ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Who Really Killed Goliath

1 Samuel 17 says David killed Goliath. 2 Samuel 21 & 1 Chronicles 20 say Elhanan did. In these latter 2 places, the KJV inserts the words "the brother of" in italics, showing they were not in the original but interpolated. Who really killed Goliath: David or Elhanan?

Join Our Free Penpals and Take The Wisdom Bible Quiz
 ---Jack on 9/11/06
     Helpful Blog Vote (9)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog



God and David together killed Goliath. He will do the same for our giants of today. If we TRUST HIM.
---catherine on 1/22/08


Jack, 2 samuel 21:1 does not mention Goliath. 1 Chronicles 20 talks of a war with the Philistines. Vs 6: And yet again there was war at Gath, where was a man of (great)stature, whode fingers and toes(were)four and twenty, six (on each hand), and six (on each foot:) and he was the son of the giant. Vs 7: But when he defied Israel, Jonathan the son of Shimea David's brother slew him. cont...
---shira_9639 on 1/22/08


I ate way too much and talked way too much and had very little sleep before church but it was great, I love Thanksgiving it is a true american tradition. When I was in Ukraine all the students asked what thanksgiving was all about it was fun to tell them about something they had never known before.
---Jared on 11/27/06


Thanks Jared. I hope you & family had a great Thanksgiving. We did! :)
---Leon on 11/27/06


Leon, I understand and To tell you the truth I was not upset I was actually laughing at your last post to me...yes I ment brunt i think I wrote that right before I left for Thanksgiving so I probably didn't see the misspelling because my wife was trying to get me into the car...Anyways, I hope my insight helped you alittle.
---Jared on 11/26/06




David killed Goliath and Elhanan killed Goliath's brother. "brother of" is not an interpolation as wrongly assumed because it indeed is in the original Hebrew Scripture, in hebrew "ah" preceeds the name Goliath, meaning "brother of"; but the KJV italicized this because it was not in the Tanach which is a Jewish Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. The same verse is written in I Chronicles 20:5, where we are given more detail as to this name of Goliath's brother.
---Eloy on 11/24/06


I didn't mean for you see red Jared & I'm not picking on you bud. BTW, did you really intend to say "grunt" or "brunt"? :)
---Leon on 11/23/06


why did I get the grunt of the wrath of leon. I didn't say a UFO killed him like Billy. But since you think I don't know bible. 2nd samuel says nothing about brother of anyone so My understanding of Scripture is that it is a different Goliath and 1 Chronicles says brother of Goliath which is Lahmi, another totally different person. Just so you know this is a different time than when David killed Goliath. this is after he has been king, not proior to the death of saul. 2 goliaths and one brother
---Jared on 11/22/06


Jared: This is an issue of what the Bible says (Devine-revelation), not about our erroneous opinions (blind speculation).
---Leon on 11/22/06


Have you thought that maybe they both killed goliath? I think it might be possible that there are 2 goliaths I might be the only Jared but then again I have a brother in law named Jared aswell. don't worry about it it's a different goliath. I'm pretty sure the Hebrews knew who killed Goliath since they wrote the book you know. (they said David did, and Elhanan different people both times)
---Jared on 11/20/06




Jack: Let's suppose the Strong's Concordance isn't worthy of the intellectual acumen of serious professional scripture scholars (giants) like yourself. In your opinion, does the same hold true for the Easton's Bible Dictionary?

You error when you say 1 Chron 20:5 in the KJV shows "the brother of" in italic. Neither the NIV or KJV show 1 Chron 20:5, "the brother of" in italic. What does that mean professor?
---Leon on 9/17/06


The bible says "Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (2Co 3:6) It is funny that people are argueing whether one version is right or the other. The word of God is not what is written on paper but the Spirit of what is written. these little differences in names etc. cannot stop you from getting at the spirit of the word if you really want to. the word of God is Spirit (Joh 6:63)
---Toyin on 9/16/06


If all the names of people referred to in the bible were not written in English equivalents we would all have great difficulty reading the bible. We are in danger of letting this become a very silly discussion.
---f.f. on 9/16/06


is it possible he was killed by a U.F.O.? all things are possible.
---Billy on 9/16/06


John ... So our Bibles lie when they use the name James instead of Jacobus?
Then they must lie when they report Jesus' teachings in English.
Let's all go home and die.
---alan8869_of_UK on 9/16/06


** Jack, maybe the problem is with your Greek OT.**

The Hebrew text underlying the LXX is actually OLDER than the Massoretic text. The LXX was translated some 2 centuries before Christ. The Massoretic text was not stabilized until AD 1100 or so.

Furthermore, where the LXX disagrees with the Massoretic text, it has been discoved that it CONFORMS with the DSS versions.

Hence, the LXX is more reliable than the johnny-come-lately Massoretic.
---Jack on 9/15/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products


If there are errors in the KJV and I know the other perversions have errors, then can someone tell me why we don't preach for a Harry Potter book? If the KJV has errors, then God is a liar, so why do you ever read the bible, it is full of lies and errors.
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
Psalm 12:6-7
---Rev_Herb on 9/15/06


John ... The small descriptive words in the bible are not a legal contract of sale.
We will have to differ on this point.
The Bibles produced for the chinese folk do not mention sheep and shepherds, because they do not have them out there, so the allusion would be meaningless to them.
Does that put those Bibles in error?
---alan8869_of_UK on 9/15/06


Look up "reed pipe" on wikipedia and you will find one of the most common types is a "posaune". Reed pipes were plenty common back in Isaiah's day. The sackbut also is still plausable as a brass instrament. It was the ansestor to the trumbone which we also call a trumpet. There were plenty of those in Isaiah's day as well.
---tofurabby on 9/15/06


John, you say to look up jacobus. Where do I look? Who said james real name is jacobus?
---shira_9639 on 9/15/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


John, setting aside the KJV for a second... there is not a single English bible translation that calls him anything other than James. So now you are telling us that we are not to believe the hundreds of translators that were responsible for the English translations that we have today? They all got it wrong? Instead, we are supposed to believe an internet blogger? Sorry.
---tofurabby on 9/15/06


Jack, maybe the problem is with your Greek OT.
---tofurabby on 9/15/06


** Wrong Jack!!!
Sackbut : A Syrian stringed instrument resembling a harp**
If you look at the parallel passage in Luther's translation, he renders it as POSAUNE, which means "trombone"--and was still wrong there.
That's where the KJV translators got it.
Modern translations mention instruments that actually existed in this time and place.
(Strong's lexica are useful tools for laymen, but worthless to the serious professional scripture scholar.)
---Jack on 9/15/06


** Shira. If there are no errors in the KJV maybe that's because they've fixed them up during the 400 years. **
You mean the KJV has actually been CHANGED from when it was originally written?
Upon which edition of the KJV does inerrancy rest? The first, second, third, fourth, or fifth recension?
---Jack on 9/15/06


Shop For Christian Books


Alan. Yes it is an error. An inaccuracy is not the truth. If you bought a guitar from me and I sent you a saxophone you would want your money back and I would rightfully be in error.
---john on 9/15/06


Shira. Here is an error. Jesus' brother James, there was no James. His name was Jacobus. Same as the book of James, there really isn't one. It's actually the book of Jacobus and you can look that up.
---john on 9/15/06


Shira. If there are no errors in the KJV maybe that's because they've fixed them up during the 400 years. They even mispelled simple words which some now excuse as typo's. Nevertheless, as Jack has pointed out, it shows their fallabilty (which the translators admitted to in the preface) and you seem to think they were infallible despite the enormous evidence that they are as human as you and I.
---john on 9/15/06


earl on 9/14/05: I will answer your question only if you first answer mine. Is Johnnie Five really alive?
---Leon on 9/15/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


Leon is right, the word sackbut has changed to mean wind instraments such as the trombone, but prior to that it was used to reference flute or recorder type instraments... and before that it was used to speak of string instraments. It's just another word like gay, which has changed meanings and now no one uses the original meaning any longer... eventually the definition for gay which is happy will be removed from our dictionaries the longer it goes unused.
---tofurabby on 9/15/06


Jack ... that is not an error. It is an inconsequential inaccuracy.
Does it alter the Truth?
If the translation was made today, would it be an error if it talked about saxaphones or guitars.
---alan8869_of_UK on 9/15/06


Wrong Jack!!!
Sackbut : A Syrian stringed instrument resembling a harp (Dan 3:5, 7, 10 & 15); not the modern sackbut, which is a wind instrument . (Source: Easton's Bible Dictionary)
Sackbut : a lyre. (Source: Strong's Concordance, Hebrew & Chaldee Dictionary )
---Leon on 9/15/06


Jack, you cannot prove errors in the KJV.
---shira_9639 on 9/14/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation


**There are no errors in the KJV.**
Yes, there are.
To name one, in Daniel 3 it mentions the sackbut (a primitive trombone). This instrument was unknown in ancient Babylon. It was invented only in the Renaissance in Europe. No other culture developed such an instrument.
---Jack on 9/14/06


I have heard it said before that david picked up 5 stones even though he knew it would only take 1 because Goliath had 4 brothers. One stone for Goliath and the other 4 in the case they tried to avenge him. The 4 brothers are mentioned in 2 Samuel 21:22.
---tofurabby on 9/14/06


**So there were not one but TWO giants named Goliath...?**
Well, possibly, but not likely.
Possibly:
David slew Goliath the Philistine.
Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite.
but not likely:
1 Chron. 20 does not have "the brother of" in italics in my KJV plus that doesnt explain why his name is Lahmi. I do see the Italics in 2 Sam. 21:19 as you said.
---tofurabby on 9/14/06


Jack, the translators of the KJV was very upfront about what they added and it is easily recognizable. Other versions just changed words and whole meanings. In your original question, you made it a specific point to include the KJV as error. There are no errors in the KJV.
---shira_9639 on 9/14/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing


greetings ,for leon ,additional reply ,upon futher analysis of your reply ,you stated'hear the word of the lord 'and 'God's version'.are you stating you are God's version?and to add do you remember that jesus told an audience that they have never heard his "voice" at any time or seen his "shape".is your connecting the two stories apparent(a guess) or God's version(you),thanks for reply
---earl on 9/14/06


**As far as he is concerned if they are in the KJV they are accurate. The fact that they were ADDED does not interest him.**
Evidence that the KJV translators added to the word of God would indeed render some minds boggleable, would it not?
---Jack on 9/14/06


greetings,for leon thanks for reply,did you state 'apparently'?what do you imply ?is your comparrison between the two of biblical historical fact or revelation unknown to others?
---earl on 9/14/06


Jack, from what I have read of Herb's beliefs, he has never and never will be interested in the words in italics which were not in the Hebrew or Greek. As far as he is concerned if they are in the KJV they are accurate. The fact that they were ADDED does not interest him.
---Mac on 9/14/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


FIRST CHRONICLES 20:5 !!!
NIV : "In another battle with the Philistine, Elhanan son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath ..."
Authorized KJV : "And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath ..."
---Leon on 9/14/06


Earl: In Saul's case it was actually an assisted suicide , i.e., Saul fell on his sword (1 Sam 31:4). He looked dead to his armour bearer (1 Sam 31:5) but wasn't. Saul apparently passed out (fainted) & some time later resumed consciousness. Being in agony he begged a young Amalekite man to finish him off (2 Sam 1:6-10).

There's the parallel . Scripture always explains scripture; but, we must pay close attention to hear the word of the Lord -- God's version.
---Leon on 9/14/06


**That is what happens when you read the wrong Per-version.**
As I pointed out in my original posting, Rev Herb, the word "the brother of" that are in the KJV are in italics, hence are NOT in the Hebrew. In other words the translators of the KJV added to God's word.
It seems to me it's more of a "per-version" to ADD words that are not there (as the KJV does here) than to simply translate the words as they stand.
---Jack on 9/13/06


THE NIV
"...Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."
THE AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION
"...Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
That is what happens when you read the wrong Per-version.
---Rev_Herb on 9/13/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


greetings ,there was a genetic condition that was refered to as giantism.there were genetic residual strains that remaind in davids age.though not many but it was the custom to have the most experienced contender to engage with the opponents equal thus a battle can be won or lost by one man,but although the story is attractive it remains inconclusive.try paralleling;who killed saul,himself or some other person?
---earl on 9/12/06


greetings,the italics are there
---earl on 9/12/06


Jack you claim that KJV has no original Hebrew Iassume you can back up your statement because you are a Hebrew scholar so what is the Hebrew word for Giant?
---willow on 9/12/06


**So there were not one but TWO giants named Goliath, both of whom were 9 feet tall, polydactylic, and with big spears?

Possible, but not probable.**

It is not only possible but very likely check out These four (referring to the giants) were descended from the giant in Gath, and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants. (2Sa 21:22)
They were descended from the same place so it is not odd that two people had the same hereditary (?) defects
---Theophillus on 9/12/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


Shira ... Why do you still come up with that old exaggeration?
There is far more attempt by the King James Version onlyists to discredit modern version, than the other way round
Typical things said about modern versions are "Satanic, perversions, sending people to hell"
Has anyone ever said anything a quarter as insulting about the KJV?
---alan8869_of_UK on 9/12/06


**There is nothing to stop people from naming other giants after the 'great goliath'**

So there were not one but TWO giants named Goliath, both of whom were 9 feet tall, polydactylic, and with big spears?

Possible, but not probable.

Shira, where did you get the idea this was about the KJV?
---Jack on 9/12/06


theophillus: Oh yes, people on here do try do discredit the KJV.
---shira_9639 on 9/12/06


In addition to my earlier post, Let us leave controversy to what is really controversial. This is an easily resolved issue. No one is trying to discredit any version of the Bible, just trying to understand the Bible better.
---Theophillus on 9/12/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


If you pay attention to the timing of the two accounts in question. The goliath David killed was long dead. These battles being talked of were after David became King of Israel. There is nothing to stop people from naming other giants after the 'great goliath'
---Theophillus on 9/12/06


The writers of 1 Chron & 2 Sam are unknown but to God, the Author (2 Tim 3:16).
Was the italicized " , the brother of " (2 Sam. 21:19) erroneously added or does it properly correlate to what the Bible says in 1 Chronicles 20:5? Obviously, the latter is true. There's a linked parallel between the two passages that add up to, i.e., David slew Goliath & Elhanan slew Goliath's brother (Lahmi) .
---Leon on 9/12/06


Jack has a very legitimate point. The manuscript text in 2 Sam. 21:19 does say that Elhanan slew Goliath. We can't get around that. But the translators did pick up on it and threw in the words " the brother of". So, everything is ok. Unless you believe that translations are perfect. It could be that Jack is trying to prove that.
---john on 9/12/06


i think it was a falcon from atlanta that killed the giants.
---mike on 9/12/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance


Jack, this is yet another attempt to discredit the King James bible and you will have to do better than this. Your question did say say 2 Sam 21. I have a King James bible and the italics you speak of are NOT there. You are trying to add things in your own mind that are not written.
---shira_9639 on 9/12/06


1Sa 17:23-,behold there came up the champion of the Philistine of Gath,Goliah,out of the armies of the Philistines,and spake according to the same words and David heard them. 1Sa 17:50 So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone and smote the Philistine,and slew him,but there was no sword in the hand of David. Read all of Sa 17, and you will see it was Goliath David killed.
---Darlene_1 on 9/12/06


**No where does it say the giant is Goliath.**

Yes it does. The words "the brother of" do not clarify anything except the KJV's translators' desire to get out of an awakward situation.

They are NOT in the original Hebrew, nor are they implied.
---Jack on 9/12/06


** 1Chron 20:5 says Elhanan slew Lami, the brother of Goliath.**
I just got through saying that these words are italicized in the KJV and most other versions that have them, indicating that they are an interpolation by the translators, obviously to make it parallel and consistent with 1 Samuel 17.
---Jack on 9/12/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays


** Jack, 2 samuel 21:1 does not mention Goliath.**

And I did not mention 2 Samuel 21:1, did I?

Verse 19 of that chapter specifically mentions Goliath.

I could not give the full reference, as I was limited to only 50 words in the question.
---Jack on 9/12/06


1Chron 20:5 says Elhanan slew Lami, the brother of Goliath.
2 Sam. 21:19 has a corrupted original text which the KJV translators rightfully picked up on and interpolated the words "the brother of" Goliath or else it would have had to read that Elhanan killed Goliath when he really didn't. I will go with David as Goliaths killer but I don't mind to be corrected if there is proof otherwise.
---john on 9/12/06


greetings,exellent parallel
---earl on 9/11/06


cont...Vs 8: These were born unto the giant in Gath; and they fell by the hand of David, and by the hand of the servants......The brother of is not in italics. The words in parenthesis are the italic words. The words in italics are added for clarity. No where does it say the giant is Goliath. They were giants and probably were kin to Goliath. Don't we have lots of giants in our life? It just shows there are always more than one giant that we have. I know I have had several. The King James stands true.
---shira_9639 on 9/11/06


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.