My Thoughts on David, Elhanan, Goliath, and Goliath's Brother

There are two accounts of Elhanan found in 2nd Samuel 21:19 and 1st Chronicles 20:5. Perhaps one reason why I tend to be a KJV Onlyist is that I found out about the way the two verses are rendered. I was thinking about how the KJV renders 2nd Samuel 21:19.

And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew [the brother of] Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. (KJV)

Notice that I placed the phrase "the brother of" in brackets because in the KJV - it's written in italics. If you ever wondered what the italics were for in the KJV - it's because they were meant to be added with the words that the scholar wanted to emphasize were not found in the manuscripts they worked with. The italics helped the bridge but they were probably in doubt.

So, what's the reason why 2nd Samuel 21:19 didn't have "the brother of" and was written instead in italics? Some assume that there was a copyist's mistake. Maybe, the KJV translators actually thought the same thing when they inserted the brother of because 1st Chronicles 20:5 reveals it. 

And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam. (KJV)

Quite interestingly, the modern versions also render it as such. I was thinking when the KJV translators were rendering it - they felt they needed to add "the brother of" in order to supply what could've been a blurred out phrase or torn out piece. I wonder if the KJV translators were probably unaware of the use of figures of speech. I mean, John the Baptist is called Elijah but he is not Elijah. Even John the Baptist confirmed he isn't Elijah (John 1:21). It's a figure of speech or a metaphor. Perhaps the writer of 2nd Samuel called Goliath's brother as Goliath as a metaphor. The KJV scholars probably inserted "the brother of" to avoid confusion. Though, they could've placed a marginal note it was meant to be a metaphor. Yet, I'm actually happy that the KJV translators actually decided to put the italics.

Then again, KJV Bibles still need footnotes because some parts don't use literal numbers. I switched from the NIV to the KJV and found myself having a harder time reading. I only went from NIV to KJV because a pastor whose preaching convinced me to get saved promoted KJV Only with comparisons. However, the KJV retains the non-literal renditions which can confuse anyone who doesn't know why they are rendered that way. Ahaziah was 22 but he was stated to be 42 because it was 42 years since the House of Omri got established. The other one also has it that Absalom's rebellion came after forty years when it was really four. Forty was used instead of the literal four to signify the time from David's anointing up to the time Absalom led the rebellion. A need to study literal and figurative is needed in studying the Bible.