Talk:Magog (Bible)

Discussion

The Irish are not composite of Magowgan blood. In the Leabhar Gabala Eirinn (the Book of the taking of Ireland), the Irish are descended from Gomer through his son Ibath (biblical Riphath). Ibath's grandson Fenius Farsaid, a prince of Scythia, left Scythia do to a power struggle between ruling clans. He sought out a kingdom of his own which wound up with his descendants taking celtic Spain and eventually Ireland. The Irish (known as Scotts to the celts due to their Scythian origin) took Ireland under the leadership of Mil. The Scotts wiped out the Magowgans who settled Ireland. This genocide of the descendants of Magowg would make it impossible for the Irish to be mixed with Magowgan blood. The only people the Irish as a whole mixed with were Celts (other descendants of Gomer) and later on people of Germanic blood (other Scythians). Irish as a whole are pure descendants of Gomer. - J.A. Messick

Grammar and "From Gog"

The hebrew conjugation for "from Gog" would be Me-Gog (pronounced Mae-Gog or May-Gog). Magog (the a as in car) implies something else...it may imply the adjective form or the "one who does/is X" form...(like manhig for one who leads or one who drives...hence driver in modern hebrew and a title of leader in medieval Egyptian Jewery). I don't know....but it seems odd to say that Magog means from Gog...

I encountered the notion one time (sorry, I don't have a reference on hand) that Magog incorporates the Uralic affix "ma-" (or "maa-") meaning "land of", so that Magog would become "land of Gog". I rather doubt that a professional linguist would agree, but this could nonetheless be an important historical rationale behind the identification of Magog with the Swedes or Finns by Johannes Magnus or Daniel Juslenius. If this is indeed the case, perhaps someone who is better informed here could update the article accordingly? Mike Agricola (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Gog and Magog

There isn't anything here that isn't covered in more detail at Gog and Magog. This article is stubby and unsourced, whereas that article is detailed and well sourced. In the future I could imagine this becoming a fork (maybe) but for now there's no need for a seperate page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; this is a page in the series Sons of Noah (see box) whereas Gog and Magog is a separate, albeit closely related subject dealing with folklore connecting the two names. There needs to be an article dedicated to Magog, the Biblical personage just as there are for each of Noah's other 15 grandsons. Til Eulenspiegel 14:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The mediaeval Hungarian and Irish legendary accounts that mention Magog in their histories, and Josephus' comments about the ethnic identity of Magog are the main focus of this article; these stories do not concern Gog at all but rather Magog, the son of Japheth and his purported descendants, so I feel it would be better not to subsume them in with all of the Gog mythology. Til Eulenspiegel 14:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The Magog, son of Japheth figure is already discussed, with sourcing and context, at Gog and Magog, there's no need to duplicate it like this. Gog and Magog does not only deal with the folklore or the connection of the names, it deals with all aspects of Magog and Gog. There would be no "subsuming" either, all this material is already over there, but it is sourced. Perhaps we could add the template to the appropriate section Gog and Magog?--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

See, I'd agree that this serves its purpose as a seperate article if there wasn't only 2 sentances dealing with Magog son of Japheth. And I don't see any possibility of expansion - there's just not much about him in the Bible. Again, all this same material already exists, in a superior form, at Gog and Magog.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to your assertion, there is plenty covered in more detail here not even linked from the other page. What about Hunor and Magor and Chronicon Pictum? Let's not erase links to historiographic articles in this way. That page has it all summed up by a single word: "Hungarian". Trust me, it is information that really belongs here, as these ethnic "Magog" legends are distinct from the myriad, apocalyptic "Gog" traditions. Til Eulenspiegel 15:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That particular line can be expanded, if it is sourced, at the other page. I think you are mistaken about what Gog and Magog is about - why shouldn't the ethnic legends be discussed over there? The Irish and Scythians already are, and the information on the grandson of Noah is sourced. This is effectively a subarticle of the other page, and remains an unsourced stub after all this time. Like I said, if there was more meat here I could see it remaining seperate, but as is I don't see it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I still would prefer not to break up the integrity of the "Sons of Noah" series, as on the Template. You would be surprised at how much this stub could be expanded with cited quotes regarding Magog as an ethnic name on the Table of Nations, as opposed to the apocalyptic or prophetic sense of "Gog and..." In fact I'm sure I could expand this page greatly if I only research a little bit deeper. Til Eulenspiegel 16:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it is better not to merge this with the Gogmagog article, which is a bit of a mess. Improve this Magog article instead in the style of the Table of Nations-article. /Pieter Kuiper 06:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe we should do the opposite, and put Gog and Magog in here as a section, since it is really about Magog. Erudecorp 06:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should do that either; the Gog and Magog article needs to be independent from this one, for all the same reasons as the other way around: M. is an ethnic name discussed in historiographic sources as part of the Biblical Table of Nations, while G. and M. is about apocalyptic folklore that has been derived from the Bible (There is actually no "Gog and Magog" even appearing anywhere in the Old Testament itself; rather it is "prince Gog of the land of Magog".) Also, the G. and M. article is notoriously erratic with flip-flops and attracts all kinds of wild speculation on a regular basis; if the two were merged, all of the valid historiographic references found here could easily get swallowed up and disappear, or summed up with a single word like "Hungarian" and then forgotten. No, this information should stay here because it is really a separate subject deserving of a separate article, and a part of the Grandsons of Noah series. Til Eulenspiegel 13:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely you don't want vandalism to dictate what should be in an article? We can use protection or semiprotection to deal with that. That it sees more traffic indicates that it's more popular (and that particular vandals and POV pushers keep returning), not that information is in imminent danger of getting "swallowed up". If that's your worry, we can always just fix it. I also note that there is only one reference here to date, and that reference appears at the other article already.--Cúchullain ^t/c 22:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

magog was sometimes linked with an anti-christ coming from the east, sometimes in european medieval texts he was likened to the mongol invaders of genghis khan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.81.170 (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

rename article

Please consider renaming this article Magog, son of Japhet as per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bible#standardized_way_of_naming_articles_for_biblical_persons. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Patron saints of the City of London

Rumor has it Gog and Magog are patron saints of the city of London or features on some of its shields

It's not just rumor. Here are some references on the connection between London and Gog & Magog for anyone who may wish to explore this connection and perhaps add some discussion about it in the article:

http://lordmayorshow.org/history/gogmagog

http://books.google.com/books?id=BcUHAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guildhall,_London#Gog_and_Magog

Mike Agricola (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Chinese are descended from Magog.

Since the Mongols are descended from Magog, the Chinese are as well, as the Chinese are closely related with the Mongols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8100:A68C:97E:10C4:2763:805F (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Provide a source, otherwise this is only your own personal elucubration, and thus an original research. So please stop vandalising this article if you haven't any reliable source. Khruner (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Please stop disrupting this page with your incessant vandalism. If you continue this behavior you will be blocked.

EruIluvatar3 (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@EruIluvatar3: The only person at risk for a block here is you. Read WP:NOTVAND -- there are no vandals in this discussion, and for you to call Khruner a vandal goes against WP:No personal attacks. Also read WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. You need to cite a professionally-published mainstream academic source for your claims. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Please stop threatening to block people without legitimacy. Please refrain from defending and promoting aggressive behavior on Wikipedia. If you continue to harass members on Wikipedia, you will be blocked. Please refrain from making baseless accusations, or else you will be blocked. EruIluvatar3 (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking to yourself? You're the one calling anyone who disagrees with you a vandal (against WP:NOTVAND and WP:AGF), and deleting other people's legitimate comments (which, per WP:TPV is vandalism). Ian.thomson (talk) 02:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you replying to yourself? You're the one ignoring reality and fantasizing about blocking others. I will not waste time with such a pitiful dreg of life. Continue your incessant campaign of cyber harassment and you will be permanently banned. “There is only one Lord of the Ring, only one who can bend it to his will. And he does not share power.” (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I have undone the most recent attempt to re-add the material because the source cited fails WP:RS (it is by no means a mainstream academic source), and the source does not say that Chinese people claim descent from Magog. The source does claim that Chinese people are descended from Magog, but it does not (and could not honestly) say that Chinese people claim said descent. If I went and asked my students who Magog was, none of them would have a clue. Magog is not a part of Chinese culture. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I have undone your undo attempts because they clearly lack insight and lack any legitimacy. I will not tolerate your utter ignorance on this matter.

“There is only one Lord of the Ring, only one who can bend it to his will. And he does not share power.” (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magog (Bible). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031224027/http://quran.com/18 to http://quran.com/18

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magog (Bible). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140306045554/http://www3.unil.ch/wpmu/allezsavoir/george-bush-et-le-code-ezechiel/ to http://www3.unil.ch/wpmu/allezsavoir/george-bush-et-le-code-ezechiel

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Magog (Genesis)

Since this page is about the Magog of Genesis 10, and Gog and Magog is a different page/topic, but still in the Bible what do you think of moving this page to Magog (Genesis)? tahc ^chat 21:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Alephb (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)