spin

You're not. You're supposed to check what they say if you're interested enough. You trust the argument, not the speaker. If it checks out then it doesn't matter who says it.


spin

spin

It's nice and simple. The Assyrians talk about him as Gugu mat-Gugu, Gyges of the land of Gyges, ie Lydia. There is no evasion you can pull here. All you have to do is go and find a copy of the inscriptions of Ashurbanipal and check it out.

The text doesn't talk about Gog as from "the north country". It refers to Beth Togarmah as in the far north. Get a historical atlas which shows the state of Anatolia around 650 BCE. You'll see where the far north is.

You're changing the subject.


spin

ryanm

Thanks for the detailed reply spin. Since I am unfamiliar with Hebrew grammar I want to make sure I comprehend what you're saying. As I read you, nothing in the Hebrew text actually dictates that "Rosh" must be interpreted as a proper noun, correct? That is only in the Greek text? I want to make sure I have full justification for rejecting Rosenberg's claim that it is written as a proper name and not an adjective in the Masoretic text as meaningless and false, if that is in fact the case. When I get around to learning Hebrew I won't have to bug you guys, but in the meantime, thanks for the help.

Ryan

John Kesler

If the MT is so clear, then why does neither the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh nor the New JPS Tanakh transliterate "Rosh," instead opting for "chief"?

But let's assume that "the prince of Rosh," which the NIV lists as a possible variant in 38:2, is the correct rendering. So what? The whole Gog/Magog prophecy is an attempt to salvage Jeremiah's predicition that "tribes of the kingdoms of the north" (Jeremiah 1:14-15, see also 4:6, 6:1,22) would invade Judah, something which didn't happen. Ezekiel 38:14-states:

The onus is on the prophecy buffs to prove not only that "Rosh" should be a proper name, and that this proper name refers to Russia, but also to demonstrate that Ezekiel had any predictive abilities at all.

spin

Let's just look at this again:
Unlike English, Hebrew was written with some notion of sound related to letters. "Rus" should sound something like "roose" (where the "s" is pronounced as in "snake"). Such a pronunciation, if the Hebrew did refer to Rus, would be written RW$, but it isn't, so that should close the issue.

Note that I said "[t]he obvious reading", ie you would normally understand the text as indicated. There would be no reason for a Hebrew reader to assume that it meant any differently, so how would Rosenberg imagine that a reader could arrive at his desired reading? If there is no ordinary way, his desired reading is rubbish. And look at the two analogous examples I gave. Try going back and reading them with Rus instead to see how much sense they make, "spices of Rus" or "priest of Rus". It at the same level of nonsense as his desired reading.

I can't see any reason to read it as anything other than how it is normally read. That means not a proper noun.

A text is written to communicate its ideas. As this Hebrew text is written it communicates "head prince". A writer should have known and made it clear if the first readings were confused by his audience.

The Greek text is his basis, not the Hebrew. If the spelling of R)$, ie "head", didn't preclude the "Rus" reading, there'd still be no reason to read the Hebrew text as he desires.

You don't have to reject his case because the case hasn't been made.


spin

ryanm

Thanks spin. All other critical opinions I've read seem to agree with you. Apparently, the case is so weak for Rosenberg's reading that he really only makes it by appealing to the untrained ears of readers to hear the phonetic similarities between the English pronunciations of "rosh" and "Russia," when English shouldn't enter into the equation at all.

sugarhitman

"And you shall come from YOUR PLACE out of the NORTH PARTS." This is referring to Gog. Also in Ezekiel God tells us that this is he whom the prophets were writing about which appeared to be someone else. "I will bring you against My land, that the heathen may know me...." This is Aremegeddon which is lead against Jerusalem by "The Abomination who maketh Desolate".... the "Beast."

The beast of Revelation is not human. The phrase "chief prince" shows that Gog like Michael is an Angelic Prince...who is a rebel. He is an Angelic Prince who wars against God, Israel, and christians which confirms Paul's testimony:

"For we do not wrestle with flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places (the heavens)."


The Beast arises after Satan looses his war with Micael and is cast out into the earth Gog is the Beast the King of the North...Spiritual Prince of the current dominant power...the Europeans.

spin

Umm, Anatolia is relatively a long way north from Judea.

Revelation is irrelevant to understanding Ezekiel. Ezekiel might be relevant to Revelation, but not vice versa.

Based solely on your conjectures from the English translation, right?

Gyges of Lydia (Gog of Magog) is simply a king who was killed about 70 years before the reputed time of Ezekiel. Beasts and Satans and whatnot have nothing to do with him.


spin