• CitizenKong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    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.

    • nightofmichelinstars@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      75
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      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.

    • scutiger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      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.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      5 months ago

      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!”

      • Graphy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        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.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      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.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_stele

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          5 months ago

          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.

          • optissima@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            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.”

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              5 months ago

              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.

              • optissima@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                5 months ago

                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.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  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.