ryanm

Hi all,

I apologize ahead of time if this topic has been hashed out elsewhere, but I have searched the forums and haven't been able to find specific answers to these questions.

Knowing that I am no longer a believer in Christianity, my parents have been foisting upon me the evangelical interpretation of Ezekiel 38 via the work of Joel C. Rosenberg, author of Epicenter (or via: amazon.co.uk), etc. I humored them and read his book, and then in good skeptic fashion I searched out the opposing viewpoint to get a fuller picture (which interestingly often comes from other Christians). However, I wasn't able to find but a few (though helpful) resources, so if anyone knows of extensive, scholarly writings on the interpretations of Gog of Magog, "Rosh", Meshech, Tubal, etc., I would greatly appreciate a reference.

Two questions I have at the moment are in response to claims made by Rosenberg regarding the meaning of "Rosh", and the history of the Scythians:

1. In Epicenter Rosenberg asserts that "Rosh" should be interpreted as a proper name, not a noun meaning "head" or "prince." As evidence of this he claims that both the Septuagint and Masoretic texts render the word as a proper noun, so obviously the scholars who compiled these texts believed that it should be rendered as such. Is this actually the case? How good of an argument is this against the proposal that "Rosh" should be read as it always is, i.e. as head or prince? He also quotes William Genesius (whom he labels as the father of modern Hebrew lexicography) as apparently supporting his interpretation.

2. Rosenberg also attempts to tie the Scythians to both the Magoggites(via a quote by Josephus), and the modern day Russians (via a trip to a Russian museum in which he and his father see multiple Scythian artifacts on display). Regarding the first claim, I am completely ignorant as I have not devoted any time to the issue. Regarding the second claim, I remember reading on an internet page (sorry I don't have the link at the moment) that the Scythians were actually destroyed/conquered by the Rus people and are NOT ancestors of the modern day Russians. Is there any truth to this?

If someone could please elucidate the history here, I would be very grateful.

Thanks,
Ryan

Toto

There are people here who spend more time on debunking prophecies than I have the patience for.

Check out the 1-star Amazon review by F. Martin, who says he is an evangelical pastor.

Oh, and welcome to the forums!

spin

Try this as a starter.


spin

ryanm

Thanks for the info guys.

Spin, I had actually come across that post of yours earlier and found it very informative. There is obviously a lot of history there that can be studied in depth. However, I'm wondering if you know anything specific regarding the two questions above. I find it odd that the authors of both the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts would interpret such a well known word as "Rosh" as a proper noun if there wasn't some tradition that that's what it meant. Since I don't know Hebrew, I can't comment on whether this claim of Rosenberg's is actually correct, but perhaps someone does? Also, his whole point that the Magoggites turned into the Scythians turned into the Russians would be exposed as false if it is in fact true that the Scythians were driven out of the region or displaced by some other people that actually came to inhabit modern-day Russia. Any comments on this would be helpful.

Thanks guys,
Ryan

sugarhitman

Nobody knows who this person is the KJV has "THE CHIEF PRINCE" who comes from the north country. One thing is certain though he is "the Abomination that causes Desolation" in Daniel "the king of the North" "the prince who is to come" "the Anti-Christ" "The Beast" "Man of Sin" "Son of Perdition" oh he goes by many names. There are clues to his indentity such as in Daniel that he is a prince of a people that destroys the second Temple and restored nation of Israel "and the people of the PRINCE WHO SHALL COME SHALL DESTROY THE SANCTUARY AND CITY." He comes out of the divided fourth kingdom of Daniel which is Rome who fell into the divided powers of Europe it appears that he will be a European (he may be a prince of Europe that is an angelic prince because in Revelation he is clearly not human Paul says our fight is not against human beings but "princes and principalities spiritual wickedness who resides in the heavenly places" In Revelation he comes out of the "Bottomless Pit" a prison for fallen angels. The bible tells us that "it is appointed for men to die once but after this The Judgement" the Beast of Revelation does not face judgement but is immediately cast into the lake of fire which is "prepared for the Devil and his angels" he also is healed of a deadly wound....he is not human. Gabriel in Daniel gives us a glimpse of such princes such as "Prince of Persia" and "Prince of Grecia" "Michael one of the chief princes" "Michael the great prince which stand for the children of your people" (Michael is an angel that represents Israel) this chief prince may indeed be an angelic prince of Europe (and a new Global Government) who will come as a man.


Many have tried to indentify this person. Some say Bush, others say Obama and it gets more absurd for not only is he not human but Paul says he will not be revealed until there come "a falling away first" that is after Christianity has been rejected worldwide its warnings and prophecies forsaken the Beast will then be able to come upon the scene with no fear of being discovered or indentified. As long as "biblical" Christianity riegns or has a significant following he cannot appear because he would be easily exposed, this is why there must be a falling away first ( i.e. the christian religion has got to go)from the christian Truth before he can appear. Paul says the mystery of iniquity was already at work in his day which is the power of Satan working to destroy (or rather suppress) the Truth preparing the world for the false messiah....The "Chief Prince."


I hopes this helps and cause you to study and not to simply "humor" your parents.

ryanm

I have studied many prophecy issues fairly extensively and have come to the conclusion that in no cases are they truly identifiable as prophecy (in the accurately predictive sense). That is why I said that I am "humoring" my parents. I don't have the time to devote to every single apologetic attempt at rescuing failed prophecies that usually fail because they are not reliably dateable, or they simply do not say what fundamentalist Christians would like you to believe they say.

Concerning Daniel, I have been entirely persuaded that the current scholarly dating of ~164 BC is accurate. I've read many debates on this website between you and spin, as well as others, and I think the case for an earlier date is very weak when 164 works so well with what we know about Antiochus IV and the Jewish milieu. If it's not broke don't fix it. Also, I think a very good case can be made that the figure "healed of a deadly wound" in Revelation (associated with the number 666) is Nero returned from the dead. At any rate, I'm not here to let this turn into a debate about Daniel or Revelation, I'm simply looking for some good historical facts concerning my earlier questions. I'm happy to take those answers from whoever has some good solid information. Thanks again,

Ryan

Ben C Smith

This seems strange. I thought the Masoretic was the text whose rosh was in question. If so (and I welcome correction), then claiming that it interprets rosh as a proper noun would be presuming what is to be proved.

This rosh confusion may be paralleled in Luke 3.27, where we have a Rhesa named, but this Rhesa may instead have originally been rhesa, the Aramaic for prince. (Note that the word son in some of the English translations is added; the Greek list simply gives Joanan of Rhesa of Zerubbabel, which could just as easily have been Joanan of the prince Zerubbabel in Aramaic).

Ben.

Kharakov

How do you take any of these historians seriously? Even Spin's well written blurb could be an assembled collection of agreed upon bullshit foisted upon the masses as truth (anyone hear of a collection of books known as "The Bible"?).

Perhaps I need to start a new thread so someone can explain how historical accuracy is agreed upon, considering the amount of bullshit information put forth by many "historical" scholars?

ryanm

That's a good question and obviously a very important one that leads into larger questions about epistemology. However, it's not one that I am really concerned with here, as I have confidence that truth is approximated increasingly well in the academic world. I agree with you that there is a real (but usually negligibly small) possibility that all scholars have been duped into believing bullshit. However, I think the clue to the answer is in our question. There really must be a REASON to "foist lies upon the masses." I admit that I may be wrong, but as I whole, most scholars who devote there lives to learning and investigation are also devoted to finding out the truth. Sure, any one scholar may have opinions about history that have been misguided by ideological motivations, but on average these biases should cancel out and the truth should be visible among the noise of individual opinion. This is the case with evolution for instance. Scientists may quibble about the relative importance of this or that mechanism (e.g. genetic drift versus natural selection), but the vast majority agree that evolution itself, and the observable facts confirming it, are readily apparent and really not debatable. Having said all this, large scale ideological motivations or biases such as religious beliefs CAN have an effect on the outcome of research within groups of precommitted scholars. That's why one must know one's source, and, can reasonably trust one's source if there is reason to believe that biases have been neutralized by a large enough consensus. I hope this helps.

spin

The Hebrew for "head" here is R)$ [resh alef shin]. For the word to refer to Russia, ie Rus, it would have to be RW$ [resh waw shin] -- the "u" of Rus is long, so the vowel would have to be indicated clearly in the Hebrew with a waw.

Just as "head" can be used in English as an adjective, eg "head chef" or "head office", the Hebrew word R)$ can also be used that way as well, eg "principal spices", B$MYM R)$ Ex 30:23, or "head priest", KHN R)$ 1 Chr 27:5. The obvious reading of Ez 38:3,

GWG N$Y) R)$ M$K W:TBL

is

Gog, head prince of Meshech and Tubal.

and this is how the Vulgate understood the phrase:

Gog principem capitis Mosoch et Thubal

However, the issue gets complicated because the Alexandrian Greek text has

gwg arconta rws mosox kai Qobel

ie

Gog, leader [of] Ros, Mosoch and Thobel

and the Hebrew R)$ hasn't been translated, but transliterated as with proper names, so we must assume your Rosenberg is relying not on the Hebrew, but on the Greek. The Greek rws with its long vowel better reflects the fellows reading.

It is the Greek translator who has turned rosh into rws by lengthening the vowel. It's not supported by the original Hebrew, so one can see that the translator didn't understand exactly what he was translating here.

This reading based on the Greek has Ros as just one of the countries that Gog would be the leader of. He would then have to justify his arbitrary approach, singling out the one name, Ros, and forgetting the others. We know according to him what Ros is but what about Meshech and Tubal?

Meshech and Tubal are both Anatolian realms, just as Magog [<- mat-gugi], the land of Gog, ie Lydia, is, and Gomer, the Cimmerians, were established there. These references are well known from antiquity. However, rws doesn't fit the context in that it is not known to have meant anything at the time, while the Hebrew text was easily understandable. This means the Greek text is incoherent in this matter and your writer is apparently a cold war warrior pushing this non sequitur about Russia when the original writer was dealing with allusions based in Anatolia.


spin