun fact: If (big if) Goliath really existed, he was probably suffering from acromegaly. It is characterized by a person not stopping to grow after puberty. The reason for that is an enlarged, tumorous pituary gland in the brain. So David hitting Goliath between the eyes might actually have ruptured the tumour, leading to internal bleeding in his brain and killing Goliath.
So the whole biblical story might be based on something that actually happened and then probably got more and more dramaticised every time it was told.
It could also be based on any random tall dude dying from getting hit in the face by a flying rock, rare medical condition or not.
Or maybe getting hit in the head by a rock launched from a sling is enough to make a person's head basically explode.
Seriously, a competent sling user can easily kill someone with one.
I found a quick little video demonstration of a guy using a sling and stone against a ballistic gel head.
Just judging off of that, I would agree that weird tumors would not need to be involved for a sling to kill a large fellow.
That was nauseating when he pulls the would d back even though it's gel. Thank you for the video
Hitting someone square in the forehead with a rock, in the Bronze Age, was a quick way to kill them regardless of size. There's a reason this image
is both iconic and incredibly triggering to the IDF. You whip that thing around hard and fast enough, and you're going to crack a head.
So the whole biblical story might be based on something that actually happened
I don't find the story of a young, spry soldier with a bit of luck and some good aim thwacking a rival warlord with a rock implausible in the slightest. Its all the propaganda packed in around the story, what with David having some sort of euphoric epiphany and the rock being magicked by God to score the killing blow, that causes folks to roll their eyes in disbelief.
Also he totally fought a lion before he went up against Goliath. David was a bigger badass than Goliath the entire time
Can you tell me more about that picture?
Can you tell me more about that picture?
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/10/24/iconic-image-of-palestinian-protester-in-gaza-goes-viral
Also, I think I've heard that shepards would be skilled with a sling.
It makes sense, hanging out in a field all day with nothing to do but flip rocks at stuff, you'd git gud quick.
It was a pretty common peasant weapon purely because you could make one super easy, and it fired a thing you could literally pick off the ground. Sling a rock at a wolf or a bear and it'll probably either be dead or get the hint of "ah shit that guy hurts to fight, I'll go find some other bastard."
Goddamn that picture is SICK
It really is an incredibly powerful image. I’m a bit shocked I somehow hadn’t come across it before.
It probably isn't even all that dramatacized,
It is not hard at all to do serious damage with a genuinely made sling, there's a reason people wielding those things operated as a military unit in ancient times, and they were pretty mean spirited folks too!
They'd actually write insults and jokes on the stones like "CATCH ME!", "HEADS UP!" "OUCH!" "BONK!"
Basically the historical inaccuracies would be in terminology rather than exact action, and also in David not following the shot up with "THINK FAST CHUCKLENUTS!"
Imagine being a 6ft dude and some little bastard pulls out a gun and shoots you dead while the town cheers about that how courageous that little shit is.
Wait a minute... were ancient slingshot mercenaries basically the Scout from TF2?
The Bible isn't real.
I'm thinking, since it wasn't written down until centuries after it supposedly happened, that the most likely answer is that it was just bullshit.
The closest evidence we have to David even existing is a tablet caved by someone who [may have] claimed to be of the House of David.
Oral history is significantly more accurate than you're making it out to be.
There is no reason to assume oral history with no corroborating evidence is true and the lack of corroborating evidence is good reason to be skeptical.
The entire Bible is oral history. I assume you don't place similar validity in the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel.
I didn't say that oral history is 100% accurate. I said it's more accurate than you assume, which based on what you said seemed to be "it's all made up."
which based on what you said seemed to be “it’s all made up.”
That is simply a lie.
I said "the most likely answer" is that it was bullshit due to only being oral history without any corroborating evidence. I did not even remotely imply that all oral history is made up.
I'm thinking, since it wasn't written down until centuries after it supposedly happened, that the most likely answer is that it was just bullshit.
Your basis for discounting it is "it wasn't written down." That's all oral tradition. I wasn't trying to argue with you, I just wanted to see an amendment to your statement that recognized that this sentence is inaccurate. Seeing as you're rolling back on it, I'll take it as such.
Yet again, "most likely answer" does not imply in any way that all oral history is made up. That's simply a lie.
I recognized nothing I said as inaccurate. That is another lie.
Stop lying.
I didn't say it did! I said that you're overly discounting oral history.
That is another lie. You said I assumed it was all made up.
This is what you said:
I didn’t say that oral history is 100% accurate. I said it’s more accurate than you assume, which based on what you said seemed to be “it’s all made up.”
Absolutely nothing I said indicated that all oral history was made up, as I demonstrated by quoting it.
Just tell the truth for one fucking post.
big if
Huehuehue