Did Goliath suffer from health problems?

Author Malcolm Gladwell has written a book entitled "David and Goliath" that deals with the biblical story of the same name. It presents an alternate view that portrays David not as a weak underdog, and Goliath not as the strong giant. I have to take issue with his assumptions involving Goliath. The problem with Gladwell's version is that it becomes less about faith in God, and more of a less miraculous event involving human strength and skill. For reference, see the following article as it hit's on Gladwell's points about Goliath: https://www.theburningplatform.com/2016/03/27/am-i-a-dog-that-you-should-come-to-me-with-sticks/

Point 1: Gladwell says that Goliath is "led" on the valley floor by his attendant.

Response: The inference is that Goliath may have had bad eye sight, but it does not say in scripture that his armor bearer (attendant) led him, only that he went before or walked ahead of him (1Sa 17:7), which would make sense considering he was carrying his shield.

Point 2: Goliath says "Am I a dog, that you come at me with sticks?", but David was only carrying a sling and a staff.

Response: Again this is implying Goliath couldn't see very well when in reality it could be nothing more than an expression. Goliath was insulted that a boy with only a shepherd's staff and a sling would challenge him.

Point 3: "Come here and I'll give your flesh to the beasts of the field!" Why does he ask David to come closer when, in fact, he is right there?

Response: Another verse that is used to assume vision trouble. Goliath was heavy infantry, he was expecting David to fight him in close combat which is why he tells him to come closer.

Point 4: Goliath height has led many doctors and researchers --since back in the 60s-- to think that Goliath suffered from acromegaly, a form of giantism caused by a tumor of the pituitary gland that produces an excess of growth hormone.

Response: There are a couple of problems with this assumption:
1)  Gigantism produces many health problems with the circulatory system, skeletal system, joint pain, and vision among other issues. But if Goliath was in such poor condition how did he last as long as he did on the battlefield? How was he even conscripted into the army in the first place? Someone with gigantism can't move very fast. Then why was everyone afraid to fight him when it would have been apparent he couldn't move fast or see well? How did he manage to wear 125lbs of mail armor, not counting his helmet, leg armor, javelin, spear, and sword if he was in poor condition? Goliath was called a champion (1Sa 17:4) which implies he defeated many opponents in his lifetime.

2) Acromegaly\gigantism is not inherited, yet Goliath had relatives that appeared to be as equally as tall as him. There was Lahmi whose spear was like a weaver’s beam (2.5in or 63.5mm diameter), this was also said of Goliath's spear.  Ishbi-Benob whose bronze spear was three hundred shekels (7.5lbs or 3.4kg), Saph (also called Sippai), and an unnamed giant who had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot. Historian Flavuis Josephus said the height of this unnamed giant was six cubits, or over nine feet (2.7m) tall.

3) Are we to assume that every giant mentioned in the Old Testament had gigantism? For instance Og king of Bashan had a bed or sarcophagus that was 13.5 feet (4.1m) long and 6 feet (1.8m) wide. The 12 spied who scouted the land of Canaan described the Anakim as giants and they were likes grasshoppers in their sight. And what about the other giant clans? The Nephilim, Rephaim (which Goliath was a member of), the Emims, the Zamzummims. Genetic disorders such as Gigantism or Marfan syndrome are rare and could not account for entire tribes of giant men.

Point 5: In addition, David was not as weak as he looked, either. First of all --as Artur Mas would put it-- David was a shrewd young man who knew that the Philistine would tear him to pieces, if he engaged him in close quarter combat. That's why he turned down the helmet and armour offered by the King and chose to fight from a distance. In military jargon, Goliath was an infantry soldier, whereas David served in an artillery unit.

Response: The sling can be a deadly weapon and David was no doubt skilled in it's use, but we can't overstate his prowess. He was still a young man (Saul called him a boy), obviously too young to have been conscripted into the army, and who had never been in combat. He turned down Saul's armor because he had never worn them before, and they were too cumbersome and big for him (It was said Saul was a head taller than anyone in Israel). Goliath, on the other hand had been a man of war since his youth (1Sa 17:33).

Conclusion:  Malcolm Gladwell alternate version of David and Goliath is nothing more than assumptions and speculations. By all accounts Goliath was a seasoned able bodied solider, and David was a mere boy who tended his father's flock. By all rights the odds were in Goliath's favor, and yet...

Witness to a miracle

Miracles can and do happen, and I witnessed such an event a few weeks ago. My nephew had suddenly became very ill, vomiting and nausea. He was taken to the hospital by his roommate and admitted to the ICU. As it would turn out he was suffering from pancreatitis, which in turn caused acute kidney failure. The doctors said if he waited another day to go to the hospital, he probably wouldn't have made it. It was literally a life and death situation. Once stabilized they were able to take him out of ICU and put him in a hospital room. He had to be monitored carefully, and had to have dialysis since his kidneys were not functioning.

We were notified of his condition. A word of the Lord came to my dad to pray He (God) would jump start my nephew's kidneys. My mom thought this terminology was somewhat unusual, but nevertheless we began to pray for him. Note that nothing happened instantly. In my experience, more times than not, answers to pray are either gradual or happen at a later date. In the meantime we had heard from his mother. The doctor had said that if his kidneys had not jump started by now, they probably wouldn't. There's that word again, "jump start". Now, we didn't mention anything about what my dad had said, and yet the doctor used the same exact word. This would be a confirmation that we were on the right track.

Here comes an important lesson. In the natural it didn't look like there was much hope. The doctor had already said in effect that it didn't look his kidney's were going to function. The best case scenario is that he would be on dialysis for the rest of his life, and would have to go three times a week. For a time his vitals were getting worse. They had to remove fluid that had built up in his chest. He developed a fever and they had to take him back to the ICU because they thought it might be sepsis. They never would find out the cause of it. Now despite all of this we never quit praying. You can't look at how things look or what the doctor says. The doctor does not have the final word, God does. Perseverance is a big key in getting prayers answered.

The first time I went to see him he looked weak, but he still had his sense of humor. He was on a liquid diet since he was very dehydrated. When my brother, his father, had visited him he told him his kidneys were dead. He had gone past the point when his kidneys should have started to function. There were still many people praying for him. I myself prayed his kidneys would jump start, function on their own again, and that he would leave the hospital on his own two feet. And that is exactly what happened.

My parents had went to visit him again, but I was not with them. Imagine my surprise when my mother called me and told me his kidneys were 95% functioning and he would be leaving the hospital that day or the next day. I was taken aback in a good way. I had no doubt that it was a miracle. I don't know when the change happened exactly, but when it did happen it was suddenly. He would later comment to his dad that he didn't know what had happened, his vitals were bad and then suddenly they were good again.

I am sharing this story to encourage others. Healing is real, and miracles do happen. I am personally familiar with another family whose son was trapped underwater, and who showed signs of brain damage. They had to have that same fight of faith. Today their son is grown up and perfectly normal. So never never give up, never. No matter what it looks like. We go by faith, not by sight.

Understanding difficult to explain bible stories: Eve and the serpent

Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, “Has God indeed said, ‘You shall not eat of every tree of the garden’?” (Gen 3:1)

Everyone by now is familiar with the story of Adam and Eve, and how Eve was tricked by a talking snake into eating the forbidden fruit from the the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The most obvious question is how can a snake talk? The next question should be, why was Eve not surprised by a talking snake?

The key to answering this question is found in the Hebrew word for serpent, "nachash". As a noun nachash means "snake" or "serpent". That may be obvious, but it is often overlooked that Lucifer aka Satan is often referred to as a serpent and a dragon (i.e. reptile), for example:

So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. (Rev 12:9)

That Satan is referred to as a serpent indicates his attributes. While a snake can have negative connotations, for the ancient Hebrews it was also a symbol of wisdom. In Genesis 3:1 the serpent is called cunning. In Ezekiel 28-12 Lucifer, before his fall, was said to be full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. Jesus says to be "as wise as serpents" (Matt 10:16). Nachash as a noun then is a reflection of Satan's attributes of being wise and cunning.

It should be apparent by now that the serpent is referring to Satan, but if there is any doubts we look at the adjective for "nachash" which means "bright" and "brazen". A familiarity with the bible will reveal that angels, cherubs, seraphs, i.e. divine beings, are identified as being luminous, bright, and brilliant.

The angels in Job are described as “Morning stars” (Job 38:7). The comparison to stars is common, and is used to emphasize their radiant appearance. The two angels near Jesus’ tomb were wearing shining garments (Luk 24:4), at the transfiguration Jesus “face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light." (Mat 17:2). The angel that visited Daniel had the appearance of “lightning”, eyes as lamps of fire, and arms and feet like polished brass (Dan 10:6), again implying a brilliant, radiant, shining appearance that’s associated with divine beings, on so on.

The very name "Lucifer" means "light-bearer". In Isaiah 14:12-15, he is called Helel ben-shachar – “The shining one, son of the dawn.” In Eden the Garden of God he was clothed with every precious stone (Eze 28:13), again showing brilliance. So in conclusion, the serpent may have not been an actual talking snake, but it was definitely Satan.

Understanding difficult to explain bible stories: Lot’s wife

The purpose of this article, which I hope to become a series, is to examine bible stories that are difficult to understand or to accept in natural terms. Oftentimes bible stories, which are thought of as fanciful or myth, can often be explained in natural terms. This is not an attempt, however, to explain away every supernatural event in natural terms. There are legitimate miracles, things that can’t be explained naturally, though they appear to be rare. More often than not, God does work through the natural to achieve His goals. That, however, does not make them any less miraculous. 

Here we will be examining Lot’s wife turning into a pillar of salt. Lot’s wife’s name is not given in the bible, but in rabbinical literature she’s identified as “Irit” or “Idit”. As the story unfolds, Lot and his family are fleeing Sodom and Gomorrah before its sudden destruction. But Lot’s wife turns back and is suddenly turned into a pillar of salt:

“ Then the LORD rained brimstone and fire on Sodom and Gomorrah, from the LORD out of the heavens.

So He overthrew those cities, all the plain, all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground.

But his wife looked back behind him, and she became a pillar of salt. (Gen 19:24-26 NKJV)”

At first glance it appears she looks back and is instantly turned into a pillar of salt, or so it seems. Obviously, something like that just doesn’t happen normally. So how do we explain it? Our first clue is the location of Sodom and Gomorrah, which was situated near the Dead Sea. The Dead Sea is located on the lowest place on earth below sea level. Because there is no outlet the water is particularly salty, about 8.6 times saltier than the ocean. It’s an area that’s hot and receives very little rain. It is also a very unstable region. There are earthquakes, underground heat energy sources, and petroleum seeping up from the bottom of the Dead Sea. In fact, during the time of Abraham the area was full of tar pits (Gen 14:10). Conversely, it was also much more fertile in Abraham’s time than it is now.

The bible says Sodom was destroyed by brimstone (burning sulfur) and fire. In natural terms, this could have been caused by a volcanic eruption, or by an earthquake that could have set off an explosion from the combustion of petroleum products and or natural gases. In any case it’s not hard to imagine how it was destroyed in such a volatile region. Incidentally, archeology evidence shows evidence of burning, including charred bones, from the ancient cities that existed along the banks of the Dead Sea.

With all of that in mind, here’s what I believe happened. When the bible says Lot’s wife “looked back”, I believe it’s a poetic way of saying she turned back and went back to the city. Why would she do this when she knew it was about to be destroyed? The answer is because she had two additional daughters still in the city. We can discern this from two verses. In Genesis 19:8 Lot says he has two daughters that have not known a man (i.e. virgins):

“See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”

However, in Genesis 19:14 he says he has two daughters that were married:

“So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who had married his daughters, and said, “Get up, get out of this place; for the LORD will destroy this city!” But to his sons-in-law he seemed to be joking.”

Some have thought this was a contradiction, when in reality Lot had four daughters total. The Genesis Rabbah also concludes that Lot had four daughters at the time, two who were married and two who were engaged to be married. The latter two were the daughters that fled with Lot and his wife.

In returning to the city, Lot’s wife would have gotten caught up in the destruction of Sodom. She would have likely been buried very quickly. Due to the extreme heat and the silicone dioxide found in the Dead Sea minerals, she may have been fossilized. Under the right conditions, fossilization can occur very rapidly. Salt itself is a preserving agent. There’s no doubt her body would have become a pillar. The Hebrew word for pillar (netziv) means something stationary, i.e. a prefect, a military post, a statue:—garrison, officer, pillar. The implication here is that her body wasn’t moved, but likely remained preserved for some time after since it is unlikely her body was ever recovered for a proper burial.

It is conceivable then that over time her remains became covered by a layer of salt, just as the shores of the Dead Sea are covered with crystallized salt. Pillars of salt form this way as the water evaporates and the salt precipitates, leaving behind actual salt pillars. So yes, in the ancient’s way of thinking she would have turned into a pillar of salt.

Could atheism exist without theism?

Here's a theoretical question: could atheism exist without theism? We know that theism can exist without atheism, because every ancient civilization believed in some form of deity. In fact, theism was the default belief system since time immemorial. It wasn't until around 300 BC, give or take, that we see the beginnings of atheism from the Greek philosophers. Their debates about God sounded remarkably similar to the same debates we have today. Atheism would take a hiatus for over 1,500 years as Christianity became the dominate belief system of Western Civilization. However, during the so-called Age of Enlightenment, atheism was given new life by men like Rene Descartes, Voltaire, Nietzsche, and so on.

Back to the question. Atheism is defined as disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. But to have a disbelief in God, there first has to be a belief in God. The belief in God came first, then the disbelief in God came second, that's an historical fact. If there was no belief in God to begin with, there could be no disbelief in God. Put another way, atheism was born out of theism. It came about as a response to theism, whose sole purpose was to counter the belief in God. Beyond that it doesn't have much to offer. Which is why it has never had mass appeal, and the vast majority of the world's population (some 84 percent) continues to believe in a God.

But suppose hypothetically that there were no more theists left in the world. An atheist's dream come true. The result would be atheism would then lose its foil and its reason for being. What would there be to contend against if everyone believed the same thing? That makes it very dependent on theism to survive. In short, I don't believe atheism could survive without theism, but theism can survive without atheism.