Russian military's use of Lignostone

[Ageranger361]

Herodotus describes them as living in the territory north of the Black Sea, and that they terrorized the southern steppes of Russia beginning in the 10th century BC. He supposed the word Scythian meant “father.” Perhaps he was correct, as the name Scythian is a derivative of Ashkenaz, who was the father of the Scythians. Numerous archaeological discoveries have confirmed Herodotus’ reports in general, and his Scythian accounts in particular.

He also wrote that “the wandering Scythians once dwelt in Asia, and there warred with the Massagetae (Magogites), but with ill success; they therefore quitted their homes, crossed the Araxes (Volga) river, and entered the land of Cimmeria.” Historical records indicate that in the 7th century BC tribes of Scythians swept across the Caucasus mountains displacing the Cimmerians (Gomerites). Flavius Josephus, Jewish and Roman historian, continued with that reference in the 1st century AD, when he records that Magogites (Magogians) were called “Scythians” by the Greeks. He also recorded that “Magogia” was the Greek name for the ancient city of Scythia. Philo Judaeus (Philo of Alexandria), famous Greek and Jewish philosopher in the 1st century AD, also identified Magog with southern Russia.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Ageranger361

Yes, but those are cited theologically to those on this forum whom identify themselves as either believers of “Jewish,” or “Christian,” faiths. This was included to show the presence of a problem for them in their own theological beliefs.

Then perhaps I should have made my earlier query more clear: what is the gold standard of biblical prophecy that one might use to convince someone who has not yet seen evidence that biblical prophecy actually exists?

[Ravenman]

Ageranger – let’s say I conclusively prove that Russia is not using any wood laminates in its weapons systems. What are the biblical consequences of this?

[Latro]

@Ageranger361

Greek Designation of Magog as 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”

Direct Assignment by Hesiod:
Hesiod, ‘‘the father of Greek didactic poetry,’’ identified Magog with the Scythians and southern Russia in the 7th century B.C. (Hesiods writings precede the Book of Ezekiel.)

Direct Assignment by the Greeks through Herodotus:
Herodotus of Harlicarnassus, known as the ‘‘Father of History,’’ wrote extensively about the descendants of Magog by their Greek name, the Scythians, in the 5th century B.C. Flavius Josephus records that Magogians were called ‘‘Scythians’’ by the Greeks. Philo, in the 1st century, identifies Magog with southern Russia.

Thank you.

However, I can find no mention in Hesiodos nor Herodotos of any Magog. They just speak of the Scythians.

The Josephus reference is indeed there:

Japhet, the son of Noah, had seven sons: they inhabited so, that, beginning at the mountains Taurus and Amanus, they proceeded along Asia, as far as the river Tansis, and along Europe to Cadiz; and settling themselves on the lands which they light upon, which none had inhabited before, they called the nations by their own names. For Gomer founded those whom the Greeks now call Galatians, [Galls,] but were then called Gomerites.** Magog founded those that from him were named Magogites, but who are by the Greeks called Scythians.** Now as to Javan and Madai, the sons of Japhet; from Madai came the Madeans, who are called Medes, by the Greeks; but from Javan, Ionia, and all the Grecians, are derived. Thobel founded the Thobelites, who are now called Iberes; and the Mosocheni were founded by Mosoch; now they are Cappadocians. There is also a mark of their ancient denomination still to be shown; for there is even now among them a city called Mazaca, which may inform those that are able to understand, that so was the entire nation once called. Thiras also called those whom he ruled over Thirasians; but the Greeks changed the name into Thracians.

I could not find any mention of Magog by Philo.

Could you please cite the passages about Magog in Philo, Herodotos and Hesiodos?

[tomndebb]

@Ageranger361

I think this author sufficiently addresses all the typical arguments for an early Danielic writing which you seem to be arguing one of, so I won’t bother recreating the wheel here. Here’s a link:

Authorship of Daniel | Evidence Unseen

I am really sorry that you find that article in any was persuasive.

If we deny Daniel’s authorship, then this places us in the uncomfortable position of calling this author a liar and a fraud.

No. We note that the pre-Enlightenment texts of history, biography, and religious instruction used different criteria regarding declarations of fact and authorship.

*Second, Jesus Christ believed that Daniel was a prophet and the historical author of this book. *

No, again. We see that Jesus of Nazareth accepted the Book of Daniel as prophetic, while not changing anything in regard to the previous point that authorship was treated with different rules at that time.

Third, Ezekiel—a contemporary prophet—believed in a historical Daniel.

No. We see that Ezekiel was aware of a prophet named Daniel. The fact that we have no writings from the Daniel who was a contemporary of Ezekiel meant that his name was available to be applied to a later text. Ezekiel does not ever quote from the Book of Daniel, so there is no evidence that Ezekiel knew of any such book–only of a person named Daniel.

Fourth, Josephus—a first century Jewish and Roman historian—believed that Daniel was a prophet and a historical person.

Finally, a potential piece of genuine evidence.
Unfortunately, what Josephus believed is not persuasive. The Jewish Encyclopedia notes that the story in Josephus is “fantastic” and noted the similar (and later) events that were probably conflated with the story of Alexander’s trip to Jerusalem by the time that Josephus was writing. And the account of Josephus is not supported by any other author.

Fifth, the author of 1 Maccabees believed Daniel was a historical person.

That someone in the second century happened to believe in the existence of a person about whom stories were told in the third century does not prove the existence of that person hundreds of years earlier. Lots of people grew up thinking that George Washington actually chopped down his father’s cherry tree and owned up to it. That did not mean that the event happened. Lots of people still think that Columbus “proved” that the Earth was round against the opinions of the scholars of Europe, when that lie was only invented in the early 19th century.

*Sixth, 1 Enoch cites Daniel. *

Someone from 150 writing a description of a couple of lines similar, not identical, to a description written within the previous 80 years and compiled roughly 20 years earlier is not exactly what one would consider evidence of events several hundred years earlier.

Seventh, historical evidence supports an early dating of Daniel.

No. Historical evidence indicates that the author of Daniel was aware of history and chose to include bits of history in his story to make it appear older than it was.

Eighth, literary evidence supports an early dating of Daniel.

This is silly. Literary evidence indicates the exact opposite. (Have you seen any references to a musician playing his axe in Shakespeare?)

Rochford’s last three claims are all examples of special pleading that provide no genuine evidence for an earlier creation of the book:
[ul]
[li]He says that Daniel appears among the Kethuvim rather than among the Nevi’im because Daniel’s career was not that of a prophet. (Leaving aside the earlier argument that Ezekiel identified someone named Daniel as a prophet), this argument is little more than rationalization with no evidence to support it.[/li][li]He claims that Daniel would have known so much about the Maccabaean revolt because God inspired in him the information to write that history. [/li]meh
(It seems that God might have spent more effort letting him know about the revolt of 67, but whatever.)
[li]He claims that later theology has pervaded earlier books in the bible, but his examples are false. Angels appear throughout the Hebrew bible, but the way they are portrayed in Daniel does not match their portrayal in earlier works. The references to “resurrection” that Rochford cites do not refer to the same phenomenon of resurrection that appears in works of the second century and do not have the same meaning–he is playing word games. His reference to the Jesus/Messiah issue is really irrelevant. It is a Christian theological argument (that has its own problems), but it does not actually address the objection of anachronistic language and ideas.[/li][/ul]

You (and Rochford) are welcome to your beliefs, but they are simply not persuasive.

[tomndebb]

@Ageranger361

Herodotus describes them as living in the territory north of the Black Sea, and that they terrorized the southern steppes of Russia beginning in the 10th century BC. He supposed the word Scythian meant “father.” Perhaps he was correct, as the name Scythian is a derivative of Ashkenaz, who was the father of the Scythians. Numerous archaeological discoveries have confirmed Herodotus’ reports in general, and his Scythian accounts in particular.

With no reference by Herodotus to Magog, this is irrelevant. Lots of people in the nineteenth century tried to find associations between the Lost Tribes of Israel and the peoples of the Americas, but no such association existed, regardless of their beliefs.

@Ageranger361

He also wrote that “the wandering Scythians once dwelt in Asia, and there warred with the Massagetae (Magogites), but with ill success; they therefore quitted their homes, crossed the Araxes (Volga) river, and entered the land of Cimmeria.” Historical records indicate that in the 7th century BC tribes of Scythians swept across the Caucasus mountains displacing the Cimmerians (Gomerites). Flavius Josephus, Jewish and Roman historian, continued with that reference in the 1st century AD, when he records that Magogites (Magogians) were called “Scythians” by the Greeks. He also recorded that “Magogia” was the Greek name for the ancient city of Scythia. Philo Judaeus (Philo of Alexandria), famous Greek and Jewish philosopher in the 1st century AD, also identified Magog with southern Russia.

Again, people in the first century C.E. making claims about the origins of people hundreds of years earlier are not relevant unless you can identify an earlier association.

What you have is:
the presence of Scythians in what is now southern Russia;
one or two unsubstantiated claims from the first century identifying Scythians with Magog without any single reference to the Scythians as Magog from the tenth century B.C.E. to the first century C.E.
The claim of Josephus is as reliable as the claim of James Adair, (or of Joseph Smith), that the American Indians were the descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel.

I’ll grant you Scythians. You need to provide a better claim for Magog.

[Lemur866]

Yes, there were people that we now call “Scythians”. Yes, they lived in what is now part of Russia, as well as other places.

That doesn’t make the Russians into Scythians.

You know that for a time the Moors invaded Spain, right? They lived in Spain. If someone made a prophecy that the Moors were going to attack Israel, would you interpret that prophecy to mean that Spain was going to attack Israel?

The Moors used to live in Spain, but the current Spanish people are not Moors. The Moorish kingdoms were conquered by Christians and the Moors were expelled or assimilated. Spain is not Moorish, despite the fact that Moorish kingdoms used to exist in the Iberian peninsula.

The fact that the Russian Federation currently exists on the same geographic region that the ancient Scythians used to live doesn’t make them the same people, any more than Americans are the same as the Cherokee or the English are the same as the Romans. Lots of different people have lived on the central asian steppes, and the country most co-extensive with the former homeland of the Scythians is actually what is now Kazakhstan, not what is now Russia. If only you had posted this back when both Russia and Kazakhstan were both part of the Soviet Union!

[Ageranger361]

@Bryan_Ekers

Then perhaps I should have made my earlier query more clear: what is the gold standard of biblical prophecy that one might use to convince someone who has not yet seen evidence that biblical prophecy actually exists?

I was writing those points to those who already have an established set of beliefs as Jews and Christians. Obviously, if you don’t believe in Christ or the Prophets these points are meaningless to you and you should disregard them. However, if you are of the belief that Christ is truly the Messiah and Lord and Savior, or that the Prophets were truly inspired by the Holy Spirit to write these prophesies, then it presents a problem that needs to be reconciled in your beliefs somehow, either by a change of beliefs or by some new revelation from the scripture.

[Ageranger361]

@Lemur866

Yes, there were people that we now call “Scythians”. Yes, they lived in what is now part of Russia, as well as other places.

That doesn’t make the Russians into Scythians.

You know that for a time the Moors invaded Spain, right? They lived in Spain. If someone made a prophecy that the Moors were going to attack Israel, would you interpret that prophecy to mean that Spain was going to attack Israel?

The Moors used to live in Spain, but the current Spanish people are not Moors. The Moorish kingdoms were conquered by Christians and the Moors were expelled or assimilated. Spain is not Moorish, despite the fact that Moorish kingdoms used to exist in the Iberian peninsula.

The fact that the Russian Federation currently exists on the same geographic region that the ancient Scythians used to live doesn’t make them the same people, any more than Americans are the same as the Cherokee or the English are the same as the Romans. Lots of different people have lived on the central asian steppes, and the country most co-extensive with the former homeland of the Scythians is actually what is now Kazakhstan, not what is now Russia. If only you had posted this back when both Russia and Kazakhstan were both part of the Soviet Union!

IF the Bible is truly God’s inspired word and it is from outside our space-time dimensions then utilizing the names of the ancestry (which we do not change) to delineate a specific locale (which almost never stay the same) is a sure way to nail the location down, but only many years later after the archaeological discoveries have been made proving the existence and location of those ancestral lineages. Jesus spoke in parables, not to make it easier to understand, but to make is more difficult because it is not for all to believe, only those whom he has called. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, He could easily just have named the exact person and ancestral line directly. He didn’t do that for a reason. It was to seal the understandings and revelations up until it was time for them to be known.

[Ageranger361]

The language of the book—part of which is Aramaic (2:4–7:28)—probably indicates a date of composition later than the Babylonian Exile (6th century bc). Numerous inaccuracies connected with the exilic period (no deportation occurred in 605 bc; Darius was a successor of Cyrus, not a predecessor; etc.) tend to confirm this judgment.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Ageranger361

I was writing those points to those who already have an established set of beliefs as Jews and Christians. Obviously, if you don’t believe in Christ or the Prophets these points are meaningless to you and you should disregard them. However, if you are of the belief that Christ is truly the Messiah and Lord and Savior, or that the Prophets were truly inspired by the Holy Spirit to write these prophesies, then it presents a problem that needs to be reconciled in your beliefs somehow, either by a change of beliefs or by some new revelation from the scripture.

So it all comes down to inconsistencies in scripture?
That’s not exactly a shocking reveal.

[Ageranger361]

Irrefutably Documented
To fully appreciate the remarkable significance of the following, it is essential to realize that the Book of Daniel, as part of the Old Testament, was translated into Greek prior to 270 b.c., several centuries before Christ was born. This is a well established fact of secular history.1

The Septuagint
After his conquest of the Babylonian Empire, Alexander the Great promoted the Greek language throughout the known world, and thus almost everyone - including the Jews - spoke Greek. Hebrew fell into disuse, being reserved primarily for ceremonial purposes (somewhat analogous to the use of Latin among Roman Catholics).

In order to make the Jewish Scriptures (what we call the Old Testament) available to the average Jewish reader, a project was undertaken under the sponsorship of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285-246 b.c.) to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Seventy scholars were commissioned to complete this work and their result is known as the “Septuagint” (“70”) translation.

(This is often abbreviated “LXX”.)

The Book of Daniel is actually one of the most authenticated books of the Old Testament, historically and archaeologically, but this is a convenient short-cut for our purposes here.

It is critical to realize that the Book of Daniel existed in documented form almost three centuries before Christ was born.

Gabriel’s Zinger

Daniel, originally deported as a teenager (now near the end of the Babylonian captivity), was reading in the Book of Jeremiah. He understood that the seventy years of servitude were almost over and he began to pray for his people.

The Angel Gabriel interrupted Daniel’s prayer and gave him a four-verse prophecy that is unquestionably the most remarkable passage in the entire Bible: Daniel 9:24-27.

These four verses include the following segments:

9:24The Scope of the entire prophecy;
9:25The 69 Weeks;
9:26An Interval between the 69th and 70th Week;
9:27The 70th Week.

The Scope

9:24: "Seventy weeks are determined upon thy people and upon thy holy city, to finish the transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most Holy Place."

The idiom of a “week” of years was common in Israel as a “sabbath for the land,” in which the land was to lie fallow every seventh year.2

It was their failure to obey these laws that led to God sending them into captivity under the Babylonians.3

When did the Messiah present Himself as a King? On one specific day, Jesus arranges it!

Note that the focus of this passage is upon “thy people and upon thy holy city,” that is, upon Israel and Jerusalem. (It is not directed to the church.)

The scope of this prophecy includes a broad list of things which clearly have yet to be completed.

The First 69 Weeks
A very specific prediction occurs in verse 25:
9:25: “Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.”

This includes a mathematical prophecy. The Jewish (and Babylonian) calendars used a 360-day year;4 69 weeks of 360-day years totals 173,880 days.

In effect, Gabriel told Daniel that the interval between the commandment to rebuild Jerusalem until the presentation of the Messiah as King would be 173,880 days.

The “Messiah the Prince” in the King James translation is actually the Meshiach Nagid, “The Messiah the King.” (Nagid is first used of King Saul.)
The Precision of Prophecy
When we examine the period between March 14, 445 b.c. and April 6, 32 a.d., and correct for leap years, we discover that it is 173,880 days exactly, to the very day!

How could Daniel have known this in advance? How could anyone have contrived to have this detailed prediction documented over three centuries in advance? But there’s more.

The Unexpected King: Palm Sunday Surprise: – Chuck Missler – Koinonia House

As far as the citations you requested, I’m still looking. I’ll post it asap.

[Ageranger361]

**Septuagint, abbreviation Lxx, **
The earliest extant Greek translation of the Old Testament from the original Hebrew, presumably made for the use of the Jewish community in Egypt when Greek was the lingua franca throughout the region. Analysis of the language has established that the Torah, or Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament), was translated near the middle of the 3rd century bc and that the rest of the Old Testament was translated in the 2nd century bc.

The Hebrew canon has three divisions: the Torah (Law), the Neviʾim (Prophets), and the Ketuvim (Writings).

Ketuvim:
Divided into four sections, the Ketuvim include: poetical books (Psalms, Proverbs, and Job), the Megillot, or Scrolls (Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations of Jeremiah, Ecclesiastes, and Esther), prophecy (Daniel), and history (Ezra, Nehemiah, and I and II Chronicles).

[Ageranger361]

@Bryan_Ekers

So it all comes down to inconsistencies in scripture?
That’s not exactly a shocking reveal.

How do you get to that argument from the statement that I made? Can you show the inconsistency in the scriptures that you are referring to?

[Lemur866]

@Ageranger361

IF the Bible is truly God’s inspired word and it is from outside our space-time dimensions then utilizing the names of the ancestry (which we do not change) to delineate a specific locale (which almost never stay the same) is a sure way to nail the location down, but only many years later after the archaeological discoveries have been made proving the existence and location of those ancestral lineages. Jesus spoke in parables, not to make it easier to understand, but to make is more difficult because it is not for all to believe, only those whom he has called. If God is omniscient and omnipotent, He could easily just have named the exact person and ancestral line directly. He didn’t do that for a reason. It was to seal the understandings and revelations up until it was time for them to be known.

Seriously?

[silenus]

I’m afraid so. No use arguing with him - he’s a BELIEVER, and as such beyond logic and rational thought.

[dropzone]

@tomndebb

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.

This. Daniel appears to have been the Batman of his day. Tres populaire. Which is why so much of it ended up in the Apocrypha. Bel and the Dragon? Ripping yarn. Ancestor of the Locked Room mystery. Revealed truth? Not according to most Bible scholars, including Luther and the guys who wrote the KJV.

@Ageranger361

Irrefutably Documented
To fully appreciate the remarkable significance of the following, it is essential to realize that the Book of Daniel, as part of the Old Testament, was translated into Greek prior to 270 b.c., several centuries before Christ was born. This is a well established fact of secular history.

See above.

[tomndebb]

@Ageranger361

Irrefutably Documented
To fully appreciate the remarkable significance of the following, it is essential to realize that the Book of Daniel, as part of the Old Testament, was translated into Greek prior to 270 b.c., several centuries before Christ was born. This is a well established fact of secular history.

Not really.

It is true that the Septuagint was translated in the third century. However, several works and passages were added to the collection as the years went by. We have no copy of The Septuagint that dates to 270 B.C.E. and we do not have explicit dates for the additions.
Given that portions of Daniel are recognized as having been translated to Greek from Aramaic, there is no reason to believe that Daniel was translated with the other Hebrew books of the bible. The Septuagint also included the books of Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Odes, including the Prayer of Manasseh, the Psalms of Solomon, Psalm 151, and additions to Esther.
Unless you are arguing that all those works were originally part of the Hebrew scriptures and were translated along with Daniel, your claim that Daniel was written and translated before 270 B.C.E. has no basis.

[andros]

@Ageranger361

Jesus spoke in parables, not to make it easier to understand, but to make is more difficult because it is not for all to believe, only those whom he has called.

Horse apples. Metaphor is not difficult. You seriously believe that the Christ deliberately obfuscated His messages so that unbelievers wouldn’t understand? The Prodigal Son is somehow so encoded and subtle that only the Chosen Few will understand? I’d almost call that arrant arrogance.

If God is omniscient and omnipotent, He could easily just have named the exact person and ancestral line directly. He didn’t do that for a reason. It was to seal the understandings and revelations up until it was time for them to be known.

And I’d absolutely call that arrogance, and hubris besides, if you are claiming that somehow it is the right time and that you now know the Mind of God. That you claim somehow to be possessed of knowledge and understanding that eludes the rest of God’s children is the very height of arrogance and unbecoming of someone who claims to follow the footsteps of the Carpenter.

You, my brother, are being an extremely poor witness.

[DWMarch]

The argument over which area of modern-day Russia corresponds to biblical Magog is pointless but I will accept it at face value. Magog is Russia, sure. Let’s get that out of the way because there’s another part to this prophecy that needs to be addressed.

Who makes weapons out of wood and epoxy? We’re talking about Russia here, modern day Russia. The OP was supposing that “tanks, trucks, artillery, etc” have been manufactured out of this stuff for the past thirty years and no one knows about it. When the Soviet Union fell and their hardware could be bought for a handful of rubles no one got their hands on a Lignostone tank. The Afghan mujihideen never captured a Lignostone artillery piece. You know why? Because this fabled material is plywood and glue and it’s not suitable for making weapons.

And the weapons made from this stuff are specifically enumerated in the verse as such: “the shields and the bucklers, the bows and the arrows, and the handstaves, and the spears”. That is an unambiguous list of exactly what will be burnt. Are handstaves a metaphor for multiple launch rocket systems? Are bucklers really T-72 main battle tanks made out of plywood? Ah but wait, you say. We’re talking about after the apocalypse. Wood weapons will be all that is left! Except in that scenario we’re forgetting that a T-72 tank is designed to survive a nuclear blast and plywood isn’t!

And what scenario are we looking at here in which Russia brings a bunch of faux military equipment to Israel, Israel defeats it (because it’s made out of plywood!) and then the modern nation of Irsrael decides to burn epoxied plywood as home heating fuel? Do you have any idea how much plywood it would take to heat Israel for seven years straight?

The prophecy still doesn’t make sense even if we throw the apocalypse in there first. If we are postulating a hypothetical World War III we have to remember that Israel is a nuclear nation with many unfriendly neighbors. When the missiles start flying it is likely there will not be an Israel left when all is said and done. There will be a radioactive glass desert throughout the entire region (including “Magog”) and no one will be fighting with swords made out of plywood because they will die from radiation exposure before they can walk from Russia to Israel.