You made a false statement.
Magog is not on any map.
Besides that, that Magog would be the Scythians is just one fringe theory.
The wiki article you yourself linked to makes it all too clear that there are other, more believable, identifications.
Sure, our friend has referenced many scholarly articles that prove his position. But I have more, better-informed, better-researched scholarly articles that show he’s wrong. Binders and binders full of great scholarly articles.
In other words, you have absolutely no reason to think they are using it, so are relying on anargument from ignorance fallacy with a side order ofburden of proof fallacy.
If I were to allege you were into sex with animals, do you think people should believe me until you prove me wrong, or do you think I should have to provide some evidence before people believe that claim? And what’s really depressing is you’re the second fervent Christian in two weeks to have the same issues with logic.
I never said that MAGOG was found on ancient maps, I said it has been proven to be in Russia by the DISCOVERY OF ANCIENT MAPS, which is NOT false.
My statement:
“Magog has been proven to be located where modern day Russia is located via archeological discoveries of ancient maps. Magog is Russia. Gog is a person who is either in control of Magog or is empowering the person in control of Magog. All of these things are easily provable with a little scholastic historical research and a little examination of the passages in the Bible, but truth is not what you’re looking for, an opportunity to demean the Bible and anyone who believes in it is. You’re a very shallow person. Perhaps you should move to another forum if you don’t have anything positive and/or factual to add.”
None of what I stated here is false. You just choose not to believe in the facts that I have presented here. There are thousands of theories, and citing an article that points this out does not damage my point that the facts, backed up by archeological discoveries and reviews of the map and Herodotus’ viability, is accurate, and in fact the most defendable position using these facts.
I’m not alleging anything, maybe you have a problem with comprehension. What I’ve done is ask for information that proves or disproves that Russia IS or IS NOT using lignostone in their hardware and whether lignostone would actually even be usable as military hardware. It’s called investigating the claim. Why do you hate research?
I’d sure like to see one of them there ancient maps showing the land mass of Russia and a legend identifying it as Magog. Yep, I’d really like that. Tell me, where can I see one?
I already provided it. You need to read
That is merely a statement of opinion until you provide some of them for review.
Identifying Russia with the Scythians is as silly as saying that England is the same as the Roman Empire, because the southern part of Britain was part of the Roman Empire.
It’s really, really silly. The Scythians vanished as a people. And Ancient Scythia covered what is now Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan and the Caucasus. Equating them with Russia is as silly as equating them with Afghanistan.
We’ve known for more than 2.500 years where Scythia is. Maybe you didn’t.
Please explain how a map with Scythia on it proves that it is Magog.
It doesn’t. All it does is show where Scythia is. Which we already knew.
You need to prove that Scythia is Magog. The map is immaterial.
(And also not archeological)
…
Also.
That Wiki article is far more ‘scholarly’ than the article by this minister.
Do you think it scholarly to just omit other theories and parts of the bible that do not fit your interpretation?
Maybe you are being takin in by catchy words like ANCIENT, ARCHAEOLOGY, SCHOLAR and the like?
Look I’m not saying the Scythian theory is that far fetched. After all, the Kimmerians must have been quite a shock, rampaging through powerful, established empires. Plus the Scythians did defeat a Persian invasion.
Could well be that the author of this chapter had the Scythians in mind to threaten those who did not heed his words.
But there are more places where Gog and Magog are mentioned, or replaced, that do not fit the picture so neatly.
Every prophecy in the Book of Daniel. Various incidents in Daniel were written as tales in the Third century B.C.E. and the stories were compiled into a single work in the Second century B.C.E. It was compiled as if it had been written hundreds of years earlier, but it was not. So its predictions about Third and Second century events were simply efforts to make it appear that those recent events had been predicted earlier.
It is not accurate that the association of Magog with Scythia is “fringe.” It is actually can be traced to an explicit statement by Josephus.
(Of course, relying on Josephus has its own problems. Prior to the statement by Josephus, (which was subsequently adopted by the majority of Jewish and Christian writers over the next couple of millennia–taking it out of fringe belief, but without actual evidence to support it), it had been identified with multiple other places in both Africa and western Asia. The reality is that the Ezekiel never identifies the location of Magog and that any chosen location is speculative.)
I like how my posts enjoy links to scholarly articles and are scoffed at as “silly” by people who haven’t posted a single shred of evidence to the contrary and rely solely upon their feelings without evidence as fact. It’s even funnier when these same people belittle me for having faith as a Christian. These people exercise and display greater faith in their fact-less presuppositions than I do in my own opinions based on cited scholarly articles. No amount of evidence will be sufficient and no evidence will be solid enough for these who willfully choose to exercise their faith in place of science.
Did you read the article at all? Are you basing your argument on belief?
The Scythians
We know the descendants of Magog by their Greek designation as the Scythians (depicted in their legends as descending from Scythes , the youngest of the three sons of Heracles, from sleeping with a half viper and half woman). 18 The name Scythian designates a number of nomadic tribes from the Russian steppes, one group of which invaded the Near East in the 8th and 7th centuries B.C. After being repulsed from Media, many of the later Scyths settled in the fertile area of the Ukraine north of the Black Sea. Other related tribes occupied the area to the east of the Caspian Sea.
Herodotus describes them living in Scythia (i.e., the territory north of the Black Sea). He describes Scythia as a square, 20 days journey (360 miles) on a side. It encompassed the lower reaches of the Dniester, Bug, Dnieper, and Don Rivers where they flow into the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. 19
The Scythian language belonged to the Iranian family of the Indo-European languages.20 The Ossetian dialect of central Caucasus appears to be a survivor.21 The original area in which Iranian was spoken extended from the mid-Volga and the Don regions to the northern Urals and beyond. From here, Iranian-speaking tribes colonized Media, Parthia, Persia, Central Asia, and as far as the Chinese border.
In the 7th century B.C. the Scythians swept across the area, displacing the Cimmerians from the steppes of the Ukraine east of Dnieper River, who fled from them across the Caucasus.22 It is provocative that even the name “Caucasus” appears to have been derived from Gog-hasan, or "Gog’s Fort."23
The hippomolgoi (“mare-milkers”) mentioned in Homer’s Iliad 24 were equestrian nomads of the northern steppes and several authorities also identified these with the Scythians. 25 [One of the delicacies I was presented with when I was being hosted by the Deputy Chairman of the Soviet Union was fermented horse milk! These traditions may have a deep history, indeed.]
- It is interesting to notice how frequently a woman is linked with a serpent: Genesis 3; the legends surrounding the birth of Alexander the Great, etc.
- B.A. Rybakov (Rus: Herodotus’s Scythia ), Nauka, Moscow, 1979, p. 19.
- See R. G. Kent, Old Persian, 2nd ed., American Oriental Society, New Haven CT, 1953, p. 6; J. Potratz, Die Skythen in Sudrussland , Raggi, Basel, 1963, p.17.
- See “Scythian”(Rus: Great Soviet Encylopedia ), 3rd ed., 1979, vol 23, pp.259-260. Also, Herodotus 4.117, 4.108, 4.106.
- Herodotus 4.12.
- Dr. John Gill, A Commentary on the Old Testament, 1748.
- Iliad, 13.5.
- B.N. Grakov, Die Skythen , Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1980, p.4.
Subsequent to this, he stated that based on the Qumran manuscripts, “there can no longer be any possible reason for considering the book as a Maccabean product” (Harrison 1979:862). The most recent publications of Daniel manuscripts confirm this conclusion.
meh
His logic is flawed.
It is more likely that a newly created work would have more copies as it would be perceived as a “popular” work to be passed around while those books considered Scripture would tend to be limited to special scrolls maintained in religious houses.
Regardless of that argument, it remains true that there is no extra-scriptural work prior to 200 hundred B.C.E. that quotes any portion of Daniel. There is no list of books prior to 200 that mentions Daniel. Daniel uses words, particularly Persian words, that would not have been known at the time of the Babylonian Captivity which preceded the Persian overthrow of Babylon and further employs Greek words that were not even coined at the time of the Babylonian Captivity. (It would be similar to finding a 16th century manuscript in Russian referring to a Moog Synthesizer or referring to a guitar with the English word “axe.”)
Your scholar is reaching (and omitting actual information) in order to defend a long-discredited belief.
The following post contains minor witnessing
I believe in G-d. I feel His presence and guidance in my daily life. I wear a yarmulke. I eat kosher food. I do other Jewish stuff.
I also believe that the prophetic portion of Daniel is an ancient fraud. Tomndeb has already stated the reasons.