David Forrest

MY PORTFOLIO, LOGIC AND ARGUMENT: ~ How Tall Was The Philistine Giant Goliath? ~ A while ago we were trying to figure out exactly how tall the Philistine giant Goliath was? (Good question, huh!) The internet turned out to be of little or no help, and estimates ranged all over the place between 6 to 20, or more, English feet. Most, ‘guesstimates’, however, came in at the shorter end of the range. For example: Certain secular sources list Goliath’s height as having been a mere 4 cubits and a span; or, in other words, using a contemporary (and scientifically incorrect) cubit of only 18 English inches the equation works out like this: [(18” x 4) + 9”] = (72” + 9”) = 81 inches, and 81/12 = 6.75 feet, or 6 feet, 9 inches tall. Page 1 ! This figure of 6 feet, 9 inches has been recorded by various secular authorities as the correct historical height of Goliath the Philistine giant. It is, however, demonstrably incorrect and shows a remarkable lack of shrewd biblical comprehension. So . . . after the evening service was through, I went home and began to research biblical definitions of the Tanakh’s precisely stated, ‘six cubits and a span’. Now, to begin with, there are all different sorts of ancient cubits: Babylonian, Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek, Roman, and more modern Napoleonic metric allusions. Not too confusing, right? (Gag!) The answer I finally came up with is rather interesting: As far as sacred Judeo-Christian Scripture is concerned, there are only two different size cubits used throughout the entire Holy Bible; AND they are the exact same cubit measurements with which the ancient Egyptians, and their Hebrew vassals were once intimately familiar. The first one is the sacred (or ‘ideal’) Egyptian/Hebrew cubit; it is equal to- English inches, and the second one is the royal (or, ‘profane’) Egyptian/Hebrew cubit; it is equal to- English inches.(1) The larger sacred cubit is considered to be ideal; the type of ‘divinely perfect’ measurement upon which spiritually imbued and closely related items like: Noah’s Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, and the most inviolable parts of Jerusalem’s Holy Temple would have been constructed; but, to be clear, not the temple’s outer or ‘public’ courtyard which, because of its allowed popular access, would have been constructed to a biblically ‘profane’ standard. (Although, proceeding from outwardly profane and materialistic temple rituals toward more divine inner spiritual functions, various structures within the Solomonic temple used either one, or the other, or both of these closely related units-of-measure in the same way that these measurements continue to be demonstrated throughout the remaining architecture of ancient Egypt.) Page 2 ! Now, if a profane (materialistic) cubit is applied to Goliath's biblically stated height of ‘six cubits and a span’ then this pagan giant would have been [-” x 6.5) / 12] =- feet tall, and (.17378’ x 12) = 2.08538 inches. Simply stated, in classical (but nonetheless ‘profane’) English measurement, the Philistine giant Goliath stood 11 feet, 2 inches tall. Personally, I do not imagine that a well-educated Jewish scribe of ancient sacred literature would have assigned a sacred Hebrew cubit, measuring- English inches, to a pagan giant. ‘Why’? Because doing something like this would be incongruous to the carefully devout Hebrew intellect of David’s day! However, if anyone is wondering just how tall Goliath might have been at the extreme end of this equation that would be [-” x 6.5) / 12] =- feet; and (.55605’ x 12) = 6.67264 inches. Thus, by applying the very unlikely standard of sacred Hebrew measurement to the Philistine giant Goliath, he would have measured out at an astonishing 13 feet, 7 inches tall! (That would make this giant [or ‘Nephil’ from the Hebrew word ‘ ‫]’ נפל‬ one really big sucker—Now, wouldn’t it!) These divergent height figures may be further analyzed through a comparison of several other biblical comments, as well as through the additional analysis of applicable greater and lesser numerical extremes. Goliath’s presumed (and very unlikely) 13 1/2 foot height directly corresponds to the overall length of his own easily wielded, one-handed sword as a straightforward proportional equation. Given that, today, the average height of a man is 5’, 10” and was, quite possibly, no more than 5’, 8” during biblical times, a numerical comparison of usable maximum blade lengths may be expressed as an equation where Goliath’s height and ideal blade length is compared to David’s presumed height and most typical blade length. For those who are accustomed to working with problems of numerical ratio and proportion, and want to solve for an unknown maximum blade length (which we’ll call, ‘X’), the equation would look like this: Page 3 ! (163”:X”::68”:24”) Then (163” x 24” = 3912”) and (3912”/68” =-”) or an overall size of 4.79 English feet (4’, 9 1/2”) with an (ideal) maximum blade length of 48/49 inches.(2) THAT is a very big sword, and a 4 foot long blade is going to be difficult for a man who stands about 5’, 8”, (or 68”) tall to effectively carry and wield well in battle. Neither could such a large sword have been used, efficiently, with only one hand by anyone other than a remarkably tall Nephilim giant! Any such sword would not have been practical for a normally shieldbearing 5’ 8” tall man to employ. It’s just too large and unwieldy to both carry or use. Furthermore, it should be obvious that Goliath would not have used one of the more common 2 foot long bronze swords of the day. (In fact history, as well as the Hebrew Tanakh strongly suggest otherwise.) Now, I do not know exactly how tall the young David was at, or about, the time he reached physical maturity; but, it’s unlikely that he would have been more than 5’, 8” tall. With this, or a similar, physical stature David would have had a very difficult time trying to, both, carry and wield an almost 5 foot long sword; and forget about effectively using a shield—That would have been impossible! Finally, for those who might wonder how the 11’, 2” equation works out: (134”:X::68”:24”). Then (134” x 24” = 3216”) and (3216”/68” =-”) or an overall sword size of 3.94118 English feet (3’, 11”) with an approximate blade length of 38/39 inches. So . . . under physical duress, and especially without using a shield, a young 5’, 8” tall David could have efficiently carried and effectively used a large almost 4’ long sword that featured a 3’, 3” blade. (Mel Gibson didn’t seem to have any trouble using his similarly sized Claymore [or, ‘great sword’] in the movie ‘Braveheart’.) However, carrying and wielding an almost 5 foot long sword with a 10 inch longer blade would have been, while not impossible to fight with, both annoying to carry, as well as slower to use and difficult to swing. Page 4 ! An opinion which David did NOT seem to hold. (Refer: I Samuel 21:8-9 ) On the basis of correct Hebraic measurement, and in particular consideration of the fact that the young David is described as being able to: 1. Rely upon and efficiently wield Goliath’s sword, as well as to 2. ‘Break a steel bow with his arms’. The best informed conclusion is that both the Hebrew Tanakh, and the King James Bible’s description of the Philistine giant Goliath as standing 6 profane cubits and a span in height, and most likely wielding a steel sword is the correct conclusion; and today’s biblical authorities remain both ill-informed and ill-informing.(3) The Philistine giant Goliath stood neither a ridiculous 6’, 7” tall, nor an exaggerated 13’, 6” tall; and neither did he carry a short (24”) bronze sword. Goliath was a reasonably demonstrable 11’, 2” tall; and he carried a much longer, much stronger, steel sword than the other Philistine soldiers in his army. For those who might agree with the current Wikipedia article on this topic, I would pose only one further question: Exactly which cubit measurement (or measurements) did: Josephus the Roman historian, the early Essenes who wrote the Dead Sea scrolls, and the later writers of the early 4th century Septuagint manuscripts use? Think about it! None of these diffuse and of’t quoted academic sources agree. On the other hand, the cubit values given in the Hebrew Tanakh are perfectly uniform and consistent. In fact many of the ancient Hebrew numbers listed in the Tanakh are at times astonishing! For instance the value of Pi (3.14159)—which while I was growing up was most frequently attributed to the Greeks—is now known to be a frequently used numerical construction of the ancient Egyptians. Not too surprising, then, the number Pi is also stated as approximating the number 3 in the Hebrew books of I Kings 7:23, and II Chronicles 4:2. Page 5 ! (Which, at least to my mind, is a strong indication that the ancient Hebrews used, and built their constructions to (Ready?) much earlier Egyptian numerical standards.) Footnotes: Cubit dimensions are derived from and agree with the work of R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz and Lucy Lamy. (1) Where 24 inches represents the overall length of a typical (circa 1,200 to 1,000 BC) metal Philistine Khopesh. It should, also, be noted that both bronze, and iron swords were in wide use at this time, OK. (2) Furthermore, bronze is well known to be an inferior metal for use in sword blades that are longer than 24 inches. Any bronze blade that exceeds this length would be prone to bend and/or break while in use. ‘He teaches my hands to make war; so that a bow of steel is broken by my arms.’ (II Samuel 22:35) (3) Hermeneutic word usage aside: ‘Bronze’, like iron, would be too brittle to use for the limbs of a bow; and, similarly, ‘copper’ would be much too soft. Both the historical and logical conclusions strongly indicate that actual carbonized iron (or ‘steel’) was, indeed, being used throughout the Levant during King David’s lifetime—A lifetime which took place during the broadly transitional time period between the bronze, and the iron ages. Finally, here’s some additional supportive reading for those who might be interested: https://skhane.org/the-great-pyramid-1/ Accessed 5 September 2019 https://archive.org/stream/TheTempleInMan_201709/ The%20temple%20in%20man_djvu.txt Accessed 5 September 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VZsiPA9uNw Accessed 5 September 2019 Page 6 ! https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Iron Accessed 5 September 2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khopesh Accessed 5 September 2019 Page 7 !