Talk:Gog and Magog/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"During the 20th Century, Gog as Central Eurasia became the driving force behind the Aryan movement culminating in the attempts of "The Fatherland's Nazis" to reach "The Central Eurasian Motherland" through invading Russia. Aryanism has not yet died and many texts concerning Central Eurasian Ethnology are still littered with Aryanistic ideas. It is conceivable that a form of Central Eurasian Aryanism may yet raise its head again as a motivating force in a White Supremacist World movement."

Do you or anyone else have a reference for this stuff? --- Smerdis of Tlön 14:43, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

Now while this is unsubstantiated, I wonder if Gork and Mork from Warhammer (the Orks' twin deities) aren't based on these two, at least loosely? Now the pop culture section is obviously not the most important, but either way, it might be something to look into. --PheonixSong 17:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps - but they may not really exist...--Jack Upland 00:19, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Guess that if you believe in Noah Jack, you might as well believe in Gork and Mork. I guess if Noah does not exist then half the trashy articles about his descendents and predictions of the apocolypse according to every biblical lunatic disappears. No Gog and Magog then no Armageddon. Which tribe did the Australian Aborigines arise from ? Their culture of the rainbow serpent has as much credence as this load of rubbish. Does anyone really believe in the Children of Noah? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.236.103.253 (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Move to Gog and Magog?

Based on its material, shouln't this page be at Gog and Magog, instead of just Gog? - Kevin Saff 18:34, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

IIRC, "Gog," "Magog," "Gog and Magog", and "Gogmagog" all redirect here. Since we're dealing with several closely related names with different meanings, dealing with them in a single article strikes me as the easiest way. If you move the page, it will be necessary to change each redirect page so they all point to the new page. I don't think it would be a particularly good idea to split the legendary giants from the Biblical figures, since it seems to me that there is some kind of cross-pollination there, even if it is rather murky. Smerdis of Tlön 20:31, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Magog sounds like a nice place for a vacation, but I don't know of I would like to move there. --Nazrac 23:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Totnes vs. Totness

Hi, I'm doing some cleaning up work for Daniel Quinlan's Redirect Project. In the part Gog and Magog in England you quote: While Brutus, on a certain Festival day, solemnly kept on that shore where he first landed, and ad Totness as that place between parantheses. But Totness is a place in Suriname (see Coronie), shouldn't the link point to Totnes, a sea-side city in Devon, England? Or is Totness an accepted alternative way of writing Totnes? Hope you can clarify things for me, Peak Freak 12:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I suspect it is in fact Totnes. Google yields more than 600 hits for "Totness Devon" and more than 90,000 for "Totnes Devon." Smerdis of Tlön 13:42, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sun goes where?

Maybe I'm missing something, but in my land the sun sets in the west and rises in the east...

Not when Daylight Saving Time is in effect. Still, I have changed that reference. -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:07, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

COTGOG

GOG is the chief deity in his own religion, COTGOG. He is depicted as a large golden dragon that spans multiple dimensions, and his presence on this plane is that of the sun.

Has anyone other than the contributor who added this heard of it, or have a source for this? -- Smerdis of Tlön 15:23, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes. COTGOG is a part of the ULC. I'd say the entry the original author wrote is woefully inadequate, but it does exist.

Is ULC related to UCLA or ACLU? WTF?--Jack Upland 00:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yugor

why does Yugor redirect here? dab (ᛏ) 09:16, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Original text of Yugor was

Yugor is the english transliteration of a Russian rendering of a Turkic form of Yagug/Yajuj the Arabic term for Gog.

I have no idea whether this is true. Septentrionalis 02:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

This strikes me as phonetically unlikely; while the Arabic reflex Yajuj-Majuj keeps the basic pattern, and we also have the Qur'an text that seems related to the Bible text, getting from /g/ to /r/ strikes me as phonologically unlikely. I suspect this may be an original claim. Smerdis of Tlön 15:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think what is being alleged is an error of transcription when some unspecified Russian author discussed Turkic mythology; in any case, this is unsourced. It also may be a slur on the obscure Central Asian people mentioned in the articles which link to Yugor; I have no idea. It certainly shouldn't be included without more information - but now an expert (and this is well out of my field) will have something to start from. Septentrionalis 19:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup label

Don't see where anyone has left a comment explaining why this article should bear the cleanup label. Unless someone steps forward with a plan for the desired improvements, I am inclined to remove it. Smerdis of Tlön 19:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Localization of Magog in Genesis 10:2

Codex Sinaiticus — you're correct that we can't precisely localize Magog in Genesis 10:2 -- but all the names which we can localize in that passage (i.e. the "sons of Japheth") are spread along a rough arc from the Ionian coast to Media (in modern northwestern Iran), so that it's not true that we're in absolute ignorance. If you don't like "general Anatolia region", feel free to come up with a term of your own, but please specify something. AnonMoos 16:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

If we can't precisely locate it, we can't precisely locate it, and we shouldn't try to specify anything. My personal theory is that Magog settled North of the Black Sea more than South, and that actually has support from Hungarian and Irish legends of Magog, that place Magog in the region of the sea of Azov. But I'm not about to write that into this article, as that's going out on a limb. I don't know of any geographic references placing Magog in Anatolia, so I'm inclined to leave out any placement of Biblical Magog. Codex Sinaiticus 16:59, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The Sea of Azov was rather beyond the "geographical horizon" of the Israelites ca. the seventh century B.C. (when the "Table of Nations" of Genesis 10 probably received its final organization), and your pious medievalistic folklore is of no value whatsoever compared with solid scholarly work that has been done in identifying names such as Javan, Meschech, Gomer, and Madai. Magog in Genesis 10 can't be precisely localized, but it it can be very solidly placed in the general "Northern Tier" of ancient Israelite geographical knowledge (i.e. the Ionia-Media arc, with anything north of the Caucasus being rather unlikely). I repeat, if you don't like "general Anatolia region", then please come up with a term of your own, but don't claim that we're more ignorant than we are (or try to bring in Irish legends!). AnonMoos 17:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Clearly you have a POV here, as do I, but to be neutral, we should not unequivocally state that the Bible places Magog in Anatolia, because that is a falsehood. The Bible says no such thing, and we don't have to "come up with" anything, when there's nothing there. If you have reasons for speculating about where Magog are, that are not Original research, you are welcomed to include them in the article, but do make clear that it's speculation, and not actually in the Bible, and also make clear whose speculation it is. If I wanted to, I could find ample reason for putting in a reference to Azov, and that wouldn't be Original research, because it is well documented in Hungarian folklore, no matter what you may think of it. Codex Sinaiticus 17:49, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Dude, please work with me here. We know the APPROXIMATE AREA OF THE WORLD in which Magog must have very probably been located, yet your current edit removes all geographic terms, and makes it seems as if we're completely ignorant of its location, and it could have been anywhere in the world from Patagonia to Mongolia, which is not true. If you don't like my particular term for the APPROXIMATE AREA OF THE WORLD in which Magog must have very probably been located, then please come up with your own term for the APPROXIMATE AREA OF THE WORLD in which Magog must have very probably been located, which would satisfy you. By the way, it's far more "original research" to try to bring in medievalesque Irish legends than to reply on the scholarship of those who have identified the meanings of Javan, Meschech, Gomer, and Madai and others of the "sons of Japheth" in Genesis 10. AnonMoos 03:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I completely disagree with your statement that the Sea of Azov was completely outside the "geographical horizon" of the Israelites... Codex Sinaiticus 18:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Really? It was only in the 7th century B.C. that the Greeks started to establish good-sized trading outposts and significant direct trading relations with areas on the north coast of the Black sea -- and the landlocked 7th century B.C. kingdom of Judea was hardly likely to be intimately tied in to the Greek trading network. Absent a Greek connection, knowledge of the area would have had to diffuse in a multiply-indirect manner, like a game of "telephone". What positive evidence do you have that 7th-century B.C. Israelites had any definite or accurate knowledge of anything north of the Caucasus area?

Again, I totally disagree with your understanding of the facts here. They obviously knew where Mt. Ararat was - or are you going to dispute that as well? Either way, it's your pov against mine, you can't possibly disprove that they knew where Mt. Ararat was. There are many ancient Hebrew documents that make mention of the Don River as supposedly being the original border between Shem and Japheth. Codex Sinaiticus 04:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Dude, Mt. Ararat is SOUTH of the Caucasus, so it's hardly any counterevidence! And please show me specifically and concretely what valid biblical, textual, or scholarly references you have to validly suggest that Israelites in the landlocked kingdom of Judah knew anything whatsoever about the river Don in the 7th century B.C. To me, it sounds like a whole lot more like a medieval "T-O" map. And guess what -- the medieval period was over a thousand years after the 7th century B.C. AnonMoos 02:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

How is "what it sounds like to you" relevant as anything but a disputed POV? Codex Sinaiticus 03:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Because some Medieval T-O maps show the River Don as dividing Europe and Asia (see T and O map), while there is no valid evidence that I'm aware of that the pre-600 B.C. ancient Israelites were even aware of the existence of the river Don -- nor have you presented any such evidence during the course of this discussion. AnonMoos 19:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Even your assumption of 7th C BC follows after minimalist scholarship; there are just as many non-minimalist scholars who date Genesis to the 13th C. Codex Sinaiticus 03:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Whatever, dude -- the idea that Genesis received some editing around the time of the reigns of Hezekiah or Josiah of Judah is hardly "minimalism"! (Minimalists would assign a much later date.) It's not even exclusively Wellhausenism -- it's accepted pretty much by most reputable scholars who are not literalist believers in the direct and immediate authorship of Moses. The "Table of Nations" obviously contains much earlier material (Hittites etc.), but in all likelihood received its final organization ca. the 7th century B.C. AnonMoos 19:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, your proposed dating goes against your own argument, since every century prior to the 7th would even further decrease the probability that the Israelites might have had any access to information about the Crimea area. AnonMoos 19:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Now guess where the Don river flows into... That's right, into the Sea of Azov... Since I don't think the family of Magog lived anywhere else, I'm not going to try to come up with some vague term that puts them "in the general location of Anatolia" just because that is your pet theory... Codex Sinaiticus 04:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Dude, the sea of Azov is far more a personal "pet theory" of yours than placing Magog in Genesis 10 in the context of the locations of Magog's fellow "sons of Japhet" in Genesis 10 is any pet theory of mine. AnonMoos 02:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Again, if you have a sourced argument for your ideas, you're more than welcome to make it in the article. Codex Sinaiticus 04:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I could come up with plenty of sources for the equations Javan=Ionia, Madai=Media, Gomer=Anatolian Cimmerians, and Meshech=cuneiform Mushki (if there was any real need), because they're pretty much the standard scholarly consensus. That the sea of Azov has anything to do with anything in relation to Genesis 10 is not a standard scholarly consensus. AnonMoos

There is no "standard scholarly consensus", unless you only count minimalists and brush off or ignore the other schools of thought, as apparently you do... Codex Sinaiticus 03:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Now you're retreating into complete nonsense -- I am personally most emphatically NOT a "minimalist", and identifications such as Javan=Ionia and Madai=Media (etc.) were most definitely NOT invented by minimalists. For example (to pick up one random convenient source that happens to be at hand), they're found on the "Near East in the Time of the Assyrian Empire" map included in the "New Oxford Annotated Bible" edition of the Revised Standard Version Bible, published in 1973! But perhaps you'll come up with another argument to prove that this book is somehow a "minimalist" source! AnonMoos 19:14, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

But what you cannot do is say "the Bible says Magog was here or here or here", because the Bible says absolutely NOTHING on that subject, and as far as what the Bible says, yes, it could have been anywhere from Mongolia to Patagonia... Codex Sinaiticus 04:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

That's pathetic nonsense -- the Biblical name "Magog" is not a geographical reference we can understand exactly today, but the Bible most definitely DOES clearly place Magog in the context of the orther "sons of Japhet", and these sons of Japhet all fall within one specific approximate area of the world. What specific evidence do you have that Magog was in a completely different part of the world than the other "sons of Japheth"? Absolutely none! And the "Table of Nations" in Genesis 10 is partially arranged according to geographic location, which creates a presumption of rough approximate proximity. AnonMoos 02:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

A "completely different part of the world"??? We're only talking about the other side of the Black Sea from Anatolia...! Codex Sinaiticus 03:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Why did you put your remarks in bold? Were you under the delusion that this would give greater gravitas and weight to what you wrote?? As for the geographical relationships involved, the Crimea and the mouth of the Don are OVER 500 MILES by land from Mt. Ararat (over some very rugged terrain part of the way), while Ararat is OVER 700 MILES from Jerusalem, during a historical period when each several hundred miles often meant more in social isolation than you with your omnniscient God's-eye-view printed atlases and armchair CNN feed can imagine.

However, what's more directly to the point is that the mainstream scholarly consensus on the location of the other "sons of Japhet" (i.e. Javan=Ionia, Madai=Media etc.) places them either where they are rather close to the empires of the Syria-Mesopotamia region, or where they're somewhat easily accessible from the Levant by means of several successive short coastal-hugging maritime hops. The sea of Azov rather conspicuously falls under neither of these categories. AnonMoos 22:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

How hard would it have been for the people of Magog to cross the Black Sea to get to the other side? They could easily have done so, even if we accept your limited view of Israelite geographic knowledge... Codex Sinaiticus 03:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Really? At that period of history, only groups who specialized in long-distance maritime trade habitually and intentionally undertook voyages during which they might find themselves more than a hundred miles from land. Other peoples tended to be coastal-huggers. AnonMoos 22:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

So you would have it that the Black Sea was an impenetrable barrier that mankind was incapable of crossing until 700 BC... Interesting, but please don't try to claim that pov as an academic consensus... Codex Sinaiticus 22:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hardly. But it seems very probable that at that period of history most peoples who found the Black Sea an obstacle had to go the long way around, whether on land or by hugging the coast -- which makes your apparent procedure of looking at your atlas and drawing a convenient short straight line across the open sea from the Tauric Chersonese to Sinope rather problematic. AnonMoos 09:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

And it's pure ORIGINAL hypothetical speculation on your part that Magog ever made any such journey. AnonMoos 22:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

No it's not! Codex Sinaiticus 22:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Then what's your source for your posited Tauric Chersonese-Sinope Magog maritime migration? I think you might have great difficulty finding specific support for that one even in medieval Irish legends... AnonMoos 09:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

But I suppose the only way to handle this neutrally is as with any other wiki-dispute: Give both sides of the story, without declaring either is correct. Codex Sinaiticus 03:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That's ultrarelativism and Cognitive relativism run amuck! If someone insisted on rewriting the Moon article to reflect the view that it's made of green cheese, then the solution that would be adopted would not be to set up parallel competing "Pro-Caseist" and "Anti-Caseist" article sections -- rather, the green-cheese view would be relegated to an "Alternative views of the Moon's composition" section. AnonMoos 22:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I assure you, I have sources for anything I might contribute to show that it is far older than Mediaeval. The T-O maps may be Mediaeval, but the view of the Don (Tina) as the border between Shem and Japheth is far older. Do you think the Dead Sea Scrolls are "Mediaeval"??? Codex Sinaiticus 22:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

That's nice -- if you have a reputable scholarly source for the river Don in the Dead Sea scrolls, then please bring it forward. However, even if such a reference existed, it still would probably have no direct relevance to the original interpretation of Genesis 10:2. In my opinion, hardly any Jews ever gave a damn one way or the other about the river Don before the Khazar period. AnonMoos 09:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, do you think repeatedly calling me "dude" somehow makes you sound learned or well read? Codex Sinaiticus 22:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

It's an explanation of annoyed disbelief. If you would rather that I said "Jane, you ignorant slut!", then consider that I said "Jane, you ignorant slut!". AnonMoos 09:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

So, you can write a paragraph giving your reasons why some would think Magog should be located south of Maeotis, and I can write one mentioning the sources placing them north of it. Codex Sinaiticus 03:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't need no steenkin' paragraph -- all I would say is something like this: 'Given the commonly-accepted identification of the other "sons of Japheth" in this passage (such as Javan=Ionia, Madai=Media etc.), the Magog of Genesis 10 was probably located somewhere in the general Anatolia, Caucasus, or south-of-Caucasus region.' I threw in the Caucasus partly to make you happy. I can't see why you wouldn't be happy with it, except for the eccentric bee in your bonnet with respect to the sea of Azov. AnonMoos

It's not something I came up with myself, and it's not original to me, no matter how loud you shout or try to drown me out. Historical texts referring to a "Magog" located in Anatolia: 0. Historical texts referring to a "Magog" located near Tanais: several. Codex Sinaiticus 22:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

If all those "historical texts" are speculative or fanciful medieval legends, then I don't see how they have much relevance to the original interpretation of Genesis 10:2. AnonMoos 09:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

What about Tiras? Wouldn't you agree that "mainstream scholarship" identifies them with Thrace? Isn't Thrace a bit far from the Israelites' supposed geographic knowledge? Weren't they said by Herodotus to have extended north along the Black Sea coast as far as the river Tyras? (Dniester)? Hmmmmm.... Codex Sinaiticus 22:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I haven't come across that proposed identification before, so I can't comment on it in detail right now, but Thrace extends along the Aegean coast, and the Aegean was somewhat accessible from the Levant by means of several successive short coastal-hugging maritime hops, as I said before. The same is not true of the sea of Azov, which would involve additional traversal of the chokepoints of the Hellespont and Dardanelles, then another long voyage around or across the Black sea.

Furthermore, the Israelites could be well-aware of somewhat distant locations if there had been a long-established trade between that area and the Levant. For example, Tarshish was probably in Spain, but the Israelites knew about Tarshish because the Phoenicians had been sailing to it since about 1000 B.C. The same applies to Yemen. Unfortunately for the Sea of Azov, significant trade between that area and the Aegean was only just getting started around the same time that the "Table of Nations" in Genesis 10 probably recieved its final organization -- during a period when Judea/Judah was a small, landlocked, and somewhat insular kingdom. AnonMoos 09:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This is an article about any historical references to Magog (and Gog), not just the Bible, so I think the sources are fair game here. Codex Sinaiticus 03:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, medieval Irish and Hungarian legends certainly have a place in this article -- in a discussion of medieval legends about Gog and Magog, but most definitely NOT in a discussion of Genesis chapter 10!!!!! AnonMoos 22:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I never said they belonged in a discussion of Gen. 10. Codex Sinaiticus 22:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You didn't? AnonMoos 09:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I only said if you discuss Gen. 10 at all, you have to make clear that the Bible makes no statements whatsoever about their location, and you must not try to give the impression that the Bible firmly places Magog in Anatolia (or anywhere else), because that would be a falsehood. If you want to provide speculation about where Magog was, just make sure you let us know whose speculation it is, as I am prepared to do. Codex Sinaiticus 22:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

The Bible doesn't provide exact mathematical GPS coordinates measured from the Meridian of Greenwich for any geographical location whatsoever, but it provides clues to the geographical location of very many names -- and in the particular case of Magog in the context of Genesis 10:2, the clue is that the other "sons of Japhet" are arranged along a rough arc from Ionia to Media (of course, Magog in the context of the Book of Ezekiel may be completely different). Therefore, why should I pretend that the Bible provides no clues at all (leaving open any location from Mongolia to Patagonia), or pretend that the Biblical clues in this passage are equally compatible with the Sea Azov as they are with a location along a rough Ionia-Media arc -- when neither of things are true? AnonMoos 09:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say than what I have just bolded above. Codex Sinaiticus 19:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

That's good, because the more you talk, the less I'm inclined to take anything you say seriously. AnonMoos 22:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You're the one who wrote "Dude, work with me here". Codex Sinaiticus 22:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and a good part of the reason for my discontent is that you DIDN'T work with me in coming up with a term that would be both acceptable to you and compatible with the geographic clues contained in Genesis 10 (Javan=Ionia, Madai=Media etc.). Instead you insisted on going off on your Sea of Azov tangent -- something which is incompatible with the geographic clues contained in Genesis 10. AnonMoos 09:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I am trying to work with you, and proposed the terms where both of our (sourced) opinions might be included. I'm not trying to unilaterally exclude yours, or belittle you in any way, just because I see things from a different perspective. But if "working with you" means I either have to see things your way or shut up, well, I'm afraid that's expecting a bit too much from me, because that obviously just is not going to happen. Codex Sinaiticus 22:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Also you obviously aren't clear on what "original research means, because Mediaeval documents are well established as a primary source, even if they are all false and unfactual, they are still called a primary (not a secondary) source on an encyclopedia... Codex Sinaiticus 04:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

They may be primary SOURCES, but using them to correct the Bible seems to be original on your part, since I strongly doubt that it would have ever occurred to any mainstream reputable scholar to do so. And what would the Hungarians validly know about the 7th-century B.C. Sea of Azov region anyway? -- The Magyars weren't in that area until a thousand years later. It seems much more likely that these are medieval legends influenced by the Bible. AnonMoos 02:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, if Gog and Magog in Ezekiel have any historical reference, it's likely to be to the Cimmerian and Scythian invasios of ca. 700 B.C. AnonMoos 16:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Localization of Magog in Genesis 10:2 (restarting thread?)

Anon Moos, please stop messing with my remarks. The preceding section is already a total mess and completely out of chronological order, because of your habit of splitting up my remarks, moving them around, etc. Codex Sinaiticus 14:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you write a lengthy pagraph raising three or four separate points, and I respond with an even lengthier paragraph which contains three or four separate discussions of the points you've raised, then that's even more confusing. It's really much better to reply directly to each individual point in a way that people can see your discussion of the issue and my discussion of the issue right next to each other. It's not supposed to be "chronological", it's topically threaded. AnonMoos 20:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Anyone trying to follow the conversation would be well advised to use the article history edit by edit instead of trying to read it as it now stands. Also please adhere to wiki policies regarding language, such language has no place here and also no bearing whatsoever on the facts here. Here again are the facts, which despite your making enough noise for a whole legion, remain the facts: (If you respond please do so underneath my signature; wiki is not quite the same thing as USENET). Codex Sinaiticus 14:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it's more like the "threaded view" of the classic "Matt's Board" web discussion software. AnonMoos 20:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

1. FACT: There are NO classical sources that place Magog in Anatolia. That's just your hypothesis. If you do have a source, please provide it; if you can't, it's your original research. ).
3. FACT: The Bible says nada on the subject. Neither one of us can claim Biblical support for any geographic location of Magog. Codex Sinaiticus 14:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Whatever -- as I said before, the Bible doesn't provide exact mathematical GPS coordinates measured from the Meridian of Greenwich for any geographical location whatsoever, but it provides clues to the geographical location of very many names. And in the particular case of Magog in the context of Genesis 10:2, the clue is that the other "sons of Japhet" are arranged along a rough arc from Ionia to Media (of course, Magog in the context of the Book of Ezekiel may be completely different). And since the "Table of Nations" in Genesis 10 is partially arranged according to location, this creates a presumption of rough approximate proximity.

Also, I never said "Anatolia", I said "general Anatolia region", which I later expanded to "the general Anatolia, Caucasus, or south-of-Caucasus region". That would be a lot more the mainstream scholarly consensus (insofar as there is such, see below) than the sea of Azov -- considering that the Sea of Azov was beyond the geographical horizon of the ancient Israelites at that period of history, as I've explained in excruciatingly-painful mind-numbing detail in the discussion above. AnonMoos 20:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

2. FACT: There ARE classical sources that place Magog in Scythia. They may be Mediaeval, but they do crop up independently in both Ireland and Hungary. Codex Sinaiticus 14:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Medieval is NOT "Classical"!!!! Furthermore, I would be willing to bet my bottom dollar that none of those legends is INDEPENDENT of the Bible -- instead they're much later folkloric legendary elaborations on the Bible. Since they almost certainly contain no valid independent historical information dating back to at least the 7th-century B.C., they're really quite irrelevant to the exegesis of Genesis 10. AnonMoos 20:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

4. FACT: People have been trying to place the sons of Japheth on the map for centuries, and no two "scholars" have yet come up with an identical map. It's highly speculative, often controversial, there's plenty of room for disagreement, and any talk of "academic consensus" on the location of Magog sounds silly and presumptuous. Codex Sinaiticus 14:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

There may be little agreement as to SOME of the names, but there is wide agreement on at least a few crucial names, such as Javan=Ionia, Madai=Media (and some others), and I doubt that there would be much serious scholarly disagreement to the general placement of the "sons of Japtheth" along a loose Aegean / south-of-Black-Sea / south-of-Caucasus arc which was the "northern tier" of ancient Israelite geographical knowledge. AnonMoos 20:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

When it comes to writing the article, there are ways to express every point of view neutrally, but there is no excuse for trying to ramrod your own pov theory in to the exclusion of these facts. Codex Sinaiticus 14:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Just like the Anti-Caseists are "ramrodding" their theory to the exclusion of the poor Caseists, right? AnonMoos 20:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

So I suggest something like this for neutral wording:

The geographic location of the Magog is left open by Genesis 10. Given the usual identification of the other "sons of Japheth" (such as Javan=Ionia, Madai=Media, Tiras=Thrace etc.), the Magog of Genesis 10 may have been located anywhere in the general Anatolia, Caucasus, or south-of-Caucasus region, but this is speculative. There are independent mediaeval legends extant among both the Irish and the Magyars, that connect Magog with the Scythians north of the Black Sea (see Mediaeval section below for details) but this too is inconclusive, and all that can be said with certainty is that the identity and very existence of Magog is mysterious and controversial.. Codex Sinaiticus 14:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Dude, there are dozens of names of eponymous ancestors in Genesis 10, and only a minority of them have any geographical terms specified -- and in many cases these geographical terms are themselves ambiguous or open to interpretation -- so I really quite fail to see how Magog is any more "mysterious and controversial" than a number of other names in that passage, or than quite a number of other names in the Bible. You're importing a lot of the "mystery" and "controversy" from the apocalyptic references of Ezekiel -- but if Magog occurred in Genesis 10 alone, then no one would think of it as "mysterious and controversial" (just somewhat vague -- but vague only within the limits set by the localizations of the other "sons of Jahpeth" in Genesis 10).

Please just tell me what IN THE CONTEXT OF GENESIS 10 is so "mysterious and controversial" about Magog AS IT APPEARS IN GENESIS 10?!? Frankly, your labelling of medieval Hungarian and Irish legends as "independent" (when I would be willing to bet a lot of money that they're NOT in fact independent of the Bible) is far more controversial than anything I wrote in my sentence about "the general Anatolia, Caucasus, or south-of-Caucasus region". AnonMoos 20:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I saved this for last, because it's not directly relevant, but yes, the Dead Sea Scrolls DO mention the Don river ("Tina") as the original boundary between Shem and Japheth; and there are even documents in Ethiopia claimed to be even older than the DSS, that do the same. Note that the existence of these documents does not necessarily prove or (disprove) that Ethiopians had direct geographic knowledge of the area. Also note that we cannot say for sure that a man named Magog never existed, and it could well be possible that this man and his family never had any contact with Semites whatsoever after the year 2000 BC, but that his name could still appear in the genealogy if the Hebrews had accurately preserved the records, without having the faintest notion of where he settled. That might account for their not assigning any location to Magog in Genesis. Codex Sinaiticus 14:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It's highly questionable whether ANY eponymous ancestors ever existed, but nevertheless, genealogy is the particular idiom which the compiler in Genesis 10 made use of in order to classify the peoples of the near east into a hierarchical cladistic tree-structured taxonomy. All the 2000 B.C. stuff seems to be pure hypothetical original speculation on your part. AnonMoos 20:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It's hardly my original speculation; but no matter. This is only the talk page, where we might indulge in some speculation; I'm not suggesting adding anything so controversial to the article. At this point I'm only interested in keeping it neutral and keeping a disputed tag from going up on account of pov differences, and I'd like it if any other parties following this would weigh in. Your main objection to the working compromise proposal seems to be the last part about "mysterious and controversial", so cutting that out, here's where that leaves us:

The geographic location of the Magog is left open by Genesis 10. Given the usual identification of the other "sons of Japheth" (such as Javan=Ionia, Madai=Media, Tiras=Thrace etc.), the Magog of Genesis 10 may have been located anywhere in the general Anatolia, Caucasus, or south-of-Caucasus region, although this is speculative. There are mediaeval legends extant among both the Irish and the Magyars, that would connect Magog with the Scythians north of the Black Sea (see Mediaeval section below for details) but this too is inconclusive. These legends appear to be independent of one another, though both could have a common source in the Bible. 21:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

That's rather disingenuous -- I have also made it clear that I strongly object to medieval Irish and Hungarian legendary elaborations of the Bible being used to correct the original text of the Bible. Not to mention that on "22:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)" you said above you had no desire to do so -- why did you change your mind?

I'm just trying to figure out what possible compromise wording could possibly satisfy you. You say the legends have their source in the Bible, so when I write that, that's not good enough for you because now I'm trying to "correct" the Bible. I am not trying to correct the Bible, I'm just trying to reflect your views from an encyclopedic voice. It's not me who is being hard to work with now. Now why don't you phrase it in your own words this time and we'll work on that, hmmmm? Codex Sinaiticus 22:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I did "phrase it in my own words" becfore, and you tried to suck the soul out of it in death-of-a-thousand-paper-cuts fashion by overloading it with excessive redundant indefinite expressions. AnonMoos 18:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

In any case, the Scythians that the ancient Israelites would have been likely to hear about were those that lived in the Azerbaijan-Tabriz area after the Cimmerian-Scythian invasions of the mideast ca. 700 B.C., and NOT the Scythians in the sea of Azov area, for reasons that I explained in excruciating detail above. Some people think that "Ashkenaz" meant exactly these Azerbaijan-Tabriz Scythians.

Cimmerians? I thought Cimmerians = Gomer, father of Ashkenaz (not Magog) was equally as sound as Javan, Madai, and Tiras... Codex Sinaiticus 22:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about -- the Scythians followed behind the Cimmerians in the invasions of the middle-east from the Caucasus area beginning in the late 8th century B.C. Furthermore, Gomer = Anatolian Cimmerians is quite a bit MORE secure than Tiras = Thrace, to judge from the "NIV Atlas of the Bible": Although not all of the peoples/nations can be certainly identified, commonly accepted identifications include Gomer = Cimmerians, Madai = Medes, Javan = Ionians, Ashkenaz = Scythians, Elishah = Alashiyah/Cyprus, and Rodanim = Rhodes. (I would also say that Meshech = Moschi is pretty widely accepted.) This atlas actually places Tiras in southern Italy (which the Israelites might have heard about through long-standing Phoenician trade with the area). AnonMoos 18:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, you're piling on the qualifiers to try to give an impression of extreme uncertainty to what is the most mainstream and accepted position: "Given the usual identification of the other "sons of Japheth" (such as Javan=Ionia, Madai=Media, etc.), the Magog of Genesis 10 MAY have been located SOMEwhere in the general Anatolia, Caucasus, or south-of-Caucasus region" would quite adequately convey the idea of a lack of precise exactitude, but you felt you had to add in further multiple redundant indefinites to convey a mostly-false impression of almost complete ignorance: "THE GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF THE MAGOG IS LEFT OPEN BY GENESIS 10. Given the usual identification of the other "sons of Japheth" (such as Javan=Ionia, Madai=Media, Tiras=Thrace etc.), the Magog of Genesis 10 MAY have been located ANYwhere in the general Anatolia, Caucasus, or south-of-Caucasus region, ALTHOUGH THIS IS SPECULATIVE."

By the way, I have never heard of "Caseists" or "Anti-Caseists" so sorry I didn't get that reference... Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 21:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The clue was in my remarks of "22:00, 26 October 2005 (UTC)" above, where I mentioned the hypothetical excample of someone claiming that the moon was made of green cheese. Since "Caseus" is the Latin word for cheese, a "caseist" (pronounced using three syllables) would be somebody who advocates for something on behalf of cheese. It was a spur-of-the-moment sarcastic neologism. AnonMoos 22:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I rather doubt that Tiras=Thrace is accepted with the same certainty as Javan=Ionia and Madai=Media. What is your evidence that it is? If you want to include Tiras, then it should be mentioned as possibly (but by no means certainly) meaning AEGEAN Thrace. AnonMoos 22:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Herodotus and other ancients specifically refer to them as extending to the river Tiras the old name of the Dniester. You couldn't ask for bette evidence. But I'll bet it's not good enough for you. Codex Sinaiticus 22:38, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

That's nice -- I'm looking at my edition of Herodotus right now, and NEITHER "Tiras" NOR the Dniester is listed in the index! Furthermore, I have a number of Biblical reference works and atlases here, and basically all of them mention Javan=Ionia and Madai=Medes (if that would "fall within the scope of their remit", as the British would say), but none of them mentions Tiras=Thrace. My Biblical Hebrew lexicon also glosses Yawan (original pronunciation) as "Ionia" and Madai as "Media", but is silent about Tiras. And for reasons which I explained in excruciatingly-painful mind-numbing detail above, the Dniester was beyond the horizon of the ancient Israelites' geographical knowledge in ca. the 7th century B.C. (or at any earlier historical period). 18:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

( for the mother of all maccaroni) Did not Ezekiel mentions Magog spamming Meshek and Tubal ( hebrew bible: MSK and TBL) as the span between Moskva River west and Tobol River East MSK refer to MSK the arabic name for Amber from the south Baltic Sea and the trade route was through Moscow region /rivers. In ancient times nations could not emmigrate across rivers if the people of the other side of the river minded , they could lay in wait armed while the others on shaky grounds ( boats ) with families, the end result would be the women and children become easy booty for the other side of the river. Dead Sea scrolls in them the geneological past of genesis and before was completely non existant, Jesus and Barnabas known to have complained about the forfeiting of the holy bible in Genesis. Muslims too ( concerning geneology of nations and Ishmael story). You can see many terms in genesis was not known till later ( gomer simmerians ( germany) actually the Book of Yaser ( jewsih prophet book) clearly says the magog were in germany ( well germany name from the Goths in 100 AD names after the sarmations another name of the Goths, so thee was no place called germany at the time of genesis writing, that means genesis was written after 100 AD71.220.89.177 00:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing of it is

The thing of it is, Magog, Tiras, etc. are entities of traditional legend, and it's hard to enter into any discussion about these folks without taking into account what previous classical authorities who tried to identify them before us, have said about them. You can't just dismiss these classical authorities (such as Nennius, Josephus, Jerome, etc.) as if they never existed, and refuse to allow them to even be mentioned, just because you have come up with some new-fangled theory based on your own "logic" that you think trumps everything else that everyone who came before us has said. I believe the name for such behaviour is called "revisionism". What's really bizarre is that you have yet to come up with even a single source, primary, secondary, or other, for your own modernistic theory, yet you repeatedly accuse ME of "original research" for quoting the classical views held in antiquity. But, I guess I am going to have to give you the benefit of the doubt here, because if "Tiras = Thrace" is really and truly brand new stuff to you, then odds are you've never even heard of those "dudes" named Flavius Josephus or Nennius, et. al., let alone what they may have said about Magog... Codex Sinaiticus 21:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Magog and Tiras may possibly be "legendary" (at a minimum they're geographically vague to some degree), but Javan and Madai AREN'T "legendary", and the context of Javan and Madai (and some others) -- along with the historical facts about the limits of ancient Israelite geographical knowledge -- provide broad but definite limits as to the possible localization of "Magog" in Genesis 10. Meanwhile, medieval fokloric Hungarian and Irish legends about Gog and Magog are prima facie unlikely to provide any relevant information whatsoever as to the localization of Magog in Genesis 10, and the sea of Azov also remains irrelevant. I haven't "dismissed" Nennius, Josephus, Jerome because you haven't mentioned them before in this discussion, but I would bet that they're much more devoted to explaining GOG and Magog in the context of Ezekiel, than to explaining Magog alone (without Gog) in the context of Genesis 10. Meanwhile, my so called "revisionist" theory consists solely and exclusively of SUGGESTING that the Magog of Genesis 10 MAY have been located in the same general geographical area where the mainstream of scholarship places ALL of the other "sons of Japhet" of Genesis 10 who can be precisely located -- which is why I find your kicking-and-screaming resistance to it slightly bizarre. Meanwhile, I notice that I'm the only one in this discussion so far who has given actual concrete references to and/or direct quotes from specific books -- except for a bogus reference you gave to something which you said was in Herodotus, but is actually not in Herodotus. AnonMoos 01:14, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm afraid that's one bet you would definitely lose, since ALL of the above-mentioned do indeed explain Magog (without Gog) in the context of Genesis 10, not Ezekiel, and ALL of the above concur that Magog was ancestor of "those Scythians who dwelt north of the Black Sea (Maeotis)". Sorry, I guess I had just automatically supposed that anyone presuming to play the Table of Nations game would have been familiar with Josephus, at a minimum; but as the conversation went on, it became painfully obvious that it isn't the case. Anyway, hopefully we've cleared it up now, that it's NOT my "original research" by any stretch; and we can move on to improving the article. Again, if you wish to "SUGGEST" somewhere that Magog was somewhere else, I'm not kicking or screaming; and you're quite welcome to do so as far as I'm concerned, but if you can't quote at least one author who also thinks so, then I do feel that this "SUGGESTION" should be introduced with the utmost caution as such, certainly not stated as if it were an obvious, well-recognized fact. (Not saying you were going to do that ;o)... ) As for Herodotus' allusions to the river Dniester as "Tyras", try looking in book IV... though it is a bit apropros to this article... ! Sorry if we made a initial bad impression on each other for whatever reason, old sport, but the important thing is to look past that and maybe we can both learn something from our research! Regards, Codex Sinaiticus 03:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Molten what?

An anon changed the molten copper to molten lead. I checked the Omar & Omar translation and it says 'copper'. Is this contentious? I've reverted it back to copper. — Stumps 07:01, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Marco Polo

Marco Polo mentions Gog and Magog and explains the relationship to the Mongols (magog > mongol).

Citing the Bible/Messianism in the Bible section

On the tail of a number of edits by 69.81.168.188 (talk • contribs), I think it's important that individual chapter and verse be cited for references. It makes it easier on everyone else. I've edited the passage accordingly, along with some other copyedits.

I feel that any messianic interpretation in the bible section should refer strictly to Bible-era messianic beliefs. Modern theories about the Black Sea, etc. should be put elsewhere, to avoid confusion. Even 7th Century theories should be in a different section; I will get around to this eventually.

Particularly for a subject so variously interpreted as this, it's very important that we ground ourselves in sources. --Mgreenbe 11:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Citations and sources by era

On the tail of a number of edits by 69.81.168.188 (talk • contribs), I think it's important that individual chapter and verse be cited for references. It makes it easier on everyone else. I've edited the passage accordingly, along with some other copyedits.

I feel that any messianic interpretation in the bible section should refer strictly to Bible-era messianic beliefs. Modern theories about the Black Sea, etc. should be put elsewhere, to avoid confusion. Even 7th Century theories should be in a different section; I will get around to this eventually.

Particularly for a subject so variously interpreted as this, it's very important that we ground ourselves in sources. --Mgreenbe 11:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Jordanes

Summarizing Jordanes may be inappropriate here, as his work is very much a product of his fancy.

He pictured what he believed or wanted to believe, and his employment of fable and legend, as well as the naïve exhibition of his loyal prejudices, merely heightens the interest of his story.

The quote is from Andrew F. West's introduction to the Mierow translation, the translation cited in the article. The text with West's comments is at Project Gutenberg. While his opinion is valuable to reference, I think it would be misleading to attempt to use it in a broader historical context.

The deleted text is:

According to this Jordanes who was compiling the history of his ancestors the Goths, he mentions in this book that the Goths moved from Scandinavia south to the area of the Volga and the Scythians in the area above current day Iran and in Current day Georgia and Ukraine, and then later moved to Europe during the Roman Empire and settled all over Europe as far as Spain. At the time of Ezekiel ( 8th century B.C.) they must have been still residing up in the far north, but in the time of the Perthian Empire, they must have been living just north of where the Perthian king Darius the Great (6th century B.C.) built that infamous wall that is still remains in current day Georgia and Azebijan.

I'm not sure what can be used from that paragraph. While these migrations over Europe are more or less accurate history, Jordanes is not. --Mgreenbe 15:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

In the Qur'an

It's a stretch to turn the citation from the 21st chapter of the Qur'an, Al-Anbiya 21:96, into "a major sign" of the world's ending, nor that they're Europeans, according to Islam. The previous verse says that communities that God destroyed won't return until Gog and Magog swarm from every hill. That's the only mention of that, far as I can tell, in the whole Book. Plus it's not usual for Muslim scholars to draw on the Bible for interpretation. Anyhow if there's a citation for what Muslim scholars think that Gog and Magog are Europeans because of some line in a book (the Bible) they think contains errors, that should be included. Otherwise I'd avoid suggesting the imputation that Muslims think Europeans are the harbinger of doomsday (in the form of Gog and Magog), because they don't. You must however acknowledge the fact that in the Islamic Hadith, there are abundances of the mention of Gog and Magog (see Sahih-Al-Bukharee "Turmoils")

In Marvel Comics

Although it is a stretch there was a creature by the name of Mangog that showed up Marvel's Thor Comics as a bringer of death and destruction. He was largely undefeatable and could only be temporarily incapacitated before he showed up again to destroy every thing in the universe. [mpa|mpa]

Probably irrelevant - may never have happened.--Jack Upland 10:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxons

I have deleted 2 paragraphs advancing the 'theory' that Gog represents the 'anglo-saxonics'. It is badly expressed and lacks citations. It also contains complete non sequituurs:

• Gog is a surname used in North America (please check it typing 'Gog' as surname under the white pages found in http://www.whitepages.com/5116 for USA or http://www.whitepages.ca for Canada).

• We shall not fix them in the black sea region, because they correspond to peoples that may migrate to different geographical places with the time. That's why Magog, corresponding to the ancient Scythians living near the black sea, may correspond to the anglo-saxonics of today.

If someone wants to cite a significant source which holds this interpretation, then some reference could be included, but not this illogical material.--Jack Upland 00:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I have added Bede and Gildas and a book on amazon71.220.89.177 08:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Well they cut my references to the fact that anglosaxons are goths plus a book by turner I think plotitics play supreme in Wikipedia. it is becoming a lost cause and corruption of the truth.What use of wiki if we insist on the conservative material from other encyclopedia. it is like preserving the status quo71.220.89.177 06:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there are 2 obvious issues here:

• poor expression,
• incoherence.

It's unfair to blame 'plotitics' when you can't explain yourself. By the byway, it is universally accepted that Anglo-Saxons are not Goths, though they are both Germanic tribes.--Jack Upland 08:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Anglo Saxons are the purest of the Goths ( Gog) all other Goths had to mix racially with celts in Europe ( and Romans) but the saxons killed every body before them and instituted the English Language in the Island for the first time ( English is the closest language to Gothic language ( Gothis language is the Eastern German Language now distinct but all western German languages ( English German etc are direct descendents of the East German Language ( Gothic language ) so what are you talking about? that Anglosaxons are germans but not goths!!!! anglosaxons are the embodiment of the Goths ( Gog) in our times! should be put back in the article about Gog and Magog ( because they are them and nobody else) Huh209.23.168.121 07:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are flat wrong. Not all Germanic peoples were Goths; the Anglo-Saxons were not, no matter what you think. Your line about them not "mixing racially" with the Celts or Romans is likewise wrong. And the idea that they are the "embodiment of the Goths (Gog) in our times" is just some more of your unreferenced nonsense (and no, I'm not an Anglo-Saxon).--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The Goths won the war against Europeans and Romans and so they took their place in Europe. Evidence for this is that all Aristocratic Noble families of Europe claim descendency from the Goths, This is evidence they won and the winner don't get absorbed with the loser. the Word German is one of the words of the Goths given to Germany by them when they conquered it. There was no Germany word in Europe before 100 AD in any refernces by any historian in the world ( a challenge). and the Anglo ( Engle) tribe of the goths actually existed on the shores of Azov sea in the 2 century BC according to Historians ( a map with the name Angle exists that puts them on the map on the Azov sea ( Black Sea) The celts and who ever lived in Europe before the Goths were black eyed people who spoke celtic ( a branch of the Latino langiage family) of the romans. The Latin died but stayed in the church only. the Western German languages replaced those languages ( German languages branched from the Gothic language- historical fact)

There are two nations that still preserve the Saka root of their original name ( of the goths) in their names ( the Saxons and the Ashkenazi (Askuz(Saka), and those two are the purest of the goths one moved to England and the other satayed in their home land ( north of Black sea ( Huns or Khazars and finally came to be known as Ashkenazi in our times)209.23.169.23 07:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, you need to provide references for these outlandish theories, and they need to be copious, as virtually every sentence is wildly divergent from the scholarly consensus, and you need to express them in a professional, concise, and cogent way. Then we can have a paragraph for you in the article.--Jack Upland 18:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Islam

"It is said that they will emerge will emerge during the reign of Jesus, and will be vast in number [1] drinking up the waters of the Tigris and Euphrates. It is said that God divided mankind into ten parts - nine tenths constitute Gog and Magog while the remaining tenth constitutes the rest of mankind."

I have moved this because it is badly expressed (hard to understand for those not versed in Islam) and needs a proper citation.--Jack Upland 22:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Also know that not every Muslim accepts this view. Armyrifle 16:07, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Judaism

I think it's a shame that the Jewish traditions about Magog's location are not presented, while later Islamic traditions are. The Jewish Talmud and Midrash have dealt with Magog's location in various places, and some Jewish scholars over the centuries actually located Magog in the world map. If someone cares to know more the Jewish approach to Magog's location, he might start here: http://hashem1.net/?p=361&sn=GogMagogLocatingMagog.htm#Our_Sages_interpretations_on_Land_of_Magog

Well, add something then!--Jack Upland 04:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievable...

Are you two REALLY this bored?! .....for the record, AnonMoos is the only one I see in this "discussion" using referances to support his opinions, not just bold type and insults.Xabachay 07:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did you add this??? Boredom???--Jack Upland 04:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant information

There is a great deal of irrelevant information being added to this article by 71.220.89.177. For example:

• after "Daryal Pass": (named after Darius the Great son of Hystaspes/Goshtâsb also named in old Persian Saga: Esfandiar/Eskandiar (ie King/shah-- Darya=Xsven-Dariya as written on Behistun Inscriptions) son of Key Gushtasp/Goštâsp. It was this Esfandiyar who built the wall according to "Herodotes of the Arabs" Masudi in his book "Le Praires d'or" I-III, Paris 1962-71 page 479). He built it out of iron and then poured melted copper over it, making it difficult to climb or dig under. This stopped Gog and Magog from threatening them
  • This may be included in the Daryal Pass article, not in that section, or this article. Please note that this is an encyclopedic entry, not an essay. See: Wikipedia:Stay on topic

Furthermore you have added a great deal of information on Ashkenazim and Arab genealogy, Armenians, Maronite, and many other things, which does NOT belong to that section. The section is about how MUSLIM SCHOLARS see Gog and Magog! I'll temporarily move these into the reference, until we find an appropriate section or article for them.

See: Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles

--Seek equilibrium 11:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

it is important to know who is Dzulqarnain ( the two horned king) who faught the Gog. It is known that Darius fought the Goths ( Gog) as reported by Darius himself on the Behistun Inscriptions and by Herodotus. Darius was a Persian king ( two horned (persia and Medai, read Daniel in the bible too about the two horned ram representing Persian kingdom!) Daryal pass is the location of the Dam, why was it named under Darius name and not Cyrus name or alexander name? do you know why? because Darius built the Dam, surprise surprise) Darius became used by later persian kings but not cyrus who was before Darius Got it? Also look at the identical of the name of father of Darius and the father of Esfandiar whom the Historian Masudi state was the Dam builder Masudi has a book in Frensh71.220.89.177 08:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

claiming that they're not really Khazars

Several users seem to be going out of their way to insist that it's only "jewish scholars" who think the Khazar theory is nonsense. In fact, it's all legitimate scholars of history and genetics who deny it. In fact, about the only people who have ever thought there was any legitimacy to it was 1) one jew - Arthur Koestler, who came up with it, despite no training or research into the subject; 2) white supremacists; and 3) individuals whose sole intention is to delegitimize the claim of jews to the state of Israel. That's all well and good, but why don't we use the truth to defend our positions, rather than Internet-promulgated disinformation? The changes repeatedly made by this seemingly organized group of editors go on to say that the genetic test of Ashkenazim was overseen by "Jewish" scientists - does "Majumder" really sound jewish to you? - Maggie --67.71.120.202 16:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We are not trying to prove or disprove anything here. That section is about how some MUSLIMS see Khazars. You might be correct that they may be wrong in their view. But being right or wrong on that is fully explained in the Articles Ashkenazim and Khazar. Again: this section is about how Muslims might see Khazars, whether they may be wrong does not belong to the section on how THEY view Khazars. There is also a section explaining some Muslims believe they are Europeans. That might be stupid and nonsense to me, but nevertheless its how they feel and can't be removed.--Seek equilibrium 20:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What can be removed are your repeated attempts to slander the many, many historians who have debunked the Khazar myth ("Jewish scholars claim") and to undermine the genetic study on the basis that one or two of its many authors were jewish - veiling your suggestion of the non-legitimacy of jewish scientists by means of junk science about "Turkic haplotypes". Muslims can believe what they like, but you are pushing an agenda. Your writing suggests not merely that Muslims buy the Khazar hypothesis, but rather, that the Khazar hypothesis is true and has been supported by genetic testing, all of which is the exact opposite of the truth. The clear implication of most of what you've contributed to this article is thus: "Muslims, and all reasonable people, believe that Ashkenazi jews are an evil, rampaging, Turkish horde; but it is true that some contrarian jews (who are otherwise quite clever) claim otherwise." - Maggie --64.229.184.127 04:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

what this has to do with muslims. I reported down to the bone scientific evidence that Ashkenazim descend Paternally from Eastern Europeans ( at least a big majority) you don't expect that if ashkenasim have 10% R1a1 for example that only 10% of non jews made it to become jews because Germans have 10% for example and they all Europeans. The Dyss388-17 marker of the arab is not found in not even One jew ( but should be because both descend from Abraham, a marker for the arab should be a marker for the ancient jews too) J1 the ancestry of the arabs found in only 10% at most in jews ( J1 is the ancestry of semites not Abraham in particular) Hence all jews ( sephardi mizrahi and Ashkenazi are not descendent from the old hebrews from the Paternal side. Maternal side is different issue, You see, nations were built on Paternal ancestry not maternal. Women across nations and races have no markers to define a nation of even an area. Men used to marry from different populations to empower the male lineage. Look at the map of the Y haplogroups of the world and see it fits the distribution of races and regions, Maternal DNA of women of different nations hardly be separated. To create nations on maternal lineage requires starting from today about 10000 years, so the jewish tradition ( jew if mother is jew) was a Rabbinical idea that ended up creating diseases in jews. It is important that jews in general and in Israel get a final closure on who they are. it is sad ( better late not sad) that they are strangers to each other collected by evil rabbies from Kurdia ( agnostic sages) who roamed the earth to create a freak Frankeshtein nation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.89.177 (talk • contribs)

You honestly think that your admixture of "bone scientific evidence" (sic) coupled with your seeming insistence that the Muslim tradition of Abrahamic descent is absolutely and manifestly true (and the Jewish one is a "big lie") is credible? Obviously, you seem to think it becomes more so with the benefit of the various antisemitic calumnies with which your writing is peppered, and all of it is made easier to swallow by your tenuous grasp of English grammar. - Maggie --67.71.121.166 02:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

just go to Haplotype J1 (Y-DNA) in wiki, from it you get all the scientific references you like ( semetic or antisemetic, if there are antisemetic research) what do you mean by Muslem tradition of Abrahamic Ancestry: I understood what was meant by the ((Jewish tradition)) which means that jews are jews only if they are born of jewish women, but about the muslim tradition here ( do you mean that Muslems are the only people in the world who check descent from men?) do you deny the DNA Haplogroup World map that shows world regions ethnics matches Y ( male ) ancestries as defined by Haplogroups while could not be defined by mtDNA ( female maternal ones) is the map anti semetic too?

Any human being can not be but in one Haplogroup if a man are in j1 then his son cannot be from j2 unless if it was not his son So Aaron is from the same Haplogroup of Jacob of Abraham if abraham was j1 then Aaron can not be j2 Kabish?!

now the Ashkenaz and all the rest of the jews have little of J1 the dominant in arabic countries. Now would britons have more j1 than jews, the answer because jews are not semites at all, most countries or nations have semitic j1 among its people because Arabs conquered and immigrated , so chinese are more semetic than jews, kurds are more semetic than jews, Georgians are more semetic than jews Turks, iranians(persians) pakistani, India, etc etc. Now if CURRENT jews who are mainly NOT descendent from J1 the semetic haplogroup ( ancestry ) of Abraham, then all these nations have the right to return to the land of Israel! more right than the Israeli because some of their populations are sons of abraham. Cirrent Jews are not sons of Abraham, what is so simple as that ( evidence show in blood genetics, it is counter proof NadaPeriod, No Butts or ifs about it)

If you still did not understand , I can still explain, but most people will —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.89.177 (talk • contribs)

This pseudo-scentific nonsense didn't stick in Khazars, and won't stick here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You call genetic evidence pseudo science, what is real science para biblical herenautics???!!!

by the way Khazars ( Huns) are mixure of caucasoid and mongoloid featues ( ie R1a1 of Ukraine area and J2 of Indo Europeans and Q and G , these found high also in Ashkenazi and sephardi ( I haplog, of Spain) are being studies just about now. Q found in japanese and Native americans found in Eshkenazim. those come from the mongoloid people who married the wandering witches of the Goths71.220.89.177 08:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

Assuming good faith I've continued to follow the article as it developed in the past few days. Not only you are not assuming good faith but you also attack others personally contrary to wiki's policies. After removal of the whole section by BEIT OR, I can no longer just watch your censorship of the article. Please don't censor Muslim views. This article was developed in many years by many editors until certain edits of destructive nature began this month. I can not let that happen.--Seek equilibrium 03:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I've taken care of a lot of the contentious issues now. What we really need to do, more than judging who's right or wrong, is say who says what. Much of this needs citations (for instance I think the whole section on Jordanes needs to be looked through). We can't just remove things we don't like for one reason or another. If it is a prominent idea, it needs to be included here, with proper attribution to whoever holds that idea. And we certainly need to stay away from language that pits one language or ethnic group against each other (i.e. phrases like "Jewish scientists", or claiming "most Muslims" think one certain way about the Khazars). I'll continue to work on this after this weekend when I have more time.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, rebutals may be appropriate in some cases. For instance, most scientists reject the Khazar theory of Jewish origins. We simply can't include the Khazar hypothesis without saying this. The rebuttal on this page, however, does not need to be as in depth as at the dedicated articles. We already have several articles on Dhul-Qarnayn, for example.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point of view, and revert Beit OR's vandalism, to your last edit.--Seek equilibrium 23:26, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This section mixes two entirely different issues. First, there is a proposition by some Muslim scholars that Gog and Magog are Khazars. Fine, we can include it. Then, the section take up a completely discredited hypothesis that Ashkenazi Jews are descendatsn of Khazars and proceeds to conclude that those Muslim scholars who thought the Khazars were Gog and Magog actually thought that Gog and Magog were Asheknazi Jews. This is where the article steps into the original research area. The argument about the theorized Khazar abncestry of the Ashkenazim serves only to support this original research conclusion. Beit Or 16:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

We underestand some Muslim beliefs and works of scholars such as Ahmed Thomson disturbs you deeply. However you should know that you may not censor their beliefs. It is what they believe in and you may not try to censor it. This is purest form of vandalism. Stop it.--Seek equilibrium 23:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with Beit Or's deletion of the whole section, and I also don't think it's fair to erase all reference to the Khazar hypothesis, because (despite the fact that it's manifestly nonsense) many people still believe it. It needs to be refuted in the article, but recent anonymous edits by someone claiming to be a physician ("I am MD") have gone out of their way to defend the ridiculous idea on some genetic basis. That's what I've been erasing. - Maggie --67.71.120.134 17:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The hypothesis of the Khazar origin of Ashkenazim is completely discredited, see Khazars. I didn't delete the whole section; Ibn Kathir's idea that Gog and Magog were Khazars is still there. However, the idea that Gog and Magog were Ashkenazi Jews is pure original research because it combines the two views mentioned above to create a completely novel argument. Beit Or 17:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We know, we know. But it's not original research, because plenty of very stupid people believe it, and there is much documentation to that effect. Just because the Khazar hypothesis is bullshit doesn't mean that it's not a fact that a lot of Muslims think Ashkenazi Jews are evil on the basis of Qu'ranic prophecy and Arthur Koestler's pseudohistory. - Maggie --67.71.120.134 19:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you have erased the citations does not make it original research. There are many books written in what you call "original research" in Arabic and Persian and even English. I even cited a summary of Mr. Thomson's book, which was removed. BEIT Or, stop your savage vandalism. I will revert to the pro-Ashkenazi edit of Cuchullain, out of good faith.--Seek equilibrium 02:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, we should sort out that medieval historians like Ibn Kathir would never have made the link between the Khazars and the Ashkenazi. Maybe we should move all of it to a dedicated section about attributions of different groups with Gog and Magog, to make it clear people like Ibn Kathir and Ahmed Thomson believe different things, and to keep it from sounding like these attributions are believed by a majority of Muslims.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is, I think, that the Khazar hypothesis is not really relevant here.--Jack Upland 01:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. In addition to removing the bigoted nonsense inserted by Special:Contributions/71.220.89.177, I've taken out the stuff that's about the genetic theories, not about Muslim beliefs. Now, please explain why the views of Ahmad Thomson, the barrister, are not an extreme minority view. Please remember, per WP:NPOV, that Wikipedia does not reproduce extreme minority views. Jayjg ^(talk) 08:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Aha. I was under the (mistaken?) impression that modern Islamic theories about Gog and Magog being the Khazars are tied to the supposed link between the Khazars and the Ashkenazis, and that they were a subset of the theory that the modern Jews are Gog and Magog. If not, then the Khazar-link theory has no place here. Nor does it need to be here just because a few cranks believe it, as Jayjg points out. We need to sort this out. It seems on the one hand, we have people like the 14th century Ibn Kathir who associate Gog and Magog with the Khazars. Then we have the long folkloric association of the Jews in general with Gog and Magog. This is all fine. But then we have the argument that associates Gog and Magog with the Ashkenazi Jews, which seems to rely on Koestler's Ashkenazi-Khazar link. It seems logical modern antisemites might promote this idea, but the question is, how prevalent is it? If it is prevalent it shouldn't be hard to find others besides Ahmed Thomson who espouse it. Perhaps Seek equilibrium has some other references to include. Then we can more accurately decide

If we keep it, it raises (at least) two separate problems. First is how to include it: I don't think we should mention it without mentioning its origin with Koestler, and that it has been disproven. Second, it doesn't seem likely Muslim individuals would be the only ones associating Gog and Magog with the Ashkenazi using Koestler's link; I'll bet Christian antisemites use it as well. If that's true it almost seems unfair to attribute it only to Muslims.

At any rate, this should be decided soon.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If any of that "scholarship" belongs in an encyclopedia, it would be at Islam and antisemitism, right next to the "scholarship" concerning The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Since English is not the language in which you find many Muslim writings, then you can only find books written by western born and converts like Thomson. The fact that no Muslim edited or complained about the issue since the creation of the article, but expanded the section (but all of the sudden we have an immense number of Jewish editors who try to dictate Muslims beliefs), and the number of books written in Arabic, Persian and other main Muslim languages, speak for itself.
• You have given no source that Koestler was the first who came up with the idea. The Islamic Republic state newspaper, says that the idea goes back to 1944, to the book titled (translated to Persian as)"تهاجم ياجوج چه وقت خواهد بود " of an Anglo-Saxon writer in Vancouver. --Seek equilibrium 04:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how do you identify editors, but if you have personal problems with fellow wikipedians, I suggest you take it someplace else. Please don't try to use WP to promote fringe theories. See WP:NOT. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. These views appear to be extreme minority positions, promoted in this case by a London litigator (not "scholar"). In addition, the section is being used as a soapbox to attempt to prove the Khazar theory, and to bring in all sorts of original research about various non-Muslim sources that seem to peripherally relate to this fringe view. I see at least three strong policy reasons why none of this material is appropriate; can User:Seek equilibrium find some scholarly mainstream sources which promote this view? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding User:Seek equilibrium's statement about Koestler, I have no idea why he's bringing Koestler up, since the article does not refer to him. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream Muslim sources? The top-selling newspapers of Egypt and Iran, and many many books written specifically on this subject is enough source. If you have a problem with Muslim beliefs, I suggest you take it somewhere else. You don't seem to comprehend Muslim scholars refer to any researcher and publisher on Islam. We are not Catholics. We don't have a church to categorize "scholars". please have the capacity to respect others views. Thank you.--Seek equilibrium 05:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Newspapers are not a reliable source for scholarship. Your aggressive and offensive style is duly noted. Please review WP:CIVILITY. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 07:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

"Other Jews had previously been associated with Gog and Magog in medieval European folklore, sometimes peripherally." What does this have to do with the section "Gog and Magog in Islam"? Beit Or 07:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The article did once discuss Koestler, because I added it. It's since been removed. Additionally, we don't need to quote only scholars, we can quote cranks when we discuss crank views. We aren't trying to say the Ashkenazi really are Gog and Magog according to scholars, we're saying Thomson et al believe they are. But we can't promote Thomson's view as if he spoke for all Muslims. I'm starting to think his view is ideosyncratic, and perhaps not necessary to include here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I also added that the Jews were associated with Gog and Magog in European folklore, I guess largelly to point out that that connection predated Thomson and company. It might not be the right section for it, but its certainly relevant to the article if any of that is.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If we're removing the Thomson quotes we should probably put the rest of the information in a different section, it has little to do with specifically Muslim views now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 08:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Since quoting 4 different BOOKS is not a source for Ashkenazis, could u ppl teach us more about Islam, and what we believe in? After all who is worth listening to other than the chosen ones?--Seek equilibrium 09:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, I encourage you to review WP:CIVILITY. On the subject, this is a wrong place to promote fringe theories. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't add the ashkenazi view. It was there when a horde attacked yet another Muslim-related article.--Seek equilibrium 22:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Gog and Magog is a concept that comes from the Hebrew Bible, which predates Islam by over 1,000 years. Please don't insinuate that this is a Muslim-topic article being attacked by anti-Muslims. In reality, you attempted to use this article as a soapbox to promote fringe theories used to delegitimize Ashkenazi Jews, and people resisted. That's all. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

What a bunch of vicious lies. I never added the ashkenazi connection to this wiki article. But I resisted the vandalism of the Muslim beliefs, which were vandalism of of evil and destructive nature. however as its always the case on wiki, the horde wins... and based on your views, Muslims should change themselves to adapt to the Judaic beliefs, because they we there first!--Seek equilibrium 02:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you were the guy who insisted on inserting it again and again, with edits like this. Please review WP:CIVIL again. Please abide by Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

that proves that I only wanted to preserve the article against vandalism. Surely the group made to misuse wikipedia to push their own POV is the last one to remind us of their policies.--Seek equilibrium 02:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You inserted that material again and again. Please stop calling removal of irrelevant or fringe material "vandalism". Jayjg ^(talk) 03:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If you and your group, even find monotheism in Islam an "irrelevant or fringe material", then I am sure you can change that fact, as the reality has become a commodity in the hands of a certain people.--Seek equilibrium 05:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

why cut the genetic evidence that Khazars descend from peoples in North Black sea ( namely R1a1, now R1a1 in (yellow ) in the Haplogroups Worls Map is distributed wholly in three regions Only: Scandinavia ( Scandza of Jordanes, Scythia (north of black sea the land where the Goths including the Huns( cousins of Goths according to Jordanes), and lastly Europe all ( just as the Goths conquered Europe and settled in it. So Ashkenazi as the Khazars(Ashkuz in other pronunciation) sounds logic.

Now to prove that the Khazars are the Ashkinazi we go to "Jewish sources" in Khazars in Wiki and we find tens of documents from ANCIENT jews not in our times alluding to that. Also Historian Armenian from the 8th century call the khazars Hiuns ( he was living in 8th century before Khazars started converting to Judaism, 0 so why cut my contrib in whole in Gog as Ashkenazi, referenced by the best scientific studies for the matter subject ( ie Ashkenazi have lots of R1a1 of the Khazar homeland), so i demand returning it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.89.177 (talk • contribs)

This pseudo-scentific nonsense didn't stick in Khazars, and won't stick here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

it does not matter it did not stick in khazar, I am going to do that soon. The matter is citation by scientific studies 2005 2006 in genetic studies. By the way you can not use wiki articles as ref for another article because they are not facts both of them71.220.89.177 08:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC) This is outrageous, Muslims or others did not know about Khazars are jews from Koestler. They knew first hand by living with the Khazars as Ibn Kathir mentioned. During the 11th century for example, the Khazar king ( jew at the time) allowed the Rus vikings through his terrotries to attack Iran through the Caspian sea , however the muslims living in Khazar land intercepted those vikings and killed them on the volga. Muslims trying to vross north from the caucasian mountains were checked by the khazars by several battles, every time the muslims win their king pretend he becomes muslim. Ibn katheir book ( the beginning and the end is translated into english and available on amazon ( just for the memory IBn kathir lived in the 14th century, He interpreted the quran ( his interpretation is the most used by muslems worldwide) and the topic about khazar is in this inyterpretation book, so really Koestler was not the whistle blower. How about Benjamin Freidman a ex Zionist turned anti zionist and suppoted Koestler he was consultant to presidentRoosevelt and made a lot deals for the zionists in the dark as he claims. he supported Koestler claims. He was even a member of the World jewish agency a prominent member. and he spoke about the stuff AFTER the holocost happened ie after WW ii, so what do you say against that ( claiming Koestler just said what he said to protect the jews. What about the Linguists claim that Ashkuz is the right pronunciation of Khazar word since Khazar is what other people called them not what the khazars called themselves!!

All Ashkenazi Jews have e1b1b1 m-35 DNA in the same EQUAL AMOUNTS as ALL Jewish groups do.

All Ashkenazi Jews have J1 DNA (Semitic) as ALL Jewish groups do.

Some Ashkenazi Jews have 85% J1 DNA like the PUREST Semites in the world only do.

h t t p : / / w w w . e1b1b1-m35.info/2011/02/e1b1b1-jewish-haplogroup . html

There were also centuries were the Supreme Jewish Court forbade conversion of anyone. Certain semi-pagan semi-literate “converts” that are touted by biased people with various political agendas as being related to modern Jews are in fact not at all, and they have been recorded to have been forced into Islam, creating the Malmuks, Ciracassians, and Christianity creating the Cossacks. Therefore, stating that Ashkenazi Jews are Semitic is factual correct and stating it is paying respect to both reality and Jewish traditions.

Furthermore, it is worthwhile to note, that the Ba’al Shem Tov (Davidic Line) encouraged Jews not to mix with gentiles, and many gentile anti-Semitic laws and customs prevented this from happening. As for instance in the central-west Polish town of Kolo which was 50% Jewish, the Jews lived on one side and the gentiles avoided the Jews as much as possible. Since Judaism is passed through the mother’s mother’s mother’s maternal blood line, the Jews also avoided the gentiles. This is further shown in Poland, as many Jews living in Poland never learned to speak a word of Polish in their lives (only Hebrew and Yiddishe, along with other Jewish languages as Encyclopedia Britannia documents Jews arriving from the West to Poland and not from eastern europe), and many never saw a gentile in person, but yet they still had curfews and were unemancipated as to their options of education, money, jobs, and traveling among other anti-Semitic restrictions.

The Sultan of Turkey send ships in 1492 to bring the expelled Jews from the clutches of Spanish Inquisition and settled them in North Africa, Palestine and Eastern Europe - The most fortunate of the expelled Jews succeeded in escaping to Turkey. Sultan Bajazet welcomed them warmly. "How can you call Ferdinand of Aragon a wise king," he was fond of asking, "the same Ferdinand who impoverished his own land and enriched ours?" Among the most unfortunate refugees were those who fled to neighboring Portugal. In 1496, King Manuel of Portugal concluded an agreement to marry Isabella, the daughter of Spain's monarchs. As a condition of the marriage, the Spanish royal family insisted that Portugal expel her Jews. King Manuel agreed, although he was reluctant to lose his affluent and accomplished Jewish community.

The G2c and Q DNA were found in Sicily, which furthermore REFUTES the Khazar lies as the scape-goat attempts by Czarist propaganda to maintain the Jews as the scapegoats for the peasants and Cossacks.

Encyclopedia Britannia, The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, JewishGen.org, The Genome Project, Dr. Harry Osterer PhD in genetics, as well as other documentaries, and sources such as http://www.e1b1b1-m35.info/2011/02/e1b1b1-jewish-haplogroup.html to refute the anti-Semitic lies that are STILL being used today.

I would like to add some more information about the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, they had access to the many Ashkenazi Polish Jews in Posen, Silesia, and Ashkenazi Russian Jews in Konigsberg, as well as their German African colonies of Naimbia and Rwanda. Germany had these lands in it's possession until the end of the First World War, and the racial anthropological research involving phenotypes and other physical features, influenced German gentile journalist Wilhelm Maar to state the correct term of anti-Semitism which meant the racial hatred and prejudice of white Europeans toward Ashkenazi Jews in Europe because of their Semitic race and not simply their tribal religion. The very wise Jew Moses Hess, also emphasized that Ashkenazi Jews were hated in Europe because of their Semitic race and not any cultural reasons. Moses Hess' mother was Jewish living in Germany and his father was a Jew that fled the anti-Semitism of Poland.

J1 DNA being found in Europe can be explained by the massive Middle Eastern and Mediterranean migrations and racial as well as cultural mixations of Semites into South Germany and Central Germany in 4500 BCE and 2300 BCE as described by Encylopedia Britannia.

is that pseudo science. what about the study by Behar et al that you cut Behar being a jewish isreali genetic scientist from Israel? eeven though he tried to claim that the khazar ancestry in Ashkinazi Levites came from even just one man! non sense debunked by scientists. So don't keep cutting my contribs in one revert and calling it edit. this is not edit if you cut all my stuf and add nothing. I on the other hand did not cut any body else material I just added.

You should be ashamed of yourselves:). 08:08, 30 January 2007 Cuchullain (Talk | contribs) (rv the same content. I'm sure that anon user has violated 3RR by now.) 01:11, 30 January 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 71.220.89.177 (talk) to last version by Codex Sinaiticus) 07:22, 30 January 2007 Beit Or (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 104272482 dated 2007-01-30 05:34:23 by Cuchullain: same POV-pushing) 18:23, 29 January 2007 6SJ7 (Talk | contribs) (Rv POV, OR and absurd addition by anon to last version by Cuchullain) 07:41, 29 January 2007 Beit Or (Talk | contribs) (Revert to revision 104019321 dated 2007-01-29 05:30:31 by Humus sapiens per all the arguments stated on talk) 20:36, 28 January 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 71.220.89.177 (talk) to last version by Jayjg 08:01, 28 January 2007 Jayjg (Talk | contribs) m (Reverted edits by 71.220.89.177 (talk) to last version by Seek equilibrium)

each one of these reverts cut away several edits of mine at a time, what is this, and added nothing. So if I revert back to my edit ( completely new material, without enfringing on anybody material or interfereing in the flow of the article ( such as the crasy stuff of the para biblical interpretation(jewish tradition? meaning interpretation of the rabbies of middle ages? who wants to know their opinions. Even Ahmadia sect is 80 million ( they claim to be 200 m) they are 10 times more than followers of the pharaisies ( extra biblical junk). why 2 billion muslims and 2 billion christians ( total 4 billions) have to read the opinion of 10 millions people religious leaders at the top of the article ( this para extra biblical stuf even turns off any body who wants to read the article), what about the goggite Hal Lindey claim Iraq is gog and magog ?? So back to your wondering why talk about khazar in Gog and Magog:

here the catches: Jordanes commented on Josephus that indeed the Goths are of Magog!

The Huns are the cousins of Goths according to Jordanes Getica section ( origin of the Huns) Armenian historian considered the Huns and Khazars as one people. The khazars converted to judaism as ( jewish sources) in Khazars in Wiki itself. There are recovered letters and documents from the high political correspondance between the sephardi jewish leadership in Spain and the converted Khazars.

Ashkinazi jews are the Khazars because of the genetic evidence of R1a1 and rare Q and G found only in mangols ( even in Native americans ( mongolian ancestry). Now R1a1 is dominent in Ukraine and around north to Scandinavia and throught Europe in lower percentage. however this R1a1]] is rare in Middle east so it is not Abraham ancestry. While where abraham and the israelites ( not israelites of the resident of the current state of Israel) they dwelt in semetic lands and the Arabs have J1 the highrest among nations ( plus more importantly) the Cohanim Modal Haplotype of the Ashkenazi Cohanim people ( few thousand people on the earth) claim this haplotype have to be in j1 to become Aaron Marker ( why j1 and not j2? you ask: because j2 is marker of non semetic people thought to be the marker of the indo Europeans ( the whites with dark hair and dark eyes ( iran, turkey, greek, Italian) now j2 is 20% in jews and 10% only have j1 ( semetic ancestry) so what do you say after that) Ashkenazi jews =khazars=hums sons of Goths sons of Magog.

So we need to put all my cut stuff back. 71.220.89.177 10:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I said I am MD after somebody called me illeterate. Plus my being MD I know a lot of genetics ( ie I am an expert in the field) there is nothing wrong with that As for the 27 january input that Ibn Kathir said Khazars are the gog, you say he did not connect them to the ashkenazi jews. well of course he did not. At his time the Khazars were 400 years in the jewish religion, so it was a common knowledge. as why he did connect them to ashkenazim, well? because that terminology did not exist yet smart guy! Plus Ashkenazi is from Ashkuz which is the name of the Khazars of themselves ( khazar being arabic rendering of their name, arabs could not pronounce Ashkuz) just like the Persians did not know of a king named Darius because that is the Greek rendering of Darya Xven-Daria (Esfandiar in arabic rendering of old persian) so persians know Esfandiar not Darius. when Europeans pronounce our name ( Muzlems) we don't it is muSlems they mean ( Muzlim means dark in arabic)!muslim means submitter in PEACE ( great difference right) so it is unlikely that a muslim will tell you ( I am Muzlim) The crusaders used to name Muhammad Mahimuth or something like that... So you people want evidence as written in English. what about www.khazaria.com did any body had a look in it yet? one of the maker of that website is among you denying here while he is bringing more proof in that website about the letters and evidence, do you want to know his name, check each other talk pages his first letter of his wiki name is B.71.220.89.177 12:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC) what this antisemitic label scarecraw any way, was Koestlet antisemite. he was a zionist for god sake. what bringing scientific and historical evidence. There is nothing wrong to be a khazar, the muslim seljuks were khazars and they benefited islam by beating the hell of the crusaders, Actually I have two jewsih grandmothers on both sides of my parents one Merzahi ( even better original israelite and the other was qidshi ( meaning ashkinazi as the native jews of the middle east call them. So according to the Jewish tradition I am more more decsendent from the 4 wives of Jacob than any body in this forum71.220.89.177 12:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC) Hey, I forgot to ask? Where did all the Khazars go???!!

are they hidden in a ginni bottle on some shore. Their kingdom was the largest in size, Where are they Now? !71.220.89.177 13:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no further purpose to be served by feeding this troll. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

you see? are you a visionary or a prophet?, was it revealed to you what you see, can we share what you see, some evidence against my evidence oh Mr Taralalli ( compared to the trull ( a goul) you refered to me, Taralalli in arabic is the man who rents few floors of his brain), or are you the master of the round table here71.220.89.177 00:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

71.220.89.177, You are trying to reason with vandalizers whose edits on Islamic articles have been of evil and destructive nature.

...When [...] are let loose and they rush headlong down every...--Seek equilibrium 02:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

They even cut of my grammer fixins and stuff like that they could have left that uncut ( including good refernces) you could see Calchcin referted to a bad grammerand ut the ref for the anclosaxon and readded the rquest for ref. this is silly71.220.89.177 04:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, the scant mention of Gog in this section underlines my point - it's not relevant. Put a link to the article on Khazars, discuss to your hearts' content whether Ashekhanazi are Khazar, but please don't duplicate the discussion here.--Jack Upland 08:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed image

I removed the image of the Jewish man and foreign woman because I didn't see how it related to the article. Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't we just tell what they believe in the article? --YoungOcelot 01:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"Jewish" man and "foreign" woman? wow! its shows who most muslims consider Jews (Mizrahi, Sephardi) and who they don't (ashkenazi).--Seek equilibrium 02:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, don't go on a rampage about what I called them. After I removed the image, I forgot the name. Anyway, I still don't see how that has anything to do with the article. --YoungOcelot 05:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

gog as the Goths

Hi every one, my name is Adam. I was working on Gog and Magog in the Jordanes section.

Some people are keep cutting my edits even though they are not coordinators or administrators.

It took me lots of work to edit yet one named Jyg revert all my edits out and back Siniacus. Now the Jordanes section been tagged as lacking references yet when I added the references to day Jan 29, 2007, they keep cutting them, so what is the deal here Historian Jordanes 550 AD commented on Jewish Historian Josephus 70 AD for hitting the mark that the goths descended from Magog as Josephus said . He continued to say he still wonders why Josephus ( being so good) did not mention where goths ( Scythians came from before being between Meshek and Tubal ( meaning the motherland Scandinavia). also Bede and Gildas are very famous regarding the history of Britain Gildas in particular was a survivor of the native britons he witnessed with his own eyes how the Anglo Saxons killed all natives and the roads were filled with bodies and peices not buried for months. Even King Arther was non other than the Native Briton who faught balabtly the saxons that were brought as merceneraies by a tyrent king to defend against the Scots from the North but they the saxons renegated on their agreement and brought more of their buddies the Goths from Europe continent.

So both my refernces above plus numerous references and refernced contributions by me.

I demand that the coordinators stop this roudy incursion on my edits. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.220.89.177 (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

See WP:OWN. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 05:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand?? Do you mean the late Bede or Gildas who died in 600 AD still owns his book, even though there are many online sites of his books speaking about the anglosaxons.

Or do you mean the Anglosaxons don't want information about them revealed?71.220.89.177 08:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Humus sapiens is not an Anglo-Saxon.--Seek equilibrium 02:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if he is or not. My question why cut my added refernces to Anglosaxons and refernce to josephus he answered to go read WP:OWN I read it it talkes about ownership of refrence that owner might mind to that but both Josephus and Gildas died over millenia, so his reply does not answer my question. May be they apply scare tactics thinking I am stupid and will not under stand WP:OWN because of my weak english or something.71.220.89.177 04:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is you are objecting to your own edits being edited. But more importantly your argument is fallacious. Gog=Goths=Anglo-Saxons. What supports this? Your tenuous arguments. Find some source that identifies Gog with the English. Then we have one sentence and the article and we are finished. You, on the other hand, want to hijack the article in pursuit of your own obscure and far-fetched conspiracy theory (which, by the way, you never spell out). This is not - as you know - the purpose of Wikipedia.--Jack Upland 08:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

you should read the article of my last edit to see the refrences about the connection, now that they are been cut you can not.71.220.89.177 10:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC) The best of Wikipedia is what been cut ( the truth. To find best info read through edited pages . now you see what is wiki for to check what people know and then hide it and unligitimize it. Sad but true71.220.89.177 10:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I had tried to clean up this section, shortening it, and making it more informative and better sourced. Now 75.168.17.167 has changed this section again into an amorphous mass of claims written in poor English. The following assertion is really up the wall: "The Visigoths even named the Iberian penincula "Spain" on the name of their ancient homeland Svere in Sweden" — as is well known, Spain was called Hispania before the Visigoths got there. Reverting. /Pieter Kuiper 10:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is hopeless

On the one hand you've got Seek Equilibrium, who claims that all cogent debunkings of a crackpot fringe race theory are "destructive and evil". On the other, you've got Adam "I am MD" 71.220.89.177, who doesn't know the difference between an ethinicity and a language group. He argues passionately (though incoherently) that so-and-so aren't really genetically "Middle Eastern" because their language isn't Semitic. This is like saying that Hungarians can't genetically be Eastern European because their language is Asian. Everyone's point seems to be, more or less, that Jews 1) aren't real and 2) are marauding signifiers of the end-times, at least according to Islam. I give up! All this illiteracy and sanctimony is exhausting! It's not just that no-one here understands genetics, history, or linguistics. It's that several people seem unable to distinguish between their beliefs and the beliefs of everyone who shares their faith and interests. - Maggie --64.229.185.54 03:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope your joking, because I never try to edit an article once the mighty chosen ones have agreed on it. I have seen what happens to Muslim editors in other articles before.

p.s. why u ppl call it a fringe theory when there are a handful of books in the Mideast on this issue? Its even the official view of a Muslim party in Britain. u cant censor it based on that, but you can do it with the usual horde approach.--Seek equilibrium 03:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So jews (and, for that matter, anyone literate enough to disagree with you) are a "mighty", marauding "horde"? Way to build up a spirit of amity and tolerance. - Maggie --64.229.185.54 20:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet here another tactics of playing a side distraction by Maggie! I did not mention languages at all. a person cut my edits last week and added in his edit that I was illiterate( concerning genetial studies) the topic we were arguing aboy which he/she added to the article in the first place, So I said I am not illiterate but educated and know about genetic stuf. Obviously he didnot so he used the scare tactics. Good job to both of you Magi anf the Koestler guy71.220.89.177 04:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I demand that all my edits that did not interfere with any edit to be left alone. At least read them and cut what you don't think appopriate or fix and then I will not revert back, so if you do not revert back I will not revert back. You should cut only the pieve that you don't think right06:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Now I am goinfg to return back my references materia and then cut of some, and then if somebody don't like a peice of information, they can cut that peice only and we see from there. Don't cut all my work for the sake to cut the peice you don't like.To avoid edit warring. I've lost a lost of materials that I put on the page weeks ago, and I am not that energetic. so hopefully we can be civil and cut just peices you don't like and why Thanx71.220.89.177 06:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"Side distraction?" I'm just pointing out foolishness. Yours, in this case - you're using the term "Semite" as if it refers to an ethnic group or "race", when, in fact, it refers to a language group and anyone who speaks a Semitic language can be regarded as a Semite, just as Mexicans (most of whom are descended from North American aboriginals) can accurately be called Latin. You don't know the meaning of half the words you're using and you don't know how to spell the other half. The reason why your edits keep getting reverted is because they're almost all nonsense, and they have absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article. The section is about how certain Muslims believe Ashkenazi jews to be "Gog and Magog", and your contributions are mostly pseudoscience and straw-men about how "jews", per se, in effect, don't exist. - Maggie --64.229.185.54 20:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

So if an african person from Nigeria immigrated to England become anglosaxon? where did you get that people who speak semetic language become semites. That means all the muslems who speak arabic fluently in somalia and China pakistan are all semites?!

I did not say J1 is the semetic haplogroup it is in Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA) and all over the internet.

why they insist that for the Cohan Modal Haplotype ( the Aaron ancestry) to become valid it has to be from J1? because Cohins some are j2 and j2 not the ancestry of Aaron. And if you check with the new Hebrew Language it is not semetic even written ib Hebrew letters ( just like Farsi language is not arabic even if written in arabic alphbet), if you check you see that the current Hebrew language use *0% of yiddish and 20% talmudic terminology from Babylonian languae ( not old-hebrew) . Now yiddish is said to be a gothic language . It is the closest to English of all other languages ( more than german) because both derive from Goth language etymology. The arabic language is the twin of the ancient hebrew that is the bible is written with. Actually if not for the problem of decifering the messed up hebrew alphabet that was made during the Herod ( 3 times changes in less than a hundred year) I would be just be reading like from arabic book. old hebrew is proto arabic and have genuine arabic word that went off use in literature but still used in spoken arabic ( ethnic dialects of syria lebanon palestine) If you look at (www.blueletterbible.org) and see the hebrew and lexicon translation it is just plaine arabic and the authors who worked great deals in the centures bring the arabic word for most of the hebrew words, check it out. However this language of the bible and found on this website is not related to the current hebrew. I challenge you if you bring me one word in use in current hebrew from the words of the bible. even the grammer is different. All through diaspora jews could not read the bible, how can they now.

the bible is read now just like reading ancient sansekrit, you have do decipher every word and make a meeting of PhDs and scholars to decide the grammer and the meaning just like they did with Dead Sea scrolls . it took them more than 50 years to translate even though it is written in the same hebrew of the time of Jesus ( I am talking about the new material from those scrolls that are not found in the current bible)71.220.89.177 23:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

of course jews exist but they are the followers of a religion. there is nothing combinig them together other than the religion, they are more than it could be in ancestries. However they claim they are descendent through jewish mothers from the daughters of Jacob. Unfortunately the daughter of jacob can not transmit the Male ancestry of her father to her children, she can transmit the female genetic of the mother of Jacon.

so descendents of the daughters of Jacob and of his children and so on have the maternal genes of the 4 wives of jacob two of them daughters of Laban the uncle of Jacob from his mother side, and the other 2 wives who were servants of unknown origin, plus they will have the maternal genes markers of the mother of Abraham and the wife of Abraham. Then maybe you should trace this great lineage of Abraham mother, Sarah, the 2 maids of Jacob, and the two daughters of Laban, and here we can trace the promised people because God so loved those few women that he promised Abraham to use him as a vehicle to spread those women' genes like the sand of the Earth.!!71.220.89.177 00:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon, this is the talk page for improving the Gog and Magog article. It is not the place to espouse your genetic theories about the Jews. Please stop.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Christ, you're dumb. (71.220.89.177, I mean.) "Anglo-Saxon" isn't a language group, it's an ethnic/"racial" category. But yes, African-American English, for example, belongs to the Germanic language group, even though the persons speaking it remain African. Jews, Arabs, Turks, and Babylonians are all "Middle Eastern". The rest of what you've said about the linguistic origins of modern Hebrew is so ludicrous I won't even get into how wrong you are, except to say that now your problem seems to be Israelis, as evidenced by your absurd claim that there are no words in modern Hebrew usage that aren't from the Bible, when in fact almost the entire vocabulary and grammatical structure is from Biblical Hebrew. Your suggestion that Yiddish is "Gothic" (it's Germanic-Slavic, actually) is both stupid and besides the point. Your genetic theories are as silly, but I'm not as personally qualified to debunk them as I am for your linguistic theories. At any event, your intentions are clearly not to expand human knowledge, but simply to deligitimate jewish history and culture - you're working backwards, starting with a conclusion and then fabricating evidence to support it, just like a Holocaust denier. - Maggie --65.95.150.56 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Did not you say that semites are the people who speak semetic?

Now is the English language is the language of the Anglosaxons. So if an african was born in England and became the best poet in England ( using English of course) .Does that makes him Anglosaxonite?

As for the challenge I raise it to the best fluent new-hebrew speaker in the world. I challenge him or her to go the website (www.blueletterbible.org) and type a random number then a page will pop up with hebrew word at the top, then he covers the rest of the screen with his hand and let him spend 10 minutes ( no two days) to figure out what the word means, and let him repeat this 100 times. If he figured out more than five words ( excluding of course the common knowledge words such as Israel names etc) then i ll pay 10K.

the lexicon of old hebrew is just 20% of the new hebrew language is a fact, a guy ben Yehuda created the language from scratch 100 years ago incorporating yiddish words and grammer. Now this is a fact you take to the bank.

I have no genetic theory and it is not a theory. Is your blood type a theory or a fact ? would you allow blood transfusion to you of a different blood type because you think blood types (AB AB )) are theory only not reality?

Yes turks are middle eastern and we the arabs and the chinese are asians so what? Does that give them the right to invade my country and displace me, because Asia is our mutual home?. Earth is our mutual home. I just don't understand every body these days claim to be from the promised people to go to the promised land? what is wrong with the great country of America, or brasil or russia, why every body packing wants to move to a new land called promised land? , why don't they leave us in our desert with the little it provides?

Hi Cuchullain, I am not imposing genetic theories but referencing scientific facts like blood types.

And what is wrong of being Khazars after all. Khazars were great nation and still are good people if they being themselves and stop impostering being ancient Israel! for what ever purpose.

As in Arabic proverb " the rope of lies is short" you don't want to find the rope is short when it is too late orr impossible to jump the rest of the way down, right?

Once again, this discussion has nothing to do with Gog (and everything to do with anti-Semitism). Those who claim to "seek equilibrium" should cease and desist!--Jack Upland 08:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

We the semitic arabs don't need your defence if you are not semitic yourself. Jews have 90% ancestries outside of haplogroup J1 ( the semetic ancestry of Abraham) Ethiopia 33% has more Palestinias 35% have much more Bedoiun of Negev desert have 82%, Kurds have 15% Turkey 10% Pakistan 5%( this amounts to 11 millions just in pakistan alone). J1 found in 35% in Cohenites ( as recent discoveries) are 8 thousand people barely fill an apartment building. Mother DNA transmitted mother to daughter only ( abraham and Isec did not have daughters, jacob daughters married to non israelies) so Nada71.220.89.177 10:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, so the term "anti-Semitic" is itself redolent of outdated racial theory. Yes, the Arabs are Semites. I should have said "anti-Jewish." But your tirade in response merely indicates you are obsessed with racial theory. How is this rationally connected with the mythic figures of Gog and Magog???--Jack Upland 09:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

On the Khazars as Huns

Insert non-formatted text here

The huns are descendents of the Goths. The khazars are called Huns according to the Armenian historian 8th century The Khazars called themselves Ashkuzi the Khazars converted to Judaism and moved to Europe The Ashkenazi jews are found in Europe and call themselves Ashkinazi( Ashkuzi) The Ashkinazi jews celebrate their being khazars a great kingdom in www.khazaria.com The Ashkinazi jews have high level of the genetic Marker prevalent in Ukraine the ancient home of the Khazars.

what else do you want? Mr Caluchin?

As for why did not the armenian historian connect the huns/khazars with the Goths. I don't think it was his business to that, especially the goths memory was 1000 years old! They used to make Gods of persons after just few hundreds years because of loss of memory.The historian was recording people and events in his time ( ie he sees them, feels them touch them etc) Now how do you expect him to know about internal affairs in a different nation 2000 years ago? The deportation of the witches from the Goths happened 1200 BC ( ie 1900 before the time of the poor guy the Armenian historian and you want him to know about that. He can only tell you about his nation history and its legends and heroes not another nation ( especially if that nation was in the scary area across the mountain chain of the caucas where the Goths according to Herodotus used to eat their enemies and drink their blood and make from their skulls drinking cups. So do you expect a guy from south of the mountains takes a Cab to cross themountains ( impassable and blocked in the only pass Daryal Pass by the Dam guarded by garrisons of armies ( ie war zone) and then visit his friends in the north of the mountains ( cannibals) and ask them about their history and what they ate for dinner yesterday and then back home on the next morning train? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.220.89.177 (talk) 09:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

The term Ashkenazi (meaning a Jew of Central or Eastern Europe descent) derives from Ashkenaz, a descendent Noah (see Genesis 10:3). It has nothing at all to do with the Khazars (a Turkic tribe who converted to Judaism). It is not a scientific category, since Eastern European Jews had links with the Mediterranean ('Sephardic Jews') via Odessa, Salonika etc. And none of these issues has anything but tangential connection with the ambiguous legends of Gog and Magog. I have no objection to an Islamic tradition being concisely and coherently included in the article, but I and many others object to this article being used to smuggle in irrelevant, contentious, and objectionable material under the guise of the monumentally bizarre Gog/Goth/Anglo-Saxon/Ashkenazi/Khazar thesis which seems to rely more on vague word association than anything else. If you have something serious to say, say it concisely and refer to some relevant authority (i.e. not an ancient historian who mentions in passing one of the "target groups" indicated above).--Jack Upland 09:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The fabrications added to the bible about Ashkenaz and Sam and Ham and who else was in 140 AD and later ( in the geneology section of genesis) this part was not found in the bible of Dead Sea Scrolls. Now you want me to swallow that all humans descended from Noah 7000 years ago? Now why would the jews choose Ashkinaz and not Gomer or Togarmah or Sakan jews or gothic or many words that refer to Europeans or sons of Japheth ( who never existed by the way only in the part above) there is no mention in history of Sam ( shem) or Ham or Japheth inbefore 140 AD, why? show me a peice of bible dating to before that time that mentions Ham and sam and Ashkenaz People have the right to know who is gog and magog in our times, it is the talk of the globe these days if you haven't noticed, check google.com

on the anglosaxons

to Cuchullain:

What do you mean the Anglosaxon were goths. Of course they are. Is it your argument is that they came from Germany not from Scytia?

The goths first invaded germany in first century ad and gave it their name ( Sarmatiana) Jordanes said the Goths used to change name in different neighborhoods so in poland they were known as (Sarmatians (Germatians if you will) the change from S to g is normal to linguistics, the goths replaced i for j etc ( and all other languages like that some letters interchangeable) Germany was not known by that name before the Goths invaded it. If you claim the Goths never invaded England then how come the English language is the closest language to the Gothic language? you know all European languages speak ( Western Germanic languages ) as opposed to the Easter germanic languages meaning the Gothic language that became extinct) The Gothic language being the mother language of both English and German. It is known that Old English language came to England with saxons and it is virtually pure from the Celtic language ( the language of the Britons before the Saxons--of course they were all butchered by the saxons in the 200 years of Volkerwandering ( burning the Island from coast to coast as Gildas relates with tears on his eyes)

So even if the Anglosaxons came from germany they are still goths! it does not matter if they came directly from Scythia or stayed few hundred years in Germany) Noted here that the second most closer language to extinct gothic is Yiddish.

german is the third.

Frensh is the least close but still it is from the gothic language.

I left reference a book by turner with pages where he proves that the Sax in saxons come from Saxa the name of the goths in ancient times ( as Persians called them)

By the way you keep cutting the refernce to the meaning of Scythia and Scandza Scythia meaning the dwelling of Saca and Scandza ( Sca-end-a) meaning the uttoer remote land of the Saka, and this reveals that the Scandinavians crossed the sea first to skythia and spent two thousand years in Scythia before invading Europe. Of course they invaded Europe after they got matriculated and got well powerful militarily and in numbers ( scythia was unwanted land by all nations because it was full of swamps ( after the Deluge Noah Flood) it was said that the swamps spread from Black sea to Baltic sea and that there was a huge lake in the middle of Hungary.

I request returning the materials with the refernce of the book. there are many other books I could bring for proof, it just making it harder on me like a graduation dissertation. And why do you want Gildas and Bede to bring proof that Saxons were the Magog of the bible.How could they know?

they were just eye witness accounts of people who came from Europe across the sea and to kill their people. They did not have telegraph services to check with Scythia and trace movements of nations and tribes across Europ. You are asking too much from those guys. If you want a proof one man mavrik scientist who can trace all steps in history may be you should check with Daniel Pipes for he knows it all. He got mutiple libraries in his head and so you don't need to ask him for refernces of all the steps of 4 thousand yead, because he is a one man proof. and lets close Wiki contributions and just ask the trusted people like Louis Bernard and Pipes but let us not trust people like Ahmad Thomson because he is not reliabe because he is muslim. Let's just make easy and write history according to Pipes or according to Thalmudian sags because they know it all they got revelations and are very smart .Let's just relax and let them write our doom71.220.89.177 10:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

None of this matters. The Anglo-Saxons were not associated with Gog and Magog, which is the subject of this article. And they were not Goths, though they were related to them, and to try and create a lineage from them back to Gog would be original research.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Almost everything you have written in this article is WP:OR. This eventually lead to unleashing of the horde towards this article, which resulted in censorship of well-sourced material. A lock of the article might be necessary until you ppl can come to some sort of agreement. --Seek equilibrium 23:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what original research is?

can't be in the case of the book of Turner currently on Amazon!! and many other books. original reseach if it was in another language from Ancient times that is translated. Plus if you go on the internet and put Saxons and Saka you will find endless articles about that. So it is the talk of the twon, and It is a shame Wiki is the last to know71.220.89.177 23:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Colchicin I provided a reference for the origin of saxons from Scyth ( Saka) in the (^ Miller, T: "History of the Anglo-Saxons", page 100-101 . Chestnut Hill, MA : Adamant Media Corporation, 2002 ) and you cut it, that makes it not original reseach, also there are many books on the topic Like The origins of anglosaxons and many others. You actually is the one who is applying POV by imposing your idea that the anglosaxons are not goths. You did not show any refernce unless probably reading Anglosaxons article in Wiki which is considered not a reference by Wiki. Since I have reference then it isNOT original Research, other wise how did I know that unless by reading those references?? I demand you let back ref (Turner book) and ref ( Bauman on GogiHisn)

By the way you just keep cutting. If you are sure of your view why don't you provide evidence? I have no POV because my father is from Europe ( blue eyes-goth origin). Ahmad Thomson also an Anglosaxon who also support the idea! so please let material evidenced be shown!71.220.89.177 00:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Goths references

I would like to know why you keep cutting the reference to L Bauman referenced in two books (pentecost,---) on Amazon a best seller, and the 1942 book.

I showed you that the Anglosaxons brought the english langaue a close relative of Gothic language and they came from Germany the country that got its name from Gomer ancestor og Goths. You know of course that there was no country by that name in 50 AD. It was tacitus who first called it germany because of the sarmatians( another name of the Goths as mentioned by Jordanes The Historian goth.

I think you want to hice the truth. Now if you have evidence to the contrary put it or wait until somebody in the future put it, You make a high standard for wiki that makes wiki unuseful, we can just stick with encyclopedia Britannica then. Can you prove that the Anglosaxons are different from the Europeans? genetic evidence difference in language? let us know. Now if the Goths did not invade England then why their language is there starting with saxons in 500 AD? why English is the closest language to Old Goths.Let the truth be known my friend71.220.89.177 23:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The L. Bauman reference is not a reliable source. About your "demands" that the Anglo-Saxon material be put back in, you're missing the point that no writer associated that group with Gog and Magog. To make the connection is original research. And contrary to your opinion, not all Europeans were/are Goths. The Anglo-Saxons were related to the various Gothic groups, but that does not mean they were one and the same, and it especially doesn't mean you can trace their origins to Gog and Magog. I think Seek equilibrium may be right, it's time to lock the article so we can settle the disputes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you need a writer to connect anglosaxons to gog. if the goths are connected to gog and the anglosaxons are goths then you don't need a connection, because it is already there by Jordanes and Josephus. Why let the russians have it, the Europeans have it and not the saxons who are goths and more over preserve the ancient name of the goths (Sax) in their own name! It is like a man named Goth who had two children German and Sax. Goth is son of Gog. And they all have authentic birth certificates shows the name of the father. then why say german is grand son of gog and sax is peobably not the grandson of Gog? And you can see in the Ahmadiya section their prophet in 1890 AD repoted that Europeans including Anglosaxons are gog abd magog, and we have Ahmad Thomson an anglosaxon himself from England did the same thing too. I a afraid these people are not reliable sources, even though Ahmadiya followers are 80 according to others and 200 millions according to themselves, and Ahmad Thomson have many profitable books and he was consulted recently by the Prime Minister of England on the issue of Iraq.

You mentioned the Anglosaxons have different gothic origins. it does not matter since the first goths was not started in Scythia above the Caucasus but in Gothland south of Sweden, so it does not matter if they came from or from Gothland because they all came from Gothland71.220.89.177 13:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

this does not need researcher or original research for that matter, because even a 3 years old boy can solve the problem ( before learning to read and write) of the two brothers Sax and German!71.220.89.177 13:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Now I understand the stigma about being descendent from gog. It is actually not a bad thing at all! God does not discriminate against race and prefer the other. You see! if you go to Ezekiel 2nd verse it says in hebrew ( and in Arabic ) and prophecyse ON them111) on them (Ala-y-hom) in Arabic as well in Hebrew does not mean AGAINST them. It just means ABOUT them. This prophecy could be good for them or bad because this wording (prophecyze ON them ) came several times in the bible for good news.

If you continue reading the chapter 3rd verse God is angry of Gog (a man) leader of magog and Yagog not the nation itself. in the end of the prophecy the magog people will watch in wonder the wrath of god on their leader and his army in Palestine, but the Nation people survive and live happily ever after with the rest of the nations ) So anglosaxons or khazars or europe or north korea or arabs ( if anyone turned to be the Yagog and magog) should not be stigmatized. The whole problem is in the translation!!! Since the Goths were a new nation at the time of Ezekiel you would expect from them to be wild to preserve theirselves and survive( all nations passed through this stage) on the other hand Herodotus and later Jordanes describe them as just prople having good laws expert in stars sciences brave ( a good character) refuse to submit ( like Tomyris and others) also very good human characters. So may be we should add this explanation in the article to stop the stigma.

Never forget that gog leader will be followed by people from many nations ( persians, Phut(africans, Kush (ethiopians, and Tarshish ( meaning faraway ports in old hebrew) which also include about all nations these days because all of them have nations, this leads us that the bad guys are not the army from Magog and Yagog but from all the earth. Correct me if I am wrong. I blame all this controversy on the interpreters and translators of the bible!71.220.89.177 13:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Now you say that Bauman is not a reliabe source, why? and then how about J. Dwight Pentecost best known for his book "Things to Come" which I included in the reference and Dr Pentecost reported Bauman about Gog-i-hin in this book " things to come" availabe on amazon and book store near you!. He has ThD MA degrees and 20 books.

By the way can you tell me the secret of how you find out if a writer is a good resource, do they sell lists of their names in the black market, or published yearly by RAND corporation et al. Of course if you want to keep cutting my additions I will complain. It is not a dissertation for PhD graduation here, I have to go to work every day you know? So please lower the standard and stop insulting me ( you and Maggi and the guy by the name Bigbgt calling me trull and bigot and Dumb, and all sorts of discriminations71.220.89.177 13:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is well known that Yiddish is related to German. There is no conspiracy here. Likewise it is well known that English is related to German. It is also often speculated that Gog and Magog relate to tribes to the north of Israel. This essentially is all you can come up with on this score (plus references to the obscure Khazars, lest we forget). This is both original research and pure rubbish.--Jack Upland 09:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Gotthelf Bergsträsser noticed a great break between Zionist Hebrew and Biblical Hebrew (Gotthelf 1983, 64). Zionist Hebrew a Slavic language (Wexler 2002, 4)71.220.89.177 09:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC) Modern Israeli Hebrew and its genetic parent Yiddish must be defined as Slavic languages. As a relexified form of Yiddish, Modern Israeli Hebrew differs only in its predominantly Biblical Hebrew vocabulary. Yiddish is the first twice-relexified non-creole language to be so identified (Wexler 1990; 1993, 241-242; 1996, 7-8; 2002, 4-7)71.220.89.177 10:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What a long-winded load of crap.

Verbose, boring, extraneous, speculative, irrelevant, uninformed, and unsubstantiated. Welcome to the 'Free Encyclopedia', where you can contribute nonsense at will. Wikipedia, get your act together if you wish to preserve any shred of credibility!

Well, this is a discussion page.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong, 71.220.89.177, most Jews have J2 haplotype from an ancient Near Eastern source

more than twice as much as J1. In fact, the ethnic group with the highest concentration of J2 haplotype in the world (almost 30%) is Sephardic Jews (including Mediterranean, North African, and Middle Eastern), more than the Ashkenazi ones (23%). J1 is not 'Semitic' (a synthetic modern term anyway); it is generally associated with Arabians and Ethiopians, but also exists elsewhere, even in Europe. Jews were were found to correlate decidedly more closely with non-Semitic peoples from the Northern Fertile Crescent (Kurds, Anatolians, Armenians) and Mediterranean (central/southern Italians) than Arabs. Incidentally, this is not unexpected given the the Biblical account. The Hebrew origins (including Abraham) mentioned there are not in Arabia, nor even in some southern Mesopotamian region (notwithstanding modern interpretations of Biblical Ur's locations, which differ from the traditional location; cuneiform tablets in Syria have confirmed the existence of Ur in the territory of Harran), but in Aram Naharaim, which is northern Mesopotamia, i.e. Kurdistan Turkey and northern Syria. The Biblical account has Abraham moving southeast from Harran, crossing the Euphrates, and moving through Syria into Canaan. Arabian population movements emanated from the sands of the Arabian peninsula and the Hejaz northward into the Fertile Crescent. It is only natural, therefore, that Arabs would have more J1 than J2. One should also not neglect to mention that ancient Arab legends claim descent from the patriarchs Adnan and Qahtan, not Abraham. As for Cohanim, as you yourself suggested, the population size is very small and the data is not yet well studied, though more detailed research is underway. It is not known how many people tested are real 'Cohens' or just having a surname Cohen. Not the same thing at all. In fact, the only thing that can be said for sure is that most Cohanim fall within the general J haplotype. There has been a lot of criticism of the studies performed in that they tended to focus on eliminating 'false positives' by focusing on J1, which in fact exclude a lot of false negatives, i.e. genuine Cohens who have J2. Remember, the data on Cohanim only appear to show them having common ancestry within the last 3000 years, which is centuries after Aaron the High Priest. If indeed the Cohanim were derived from multiple ancestors, why not mention the first High Priest mentioned in the Bible, Melchitzedek, who was not a Hebrew! ----JB —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC).

None of this matters, because it does not relate to the Gog and Magog legend in any source beyond your own words and the unreliable sources you introduce. I really wish you would quit filling the talk page with this crap.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)(see below)

Your argument that jews came from North of the Fertile cresent and not south does not matter. Since the Arabs have predominently J1 and the other semites ( decendent of Abraham ) the Ethiopians have J1 and have no J2 at all ( the ethiopians ) then J1 is the ancestry of Abraham and the jews have to be j1 if they are from Abraham. The study of Cohens are decendent of Aaron insist that the Haplotype of Cohanim ( descendency from Aaron ) have to be in J1 and not J2 ( that means J1 is the ancestry of Abraham too Kabish!...209.23.169.23 07:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC) And now you are telling me that jews are not semetic! Even though the state of Israel instituted the Law of the Right of Return to Israel to the SEMETics!!! ( ie children of Abraham!) Now Abraham is not semetic! Adnan and Qahtan are the two sons of the second son of Ishmael ( Kedar) so not far away from Abraham just like Isaac or Jacob) Sorry but current jews are a mixture of different nations Mosaic of Nations ( J2 J1 R1a1 R1b E3b, even Q and P ( mongolians) etc). They are not descendents of Abraham or any one person because they have multiple ancestries and a one person ( Abraham or yourself) can only have one ancestry J1 or j2 not both. This ancestry never changes in the sons and grand sons or foresons of a person ( stays the same)209.23.169.23 08:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

All Ashkenazi Jews have e1b1b1 m-35 DNA in the same EQUAL AMOUNTS as ALL Jewish groups do.

All Ashkenazi Jews have J1 DNA (Semitic) as ALL Jewish groups do.

Some Ashkenazi Jews have 85% J1 DNA like the PUREST Semites in the world only do.

h t t p : / / w w w . e1b1b1-m35.info/2011/02/e1b1b1-jewish-haplogroup . html

There were also centuries were the Supreme Jewish Court forbade conversion of anyone. Certain semi-pagan semi-literate “converts” that are touted by biased people with various political agendas as being related to modern Jews are in fact not at all, and they have been recorded to have been forced into Islam, creating the Malmuks, Ciracassians, and Christianity creating the Cossacks. Therefore, stating that Ashkenazi Jews are Semitic is factual correct and stating it is paying respect to both reality and Jewish traditions.

Furthermore, it is worthwhile to note, that the Ba’al Shem Tov (Davidic Line) encouraged Jews not to mix with gentiles, and many gentile anti-Semitic laws and customs prevented this from happening. As for instance in the central-west Polish town of Kolo which was 50% Jewish, the Jews lived on one side and the gentiles avoided the Jews as much as possible. Since Judaism is passed through the mother’s mother’s mother’s maternal blood line, the Jews also avoided the gentiles. This is further shown in Poland, as many Jews living in Poland never learned to speak a word of Polish in their lives (only Hebrew and Yiddishe, along with other Jewish languages as Encyclopedia Britannia documents Jews arriving from the West to Poland and not from eastern europe), and many never saw a gentile in person, but yet they still had curfews and were unemancipated as to their options of education, money, jobs, and traveling among other anti-Semitic restrictions.

The Sultan of Turkey send ships in 1492 to bring the expelled Jews from the clutches of Spanish Inquisition and settled them in North Africa, Palestine and Eastern Europe - The most fortunate of the expelled Jews succeeded in escaping to Turkey. Sultan Bajazet welcomed them warmly. "How can you call Ferdinand of Aragon a wise king," he was fond of asking, "the same Ferdinand who impoverished his own land and enriched ours?" Among the most unfortunate refugees were those who fled to neighboring Portugal. In 1496, King Manuel of Portugal concluded an agreement to marry Isabella, the daughter of Spain's monarchs. As a condition of the marriage, the Spanish royal family insisted that Portugal expel her Jews. King Manuel agreed, although he was reluctant to lose his affluent and accomplished Jewish community.

The G2c and Q DNA were found in Sicily, which furthermore REFUTES the Khazar lies as the scape-goat attempts by Czarist propaganda to maintain the Jews as the scapegoats for the peasants and Cossacks.

Encyclopedia Britannia, The Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, JewishGen.org, The Genome Project, Dr. Harry Osterer PhD in genetics, as well as other documentaries, and sources such as http://www.e1b1b1-m35.info/2011/02/e1b1b1-jewish-haplogroup.html to refute the anti-Semitic lies that are STILL being used today.

I would like to add some more information about the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, they had access to the many Ashkenazi Polish Jews in Posen, Silesia, and Ashkenazi Russian Jews in Konigsberg, as well as their German African colonies of Naimbia and Rwanda. Germany had these lands in it's possession until the end of the First World War, and the racial anthropological research involving phenotypes and other physical features, influenced German gentile journalist Wilhelm Maar to state the correct term of anti-Semitism which meant the racial hatred and prejudice of white Europeans toward Ashkenazi Jews in Europe because of their Semitic race and not simply their tribal religion. The very wise Jew Moses Hess, also emphasized that Ashkenazi Jews were hated in Europe because of their Semitic race and not any cultural reasons. Moses Hess' mother was Jewish living in Germany and his father was a Jew that fled the anti-Semitism of Poland.

There are several things here which do not hold water here, in particular about yuor assumptions about J1 and J2 (an earlier study had identified Cohen predominantly J2), not to mention that both J1 and J2 are derived from a common J source anyway, but I am going to address the issue of the Cohen DNA on the 'Y-Chromosomal Aaron' on that discussion page.

subclades of J2 Haplogroup

I am afraid that your insistance on J2 is damaging since J2 is more than 23 subclades each of which branched 10 thousands years ago. only one clade is in the middle east ( that is of the anatolians) but the jews have all these 8 major clades of J2. The info that J2 is origin in middle east is no longer valid. The majority of J2 ( all clades ) are in Europe. The one in the middle east also major in Europe so all these clades originated in Europe ( Romans, Balkan, Greek, Georgians, etc) J1 and J2 don't originate from J because there is no UEP (unique event mutation but a similar segment only 2f2.1, similar segments could be found between all haplogroups. I thought arabs descended from Ishmael according to the bible through twelve sons ( Nabataeans from Nebiothah and Kedar the second son ( of the Adnanites) etc

Cúchullain

The same goes for the cliches and canards to which I was responding. 205.68.95.65 14:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)JB

Sorry, I had you mistaken for a different anonymous user who's been frequenting this page (I assume the one you were responding to.) I should have read your comment more closely. But still, there's no need to even engage in this discussion here, infuriating as the claims may be; this is the talk page for discussing changes to the Gog and Magog article, and the bloodline of the Jews has nothing to do with it. Don't feed the trolls and all that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I am saying the Ashkenazi jews are Gog and Magog. Hope you don't mind and it is related to the article.209.23.169.23 07:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

about St Augustine

To Pieter Cleiper: Abour your paragraph "In the Getica, written by Jordanes in 551 as an abbreviation of a lost work by Theoderic's chancellor Cassiodorus, Josephus is quoted for connecting Magog to the Skythians and so to the Goths.[21] However, this plays only a minor role in the elaborate origin myth in the Getica." it is not clear and also you dont have a refrence or citation equals (Jordanes , Josephus, and the Swedish scholars of the 16th century in their arguments with the Spaniards about who better represent the Goths the motherland sweden or the go-getters the Spainiards?. Even if you had refrences you can not cut the other claim because it is referenced by two or more references which is enough for Wikipedia rules.75.161.203.141 05:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand the question. It does not seem to be about St. Augustine. /Pieter Kuiper 06:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You brought Augustine and Jerome as your main refs that Goths are not gog. You also say that Jordanes affirming Josephus's about Magog you added " this plays only a minor role in the elaborate origin myth in the getica" !!( what is your reference for this statement you mentioned. Even though there is no reference to this statemnt you cut every thing about Jordanes. Why don't you let people decide for themselves, and why are you sensoring that (Goths are Gog ) as if you were one of the Goths? Since the article is about gog we need to put the claim that Goths are Gog and then the counter claim at the end, not start the section of Goths that they are not Gog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.20.238 (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, in reality, the Goths had nothing to do with Gog. This article is about intellectual history and the development of myth. So the Goths-section should start with Ambrose's "Gog iste Gothus est" in its 378 context, and continue with Jerome's and Augustine's rejection. After that to 6th century Jordanes, then Isodore. After that the medieval gothicists. /Pieter Kuiper 09:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

As America and/or Presidents George and George W. Bush

The following section was deleted from the article page. At first sight I thought that this was a pastiche on the rest of the stuff on the article page, but this is serious. It is not a "rantings from a random website", as one edit summary said. The quality of writing is not a problem. I will reproduce it here, only fixing the references.

An apocalyptic Jewish website based in Israel believes the names Gog and Magog may refer to the Christian name George and a subjunct thereof, such as "W. George" or "son of George". The author bases this conclusion on the correct Hebrew pronunciation of Gog and Magog during the time the book of Ezekiel first mentions these names, and also upon the Arabic pronunciation and spelling of the words, these being "Joj"/"Gorr" and "Yajooj". A combination of the correct pronunciations is demonstrably seen to authentically resemble the name "George". According to the Islamic eschatological volume the Qimayah, this "Joj" or "George" is prophesied to invade Iraq "to take a spoil" (War of Ezekiel 38-39), triggering what becomes a devastating war, ultimately against Israel.

Additionally, Hebrew texts predict the war Gog and Magog declare against Iraq and later Israel actually begins in Afghanistan during the month of Tishrey.. The United States declared war against Afghanistan on 21 Tishrey (7 October) 2001. George W., or according to the website, "Joj/Gorr" Bush, was acting President of the United States during this period. It may be implied by the website author that the double term "Gog/Magog" could be an intentional Biblical play on words coding the names of two related men or forces who act as one mind, i.e. George Herbert Walker Bush and his son, George Walker Bush Jr., who executed similar war campaigns in the same world region for arguably similar reasons and under similar motivation. The Ezekiel passage depicts God addressing Gog, "Thus saith the Lord GOD; It shall also come to pass, that at the same time shall things come into thy mind, and thou shalt think an evil thought: And thou shalt say, I will go up to the land of unwalled villages (said to be Iraq, according to some Jewish doomsday pundits)." According to Ezekiel, Gog says to himself, 'I will go to them that are at rest, that dwell safely, all of them dwelling without walls, and having neither bars nor gates, To take a spoil, and to take a prey; to turn thine hand upon the desolate places that are now inhabited, and upon the people that are gathered out of the nations, which have gotten cattle and goods, that dwell in the midst of the land." The narrative then shifts back to God, saying of Gog, "Sheba, and Dedan, and the merchants of Tarshish, with all the young lions thereof, shall say unto thee, Art thou come to take a spoil? hast thou gathered thy company to take a prey? to carry away silver and gold, to take away cattle and goods, to take a great spoil?" Remarkably, both Muslim and Jewish eschatological scholars appear to agree that this passage may predict the actions of President George W. Bush in post-911 Iraq, and that the names Gog and Magog, long shrouded in mystery, and even in present-day by many believed to be an unknown North European military force and/or Russia, may in fact be predictive code terms for Presidents George and George W. Bush.

I agree that it should be edited, probably with a severe cut in length. But I think it is of interest to include or merge somewhere in the article page. /Pieter Kuiper 12:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

But who is "magog.web-site.co.il" and why should the content of the site be considered encyclopedic? --Stormie 03:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Those links are probably primary sources. Maybe this is original research, and then it should be excluded on such grounds. I will have a look at the other reference later today. /Pieter Kuiper 06:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's probably all original research, or in the very least a very minority viewpoint that shouldn't be covered here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, this was original research. The paper by Cook hardly mentions Gog, and not in direct connection with the US. It is not bad OR, probably a student paper or something, but not for wikipedia unless it is published. /Pieter Kuiper 18:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

While I don't agree that GWB is Gog, it's interesting to note that the New Jewish Congress, The Sanhedrin, and The Holy Temple and Temple Mount Movements recently issued the "Megillat Bush" [Bush Scroll], that states he's Gog. The text of the Scroll may be found [here][2]. So a section suggesting GWB is Gog, although disputable, appears warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.40.189 (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

As a reason mentioned by George W. Bush to go to war in Iraq

According to Pr. Thomas Römer of the University of Lausanne (Switzerland), George W. Bush declared to French President Jacques Chirac in 2003 that biblical prophecies were about to fulfill themselves, and that Gog and Magog were at work in the Middle-East. This left Chirac all but flabbergasted, and he had his counsellors contact Pr. Römer in order to learn more about who Gog and Magog were... The story is reported here: "Bush invaded Iraq for Gog".

about the Goths section

The logical arrangement for this section is to mention why the Goths were thought of as Gog, not about who in the world is not Gog and Magog as Pieter Kuiper wants to convince the reader from the begining of the section that Goths are not Gog. He also claims that Ambrose was the first to associate Goths with Gog. It was Ezekiel in 760 BC who first connected the people between tobal and Mosco river (Scythia geographical location according to Herodotus 550 BC and according to many others. Herodotus mentions the Scythians as Getae (Goths) hence both Ezekiel and Herodotus were the first to connect. There are many others like Orosios who called the People there as Scythians and Getae 100 before Josephus so Josephus knew where the people are. There is no need to mention all the people who argued that Goths were not Gog in the section at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.12.132 (talk) 05:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Did Herodotus mention Gog? Did Ezekiel mention the Moscow river? /Pieter Kuiper 07:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No. He's just trying to stick some original research in there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Dhul-Qarnayn

Gog and Magog are two tribe

Gog and Magog lineage from Japheth ( Iafeth )

they look like the Mongols

every one of them die and will he has 1000 child or more in someway at that time

Gog and Magog they trapped behind weir from iron and copper, in the Turks land following Armenia and Azerbaijan. Any on the Turkish border near the Russian Caucasus Mountains.

Gog and Magog their last fight will be with arabs and muslims...1 arab = 1000 Gog and Magog..if the arabs at that time 1 milliard then Gog and Magog will be 1000 milliard.....like ball in Desert sands

when the first of people of Gog and Magog Pass on Lake Kinneret they will drinking what in it , then the last one of them came he will say their was water here

when their leader he be in palestine will said :those people of earth we empty the earth from them or those people of earth we had empty them then god send maggots In their necks ,and they all becoming dead, this maggots eating flesh and was known between bedouin and it was eat flesh in mouths camels

All the people of Gog and Magog their end will be in palestine

about Dhul-Qarnayn

I think there 3 can be Dhul-Qarnayn

Alexander the Great

Cyru the Great

Yemeni King

the Yemeni King his Name is Afriqash/afriksh/Evrivc/.. attack Africa and China and India and the Turks land and grandchildren of his grandchildren burned the people of Najran according to stories

Dhul-Qarnayn..Dhul is old Yemeni name ,Dhul Hisham ,Dhul Qaiis ,Dhul Ahmad

anyway I think who build the city Merv in Turkmenistan is Dhul-Qarnayn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.4.48 (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Incoherent and anonymous ramblings. Why did you bother to contribute???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Gog=Babylon

I think I heard somewhere that when Ezekiel 38-9 talks about Gog he really means babylon. Is that true? 203.189.134.3 (talk) 09:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As you can see there are many interpretations...--Jack Upland (talk) 10:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Reference to Ezekiel 39:2 is Incorrect

This article contains a factual error within the following statement:

"Gog and his allies are to attack "a land of unwalled villages" to collect booty, but before attacking Israel itself will be reduced to a "sixth" of their size (Ezekiel 39:2)."

The wording is awkward and suggests that 1/6th of all Israelis will be killed, which is not substantiated by the Biblical text. It's probable the author is referring to the misconception that 1/6th of Gog's armies will survive the battle. This interpretation is based on an unfortunate mistranslation found within the King James Version of the Bible, which reads as follows:

"And I will turn thee back, and leave but the sixth part of thee, and will cause thee to come up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel."

However, the correct translation of Ezekiel 39:2 doesn't state or imply that any of Gog's armies will survive. Here are quotes from three authoritative sources (one primarily used by Christians and two primarily used by Jews):

1) The New King James Version of the Bible reads:

"and I will turn you around and lead you on, bringing you up from the far north, and bring you against the mountains of Israel." (NKJV)

2) A similar translation is found within the Judaica Press Complete Tanach, and reads:

"And I will unbridle and entice you and lead you up from the utmost parts of the north and bring you upon the mountains of Israel."

3) The Jewish Publication Society's 1917 translation reads:

"and I will turn thee about and lead thee on, and will cause thee to come up from the uttermost parts of the north; and I will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel."

Based on the above, I suggest the text be clarified to acknowledge and refute the KJV's error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.40.189 (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

This article lacks a clear introduction to the content. It should give some sort of summary of the debates as to the nature of Gog and Magog, whether they are seen as good or bad entities, their relative importance in the cultures that carry the tradition and so on. It should also have some information about the tradition itself - the contexts in which it is referenced in the present day etc. As it stands, it starts at the beginning and without proper introduction goes straight into the history. --Redcore4 (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Omission of a Sentence on Februrary 6, 2009

I removed this sentence:

"They will be joined by Persians from the East, Phut from the West, Kushites from the South, and others."

Because KJV Bible has no mention whatsoever of the constitution of Gog army in Ezekiel 39:2 or anywhere in the Book of Ezekiel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.133.202.87 (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3