The definition of Gog and Magog is the same in every translation. I hate to break it to you, but this is a clear sign that what you know about translations and the Bible is based on hearsay and you just have no real way to answer the question. Clearly, a subject that you need to research more. A different Bible version won't give you a different definition of God and Magog. What you can do if you don't believe me is search Gog and Magog separately in BibleGateway.com and it will pull up all the verses that reference these terms. Then you could use BibleGateway to see how they differ between different versions.
The reasons Muslims think the Bible is corrupt has nothing to do with the present number of translations that exist either considering there was no such thing when the accusation was first made, even though this is often used for the sake of the wider audience who does not know about the actual Muslim teaching that we are translating a corrupt text into different versions. However, the versions themselves do not change much in the process. A different definition of Gog and Magog is not what causes a debate over translations within the Christian community either.
Overall, I think the whole discussion of Gog and Magog is being exaggerated. Christian Zionists aren't going to pull the trigger and start wars because they think this is God's will, but a lot of them are somewhat superstitious about it and behave in a way that demonstrates some degree of powerlessness because of their view towards prophecy. It is like there is nothing they can do about it or like it is some kind of reality TV show they are watching as viewers.
So there are a lot of things that are happening in the news according to the group of Christian Zionists. The "Zionists" on this board are nowhere near the extreme that I have seen, but still it would be an exaggeration to say that they wanted all the death and destruction that prophecy describes in order for prophecy to be fulfilled.
The main issue they have is assigning identities to the characters in prophecy that will feel right to them and in many cases maintain some social acceptability. So the beast in Revelation is often the one who is going to attack the Jews. This would cause them to root for the Jews. Then, some would say they are trying to encourage the fulfillment of prophecy because of how they believe in contrast to this view, but that isn't really what is happening. Zionists and anti-Zionists are capable of presenting a view containing bias, which is important to remember because solid research should be void of bias. So Zionists generally think the Jews are going to be persecuted by the beast and will not be the persecutor. I think they will be the persecutor.
Then, a major problem is that there is too great of a dependence on prophecy to explain everything that is happening in a world, and a much more limited research of what is happening in the world. This often creates a superstitious perspective that is centered on prophecy but is still not going to initiate wars to provoke the fulfillment. This is still something I haven't seen much of on this forum. The Christian Zionists here have all been very pleasant and gentle exhibiting a strong foundation in the teachings of Christ.
So there is a lot of exaggeration about this subject. Even in the title of the thread, "Trump is fulfilling end times prophecy". This is just because Christians use prophecy as a map. This statement is the same thing as saying "you are here" like the maps in the mall do. It has nothing to do with encouraging ways to provoke the fulfillment of prophecy. Especially in regard to Trump. This is becoming all confused bringing in Trump as a second Cyrus. There is no mention of a Cyrus-like character in the book of Revelation.
So clearly the study of prophecy for most Zionists is not very good, and I do think this results in what the Bible calls the apostacy. Still, all statements like this mean is that there are a lot of people with a strong interest in studying prophecy. It doesn't really mean anything more than that. Most of the real prophecy statements that are bringing complaint like the article praising Bush are part of the Jewish influence as this was produced by the Jewish community. The church is influenced by this in as much as they are fascinated with the celebrity of Jews. Still, we don't have a Talmud that would support the selfishness and deceit that Jewish Zionists support.
We just have the Bible, and it doesn't teach that we should initiate the fulfillment of prophecy with our actions. We believe people are doing this because of their rejection of Christ and trying to gauge how these actions fit on a timeline given by prophecy in the Bible. This includes Christian Zionists and people like myself. That is why when we debate this subject amongst ourselves, we argue over what the prophecy says in the scriptures, and not over whether it is morally right to initiate war considering what the prophecy says. I have never seen this subject discussed and we are pretty evenly split on the subject of Israel.
We discuss the subject as observers because a primary Christian teaching is to be in the world, but not of it. That is really the extent that a Christian can be held responsible. The rest of the complaint would be directed at a Jewish Zionist who has the permission to do much more than this according to the Talmud and additional Rabbinic teachings.
First Thundo asks for that which he receives only to deny it, he then asks for authentication.....
Then he ignores that authentication when its presented to him and changes the subject....
Now the goalposts have shifted to yet another incorrect contention on yalls part, this time in reference to Gog and Magog.....
You come across as someone who genuinely thinks for yourself and likely isn't a subscriber to these radical, apocalyptic CZ teachings. However, this revolving door of excuses in order to keep from admitting that its a huge problem within your own movement is getting embarrassing. If yall really are against this sort of rhetoric and action, you can't simply keep changing the subject or denying the obvious when its plain as day...... In this instance, it doesn't matter what you believe about Gog and Magog or what the various biblical scriptures say being as both the scripture and its interpretations vary widely and wildly......
For example:
The Crown of England (Protestant & Episcopalian?), which is supposedly pledged to the Church of England and therefore, the Anglican Communion, has a number of sources and bibles with which to draw from. This may contribute to the vague, convoluted definitions and ideals representative of their faith as it's not only their "holy" definitions of Gog and Magog (among other areas of theological contentions) which contradict themselves, but their "popular" interpretations as well........
"They are Gog and Magog, the traditional guardians of the City of London"
and,
"Gog and Magog, or sometimes Gogmagog and Corineus, are descended from mythical pagan giants and their origins lie in mediaeval legends of the early British Kings."
in addition to,
"The custom of carrying effigies and images at festivals is sometimes explained as an echo of the days when the same festival would have revolved around a human sacrifice. The victim was replaced with a symbolic representation, and as the old rites were incorporated into the Church the sacrificial effigy became the saint who had made the sacrifice."
as well as,
""Corineus and Gogmagog were two brave giants who richly valued their honour and exerted their whole strength and force in the defence of their liberty and country; so the City of London, by placing these, their representatives in their Guildhall, emblematically declare, that they will, like mighty giants defend the honour of their country and liberties of this their City"
Source:
https://lordmayorsshow.london/history/gog-and-magog.html
