Talk:Gog and Magog/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Gog and Magog. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
End time
Looking over the Ezekiel material, I began to think you couldnt really say in the lede that Ezekiel places the timing of the conflict at end time (since I undestood this to mean "end of history" on earth).
Tooman (2011), pp. 94–97 explains the situation. In Ezekiel the phrase for "end of days" should more conservatively be taken to mean "latter days" (Hebrew: אחרית הימים, aḥarit ha-yamim. So it is not clear from the plain reading of the text that "end-of-history/apocalypse" is meant, though that is oftentimes the interpretation.
The section goes on to say that 20th century scholars tended to keep using "end of days" but loosely, "as a techical phrase for the eschaton, but without the apocalyptic notion of the end of history". I doubt many readers are aware of this. I was not, and was using eschaton and apcalypse interchaneably.--Kiyoweap (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
- In Jewish eschatological thought of the 2nd century BC (which is when the Ezekiel Gog-Magog prophecy seems to have been added to the older 6th century Book of Ezekiel), the phrase "end of days" meant the end of history: After a period of terrible trial when the Jews would be oppressed and worship in the Temple ended, God would end human history and the Jews would rule over the world as his regents. This is what lies behind the Book of Daniel, as well as other Jewish apocalypses that didn't make it into the bible. The first 11 chapters of the Book of Genesis, incidentally, form a work separate from the rest of Genesis and date from the same period. PiCo (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
- No, I think that some scholars fall into your camp, but others do not. At least that is what I read from Tooman. Tooman was a source that was extensively used in the article elsewhere, and not something I reached over and fetched from somewhere else to make my point.
- Tooman talks about being careful to use "latter days" in translating the passage, so he must be talking about the originally intended interpretation, it seems to me. --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
- Rabbinical scholars may continue to use the phrase "end of history" so as not to tread on toes, and what they have done is expanded or extended the meaning beyond convention.
- Tooman explains that he takes the term to mean "end of history-as-we-know-it and the initiation of a new historical age"
- This is not how the average person conventionally understand "end of history". It ends, but a new historical age begins??? --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)