Whatever. I apparently am upsetting your comfortable sate of ignorance. Please do not even read the
Wikipedia- it could upset you. (And no, I did not get my information from there- I simply read what the Bible actually says.)
A Goliath makes another appearance in 2 Samuel 21:19, which tells how Goliath the Gittite was killed by "Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite." The fourth-century BC 1 Chronicles explains the second Goliath by saying that Elhanan "slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath", apparently constructing the name Lahmi from the last portion of the word "Bethlehemite" ("beit-ha’lahmi").[13] The King James Bible translators adopted this into their translation of 2 Samuel 21:18–19, although the Hebrew text at this point makes no mention of the word "brother". "Most likely, storytellers displaced the deed from the otherwise obscure Elhanan onto the more famous character, David."[14]
I acknowledge your diligence, but it does seem that you are purposely avoiding the answer given to you already. These books of the Bible are intended to be read together. The author of Samuel and Kings makes frequent reference to Chronicles. For example,
1 Kings 14:19 KJV
(19) And the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, how he warred, and how he reigned,
behold, they are written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Israel.
2 Chronicles 36:8 KJV
(8) Now the rest of the acts of Jehoiakim, and his abominations which he did, and that which was found in him,
behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah: and Jehoiachin his son reigned in his stead.
In other words, the authors know the books are written in parallel. These are not separate conflicting histories as you claim. Essentially, that is your claim and all it boils down to. No Jew is confused about the story of David and Goliath. The Jewish historian style is not the same as the Muslim, they are not deem it necessary to copy each and every word. Back then you were expected to be knowledgeable enough to fill in gaps. Today we have our own shorthand of missing words and grammar, like "LMAO TTYL." A skilled translator translates into the target language supplying the details that the target audience may not assume. Missing that was your mistake.
Perhaps you could take a break from copying and pasting commentaries and answer the question I posed for you earlier, concerning the translation of that one Hebrew passage? If you employ that same word-for-word stubborn translation style of yours, it forms an incomplete sentence. Yet when Paul (a Hebrew, a Pharisee among Pharisees) translates it into Greek, he includes an object with the verb.
I dare say that Paul was a superior translator of the ancient Hebrew than you, being two thousand years closer to the source and culture. Paul supplies the extra word that the Hebrew assumes from the blank. He knew this simply from their culture. The King James translation (that you see the website supply when we have quotes) also does the same, but in this particular case it is cross-referenced Hebrew it uses.
