David snipes Goliath
Fun fact: For about a year now, I've heavily suspected Goliath never had a chance against David, even from an atheistic perspective.
S'like this: Back in the Olden Days, killing people with a sling was actually a highly-refined art. I admittedly got this second-hand from historical novelist Michael Curtis Ford (good writer), but I'm told that we know from the Spartan mercenary Xenophon's autobiography _The Anabasis _ that a slinger could kill a sheep at 200 yards with just a rock he found lying about on the ground, 300 yards if he had one of his specially-made lead bullets handy.
Christian apologists have often spoken excitedly of the fact that modern giants' foreheads have soft spots. Personally, I don't see the reason; if David had-as he quite obviously did-skill with the slingshot, then he might as well have pulled out a .22 Magnum and capped his giant adversary. The fight wouldn't have been much more lop-sided.
So, this begs the question, of course: What's the point of the story if David just ran out onto the field and smote a hapless foe?
A few thoughts on the subject:
(1) Tactics aside, no member of the army of Israel nor the army's king challenged the blaspheming Philistine, and David did. That David then proceeded to shoot Goliath doesn't take away from the fact that he was the only person with enough conviction to do something about the problem.
(2) The one-on-one duel for the fate of Israel was the Philistines' idea, not the LORD's; indeed, the LORD never suggests such a method of solving Israel's war problems in the Old Testament, and no attempt to do so ever works out. God is not interested in having terms dictated to Him. Why should He respect the honor code devised by a bunch of pagans? From this perspective, David's response was absolutely perfect: come out onto the field for the "honor duel" and then gun down their prize fighter, sending a loud and clear message that he wasn't interested in playing the game.
(3) One of the reasons I think the Jews have throughout history held a reputation among Western peoples as "dishonest" is because Westerners had (and have) a different sense of honesty than the Bible seems to. From what I'm reading in 1st Samuel, no rule save that one warrior should face another was instituted for the battle; David simply worked creatively within that framework. To the outwitted, of course, this is always "cheating"; to those of us who prize wit and do not hold others accountable for rules that never existed, it is clever and perfectly fair. David's smarts may thus be on display here.
Something to consider. Lata.