Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Archaeological Uncovers a New Name

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the stories-come-from-somewhere dept.

* * Beatles-Beatles writes to tell us Reuters is reporting that scientists have found a shard of pottery in an archaeological dig that appears to have the Philistine renderings of the name Goliath. While the obvious leaps of faith have been made it is still an interesting find as it is the first time the name Goliath has been found in that particular locale.

4 of 50 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Believers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No kidding. I guess if you've got a religious agenda it makes perfect sense. Also, it's not like anybody else throughout history could possibly have been given the name Goliath. For all we know it could have been a common name back then, so it's hardly definitive proof of his existance.

    I guess thousands of years from now, somebody is going to find an old gift with 'for Bob' engraved on it and claim it's how we used to spell Jesus, so obviously he must have been real and returned in 2000 right on cue.

  2. Unbelievers by samjam · · Score: 1, Insightful

    And if you've got an anti-religion agenda, THAT will make perfect sense.
    Which all goes to show how unhelpful your comment or the fine article is in that context.

    Unless we keep ourselves up to date on anthropoligical and sociological findings and implications of archeology and anthropology this find does not help us draw ANY conclusions on the soundness of ANY pro-religion or anti-religion standpoints. It is merely "interesting".

    It would embarrassing to suggest that most readers know enough on the subject to avoid getting blown out of the water by an "expert" from either camp, most conclusion drawn in this forum will be obviously ignorant to such experts even if they agree with us, and there are enough experts in both camps who manage to avoid flaming eachother every time they meet. I guess they have all had to eat their words a couple of terms/

    Sam

    --
    blog.sam.liddicott.com
  3. Re:I'd be skeptical by digitect · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Google is your friend:

    --
    There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
  4. Re:Believers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Also, it's not like anybody else throughout history could possibly have been given the name Goliath. For all we know it could have been a common name back then, so it's hardly definitive proof of his existance.

    You're missing the point. What this shows, if it's genuine, is that the name existed at all. Prior to this, no evidence had ever been found outside the Bible that the name Goliath was used by the ancient Palestinians, ever.

    So, yeah, of course this doesn't prove that the Bible story is true. What it does do, if it's genuine, is remove one piece of ammunition from the arsenal of the scholars who are arguing that the Bible story isn't true. Big, big difference.