You appear to have missed the centralm point of what I said. Ezekiel 38:1 does not say that God is a king of Magog. It says he is "of the land of Magog. Thus, the point is not who are the modern descendants of Magog, but where did Magog live. And history is very plain that the land of Magog was the grasslands north of the Black Sea, that is, basically the Ukrane, but it also included much of the southern portion of today's Russia.
I'm sorry that I missed your point. I understand what you say now, about the reference being to the
land of Magog, not the people. Still, if these people were displaced in the 11th century AD (long
after the writing of the prophet, and long
before today), what makes you certain that it isn't talking about the locations where they lived originally?
Also, you disregarded
my point. From what you say, the "land of Magog" can mean any nation that shares borders with the extinct Scythian civilization. In addition to Russia, that could also be the Ukraine, any nation in the Caucasus mountain area, even many of the central-Asian nations. I don't think it's academically honest to settle on Russia. But you
could be right.
Again, you seem to have missed the point. The central thrust of my inquiry was to determine whether or not the common conception that this passage was about Russia was correct. The question I adressed was, "it is well known that this is commonly believed to refer to Russia, but is this correct?"
I understand you now. You were just checking the hypothesis against the Biblical facts. I just thought, from what you said before, that you started your investigation from a "clean slate," without looking at
any of the common theories. Here's the thing -- every theory for anything has some support. Otherwise, nobody would believe it. The people who say that the moon landings were faked also see things that point to that conclusion, and there are many of those who believe. The point is that it is relatively easy to prop up
any kind of theory with little bits of "evidence." That's why there exist ideas about references to aliens in the Bible. I'm looking for things more concrete for the idea that Russia will invade Israel, rather than phonetic similarity of some words, etc.
Again, you seem to have completely missed the point. The actual historical data is that Meshech and Tubal occupied the eastern portion of Asia Minor until the Turkish Invasion of 1050, when they fled in mass into the regions to the north. Armenian literature piblished during the next 100 or so years was almost all written in various locations north of the Black sea. This is unquestionable history. What is also unquestionable is that no name resembling either Meshech or Tubal occurs in any Russian chronicle earlier that about 100 years after this migration.
Tobolsk was founded by Russian cossacks at the end of the sixteenth century. The fact of who founded it (
not Scythian tribes) and when (550 years
after the Scythian migration) demonstrates to me that this is an independent occurrence. The only evidence that has been brought up to link Tobolsk to Tubal is the similarity in names
in English (irrelevant at best).
Like I've been saying, when someone wants to pull this kind of "evidence" together, they will succeed with enough creativity. Watch this:
I propose that the State of Oregon will invade Israel. Meschech sounds very similar to
Meacham, OR. And Tubal sounds dead-close to
Tumalo, OR. Seriously, of course I don't believe this "idea," but the point is that there are many geographic locations in Russia (many, many more than in Oregon). Statistically, it is a
100% certainty that you will find two cities which sound similar to Meschech and Tubal (or Fuval, as in the Russian Bible).
The similarity of names would not be highly significant without the historical data I have cited, But coupled with this historical data, it is indeed significant.
No, it absolutely is
not. The reason I'm so insistent on this is that every language has its own pronunciation and even entirely different names. I don't know if you speak any other languages besides English (it helps to give perspective), but I can see the huge differences in the way that just the Biblical names are written and spoken. I have countless examples of names for the same place which are completely different in different languages. I doubt that God favors the English language over the Russian, German, or Hebrew. The "connection" which an English-speaker makes with words like "Tubal" or "Rosh" are lost in the next language. This demonstrates that this "word match" game isn't a divine inspiration, but a coincidental quirk of the English translation. I really hope you accept that, because, to a great degree, this whole theory which you champion rides on this concept.
I am quite aware that Moscheviska is only a small city in Russia. But that is how the Russian read the Russian Bible to me. As to the word Tubal, all I know is how a citizen of Russia read this to me from a Russian Bible. And He distincly pronounced our English Tubal in Ezekiel 38:2 as Toboliska.
I know we were talking about Meschovsk before, but "Moscheviska" doesn't produce a single hit with Google (so I'm not sure what you mean). And I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but your friend has no idea what he's talking about. Maybe he was playing with you, since "Toboliska" isn't a Russian location, nor is it any kind of Russian word.
Anyway, it insults me to not be trusted, one Christian to another. Here, if you can't take my word for it, see for yourself:
Ezekiel 38:2-3 in Russian. Notice where it has the word "Фувала?" That transliterates into the latin alphabet as "Fuvala" ("Ф" is the cyrillic "F," and "В" is the cyrillic "V"). I'll reiterate -- "Fuval" sounds nothing like "Tobolsk." Like they say in fictional stories, any similarity is purely coincidental. This is important, because this similarity is the most solid support for the theory which we're discussing.
In case you think I'm making stuff up,
here, actually listen to it in Russian. At the 8-9 second mark, he begins reading verse 2. At the 14 second mark, he lists Rosh, Meshech and Tubal, sounds like "Rosha, Meschecha i Fuvala" (and it is repeated from verse 3 at 24 seconds). Please tell me, does that sound like "Meschovsk" and "Tobolsk," like you said it sounded before? Without any funny business, now, truthfully.
His specific explanation of this was "Rosh is people, Rosha is country."
Like I said before, I am offended that you seem to distrust me in my knowledge of Russian or in my ability to read. What he should've said (probably did, but maybe you misunderstood him) was that "Rosh" refers to an entity in the
nominative case, and "Rosha" is still Rosh but in the
accusative case, because it is talking to the prince
of Rosh (implies possession).
And I'll say it again. "Russia" is only pronounced "rush-uh" in the
English language. In Russian, it sounds like "ros-see-ya." In German, it is called "rus-land." Neither in Russian nor in German is there a "
sh" sound in the word. I don't know how it is pronounced in any other language, but that should be indicative -- of the three languages here, only in one does it sound the least bit similar to "Rosh." And like I said before, I doubt that God would only open the truth to the English-speaking world by relying on English-pronunciation specifics in His text.
But you do not appear to be aware that the ancient Hebrew, in which Ezekiel was written, did not contain any vowels at all in the original Hebrew text, this name was only Rsh.
You're right, I wasn't aware of that. But if that's actually true, then you're making my point for me. If the only letters which originally existed in the text were RSH, then there is no way to now how RSH actually sounded. Maybe it was "Iresh." It could even be "Aureash." That undermines the connection that people are making to the
English name for Russia even farther.
You seem to be now exposing the basis of your argument. You do not waht Rosh to mean the Rus., so you are doing exactly what you accused me of, trying to make the Bible mean whatever you want it to mean.
If you'll notice, I haven't brought forward a
single hypothesis on these prophecies. I think the safe thing is to remain neutral and not claim to speak for God. That way, when these things start to unfold, we'll be able to see them with a clear mind. But if we stick "religiously" to a specific theory of our own creative imagination, we (Christians)
might wind up looking in the wrong direction and be taken by surprise.
Frankly, my only point is that we can't be dogmatic about who, when, etc. will fulfill the prophecies of the Bible. I
do admit that I don't want foreigners to think of my people as an "evil race" (especially being blamed for doing something that hasn't occurred yet). If you are an American patriot, I'm sure you feel the same thing about your country. I leave the possibility of a Russian invasion of Israel open, but I think the Scripture is vague enough and the evidence is sparse enough that
one can't treat this as the one true interpetation. Only time will tell. That's my understanding.
Without a reference, I cannot comment on this, but I find no such name anywhere in Genesis.
Genesis 46:21 names Rosh as one of Benjamin's sons.
The earliest case of this that I personally know about was a sermon by Patriarch Proclus of Constanople written between 434 and 447. (see Nicephorus Kallistus, XIV, 37) So this has nothing to do with modern politics.
I cannot find that text on the internet. Please, if you know where it is, send me a link. Seeing as how the Russians didn't even exist in the fifth century, there is no way that it could be a reference to them. As I've understood, the idea that Russia is Gog was the brainchild of Hal Lindsey in the 1970s. And that definitely was politically motivated.
I'm sure that you have no political / nationalistic reasons to propagate this subject, but unfortunately, it still leaves a trace of xenophobia on the minds of many people who hear it. I know that the majority of American evangelicals are distrustful of Europeans, especially Russians, and theories such as the one we're discussing cement those kinds of sentiments. I've personally been on the receiving end of hate for being "one of those Russians," because everyone knows that we're conniving and evil.
Althjough Keltish peoples are widely spread, there can be no doubt that most od Western Europe, and through them most of the United States, Canada, and Australia are Keltish in their origins.
Like you say, these people are spread out by now to every corner in the world. The same with any other civilization. The world has become very connected, and it's not realistic to expect any nationality to stay within a certain border. That's why I think it's hard to know for sure which countries these are.
I reject this idea as totally incorrect. I agree that much of Bible prophecy is written in symbiolic language that can be interpreted in a variety of ways. But much of it was also written in clearly stated language that was internded to be understood. Take, for example, the prophecies about the first coming of Jesus. Every one of them was clearly stated in explicit language, and every one was literally fulfilles exactly as stated.
As for the first coming of Christ, that is the perfect example of people blinded by pre-conceived ideas. The Jewish people added some things to their perception of the Messiah that the Bible didn't specify. As a result, they
couldn't recognize the Savior whom they awaited so long. I'm sure that the same could be true in this case. People have an idea about the anti-Christ, the mark of the Beast, etc. and they might completely miss it if they're expecting a very specific reinterpretation of the Scripture. Look at what
hiscosmicgoldfish says above. I think that he also realizes that a Christian can't be insistent on one specific viewpoint. Especially, I think, a dangerously-propped-up idea like the "Russian invasion of Israel."
I will give you an example: whom does the rider on the white horse in Revelation 6:2 represent? I've heard
cosmically contradictory accounts -- some say that this is an image of Christ, others say it's the anti-Christ. And this is only one verse! I'd like to believe that everything is so easy to understand in the Bible, but the facts show otherwise. I've wondered about why Christianity is spit up into so many different denominations (I heard that there are about 1700 distinct Christian denominations). Isn't Christ's Church supposed to be one entity? But throughout history, Christians have even resorted to war to settle who understands the Bible more correctly.
The point is that there
definitely is no consensus on many things. Not just doctrine, but prophecy too.
I agree that most of them are wrong, and come from assumptions about the meanings of what the Bible sdays, rather than by careful study of what it actually says. But I will note here that whiule it clearly says that Russia will invade Israel, it just as clearly says that basically the entire modern world will come with them. (Chgina and Japan are not explicitly mantiones, but it does explicitly say that "many others" will come with them.
Well, for me personally, there still isn't enough evidence to draw a detailed picture of the scenario. It just seems that this idea employs mostly suspicion, speculation, coincidental phonetic similarities and a good deal of russophobia / popular Western demagogical belief.
I, too, wholly reject the scenario presented in the Left Behind Series.
This series puts the Russian invasion at the beginning and wholly omits the central (human) figure of end time prophecy, namely, "the Assyrian."
Please briefly explain "the Assyrian."
I think every politician in the world leaves his conscience and morals at the door when they come to work. We can't do anything to change that. But being corrupt is a long way to being the anti-Christ. 
