Talk:Gog and Magog/Archive 3

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

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)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

Alexander the great was NOT Dhul Al Qarynan as Alexander was a pagan while Dhul was a mothiesist therefore i am removing him. Akmal94 (talk) 15:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Akmal94: I quite realize Alexander lived in a world of Hellenistic polytheism, and could not have been Christian or Muslim. Legends do contain many such contradictions or anachronism, you must realize.

I am also aware Dhul-Qarnayn and Alexander arent an exact match, however, that is generally the identification that is made. So that piece of information should remain.--Kiyoweap (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I think there was a valid point to be made that "Iskandar" isnt explicit in the Quran, so it has been reworded to avoid it.

Unfortunately I had to sacrifice something else bcz of this, which is to point out that "Dhul Qarnayn" is an epithet (nickname), which is a point that even the objectors agree.

Alternatively it could have stated "Quran and other Islamic literature" to avoid this, but I didnt make that change before since it seemed to be excessive parsing.--Kiyoweap (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Requesting redaction concerning Dhul-Qarnayn as Alexander the Great

The excerpt in question as follows:

"In the Qu'ran Surah 18, Yajuj and Majuj (Gog and Magog) are suppressed by Dhul-Qarnayn "the two-horned one", a legendary figure derived from Alexander the Great."

As aforementioned above by Akmal94, it is a misnomer to declare Alexander the Great as the person Dhul al-Qarnayn. There should be a petition to edit/correct the given information regarding this as such, since there are no legitimate sources that proves it in any fashion or form. Any redaction is extremely suggested; hence, any number of unacknowledged readers could possibly render the information as credible. On the contrary, it is absolutely erroneous in context. In truth, Dhul al-Qarnayn was a strict adherent to the Laws of GOD; whereas, Alexander the Great was a bi-/homosexual, paganistic idolator.

The only valid text that mentions Dhul al-Qarnayn is available is the Qur'an–thus being the only canonized religious scripture in Islam. Therefore, the Qur'an neither explicitly nor implicitly gives claim in referencing Alexander the Great as Dhul al-Qarnayn. The cited source that pertains to the sentence that is in question is merely the opinion of the authors prescribed -->(Van Donzel, Emeri J.; Schmidt, Andrea Barbara (2010). "Gog and Magog in Early Eastern Christian and Islamic Sources: Sallam's Quest for Alexander's Wall. Brill. ISBN 9004174168).

—RekonDog (talk) 06:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

@RekonDog:, I very much understood that the Quran does not explicitly identify the "Dhul al-Qarnayn" as Alexander. However, that is not much of a point of WP:DUE weight significance in this article.

Fact is, numerous scholars support the Alexander hypothesis, some say this is the "authoritative" or "most commonly" made id.

You are not entitled to dismiss consensus/plurality opinion of WP:RS scholars as "merely the opinion of authors" if you want to play by Wikipedia rules, whose policy is to rely majorly on such WP:SECONDARY sources.

I realize dissent (as per Hypotheses about the identity of Dhu al-Qarnayn), which can be addressed by inserting "arguably identified with Alexander" and that should suffice. --Kiyoweap (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Lmao, secondary sources are biased af. Capurta (talk) 01:11, 1 August 2021 (UTC)