There are many evidences that link Turks, Huns and Mongols from their earliest formations as tribes of Magogians and Scythians: (1) their Ural-Altaic languages; (2) their use of Runic inscriptions; (3) their coming from the north; and (4) their extensive use of horses and archery. Ezekiel describes them in similar terms: Ezekiel 38:4, “I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws and bring you out with your whole army-your horses, your horsemen fully armed, and a great horde with large and small shields, all of them brandishing their swords.” Ezekiel 39:2-3, “I will turn you around and drag you along. I will bring you from the far north and send you against the mountains of Israel. Then I will strike your bow from your left hand and make your arrows drop from your right hand.”
Similarities remain in the languages of Mongolian, Tungusic and Turkic to this day, having many words in common. These Ural-Altaic languages have been historically considered “Scythian languages” or “Tatar languages” which make up some 40 languages spoken by about 100 million people. Examples inlcude Turkish, Kazakh, Kirghiz, Bashkir, Azerbaijani, Uzbek, Samoyed, Oirat, Kalmyk, and Mogol, plus similar languages spoken by peoples living between the Black and Caspian seas. Other language families, including Finno-Ugric (Finnish, Hungarian) and Balto-Slavic (Russian, Ukrainian, Czech) have affinities to the Ural-Altaic language family. http://www.soundchristian.com/magog/
There are many evidences that link Turks, Huns and Mongols from their earliest formations as tribes of Magogians and Scythian
Yes, I suppose you have your set of facts which are quite different from another set of facts that say otherwise.
Similarities remain in the languages of Mongolian, Tungusic and Turkic to this day, having many words in common.
Using that exact same logic one can argue that because the people of central and south America have many words in common with Latin, clearly all of the people from central and south America are ancient Romans.
You can understand then why I consider these arguments similar to that which one can easily get into in a CrEvo discussion. You have a world-view that is largely anti-doctrinal and at its core blasphemous, and I have a world-view that says integrity of doctrine and God's character is primary. We both use the Bible to support our claims but because of our world views we interpret the passages differently using wildly different templates.
So when I read that in Ezekiel's vision they will be having animal blood sacrifices, I know, from a doctrinal standpoint that it is blasphemy for that to be fulfilled literally in the future and thus I look to Scriptures for a solution. When the Dispensationalist sees that 800 pound gorilla, he ignores it because it will mess up the camp-fire story.
Ezekiel speaks both of an actual people, in which to some measure this composite prophecy of near/far was fulfilled physically "near" in some respects, and the spiritual "far" aspects of this are found in Jesus Christ, His Church and the Gog/Magog representing those hostile to Christianity (which is consistent with the use of Gog and Magog in Revelation). My interpretation is consistent with both History and Doctrine. Dispensational interpretation make for an interesting yet vulgar fictional camp-fire story, since it ignores history and shuns sound doctrine, but it does manage to get people all worked up and anxious to buy more and more fortune telling books. Mission accomplished.
Like CrEvo threads, it is easy to accept the premise of the opponent: that material appeared spontaneously out of no where, the laws of physics came on their own etc. Dittos with this discussion, if I ignore the blasphemies and contradictions, its easy to get into a game of quibbling over archaeological trivialities.