1. I always thought because I was taught David had only a sling and stone as a physical weapon. Now you’re saying “but I had a dagger in hand,… (This is in past tense). If David took Goliath’s weapon, your version does not convey this information.


    1. Martin, Psalm 151 is not merely my version.

      I will, however, look at the translation again. I was trying to be rhythmic and past tense was not implied.


  2. David did not have a dagger with him. He took the Philistine’s own sword (after knocking him unconscious with the slingshot), and then he cut off his head with it. The wicked loses his head through his own sword. You kill by the sword, you die by the sword, by your own sword — you reap what you sow. David just enacted that principle, and he explains it, in this beautiful Psalm. I would ask of you not to twist his meaning. All the best and God bless.


  3. «7 But I had a dagger in hand». This is your translation, yet David did not have any dagger with him. He used the Philistine’s own sword. So, it is an erroneous translations. Yet, there is also a deeper meaning to this, that which I explained in my earlier comment. David is enacting the general principle, the Law defined by God, that the sinner reaps what he sows; he perishes by the evil devices perpetrates on others; he loses his head by his own sword. The verse should be something in the line of «I took the Philistine’s own sword, and with it, I cut off his head». God bless.


    1. You aren’t translating. You are putting things into the text that is not there. Further, then you are adding NT thought to it.

      I’m pretty happy with my translation.


      1. There is no “NT thought”. There is the purity and integrity in intellectual truth that accompanies the Spirit of God. You can not pigeonhole the Spirit in a series of books. There is no general principle of the Law that is enunciated in the Gospels and Letters that is not also declared in the Torah and the Prophets. That is why that particular general principle of reality is enunciated time and again in those books, e.g. in David’s Psalms.

        For instance, Psalm 7, «16 He hath digged a pit, and hollowed it, and is fallen into the ditch which he made. 17 His mischief shall return upon his own head, and his violence shall come down upon his own pate. 18 I will give thanks unto the LORD according to His righteousness; and will sing praise to the name of the LORD Most High»

        For constant, explicit enunciations of the principle, try reading Proverbs, the Book of Enoch, or the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs.

        On the translation, do the original words talk about a dagger belonging to David? I admit I have not read them, nor am I understood in ancient languages, but I would find it odd if they did. First, because it would be in contradiction with the principle that God is demonstrating through this event. Second, because a mention to “a dagger of David” would be in direct contradiction with I Samuel, where it states David does unsheat Goliath’s own sword to cut his head off. Third, because all other translations I read do agree with I Samuel, i.e. David talks of using the Philistine’s own sword to behead him.
        God bless.


        1. “all other translations I read do agree with I Samuel”

          All other translations of Psalm 151, of course.


          1. That is hardly a reply for the points I raised and the question I asked of you. Your approach is quite skewed, to say the least.

          2. No, not really. I tried to give life to the text, independent of poor interpretive strategies

          3. To give life, one’s eyes must first be a lamp that is teeming with life.

Leave a Reply, Please!