--------------------------------------------------
Yeah it is in reference to a couple of versions of Ezekial 38:2 that refer to a "prince of Rosh".
Yes ... maddog provided a link that refreshed my memory on this ... this is all about Textual Criticism - the reference is (and always was) so wrong that, in my profession, I had dismissed it long ago (along with a majority of other theologians versed in basic Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek). The "couple of versions" are The Schofield and NASB translations - and they are used as teaching tools almost exclusively by proponents of the Doctrine of Dispensation, including Hal Lindsey & Tim Layahe ("Left Behind" series) ... both translations using etymology that is meant to support dogma of an eschatological nature. Translation of the Hebrew word 'rosh' into meaning "Russia" is therefore both agenda-driven and theologically faulty. To the best of my knowledge, the link maddog supplied adequately lists the correct translations of the word.
------------------------------------------------------
Some have claimed that Rosh is Russia and that this has bearing to some upcoming war between Iran and Israel which is then used as validating belief that the apocalypse is at hand.
If an apocalyptic war is on the horizon, one does not need any particular Bible translation - nor the misuse of a Hebrew verb - to realize that Russia & China will probably be major players ... rather, I think this falls under the heading of geo-politics.
--------------------------------------------------------
What is also interesting is that not every bible translation even refers to the prince of Rosh.
"There is no evidence from the ancient Near East that a country named Rosh ever existed. The word Russia is a late eleventh-century A.D. term. Therefore, the data does not seem to support an interpretation of rosh as a proper name of a geographical region or country."
I.E. --- There is no such thing as a prince of Rosh due to the misuse of the Hebrew word "rosh". If you look at it through the eyes of the author of the book of Ezekiel (written/edited between 593 &165 BC), what reference material did he/they have to go on ? The book of Revelation draws heavily on both Ezekiel and Daniel ... other books of the Bible draw heavily on those that historically preceded them. The Mosaic books of the Torah, which Ezekiel certainly had access to, list the ancestry and dispersion by location of the various tribes, with the sons of Noah being predecessors of all humans in the known world (note: operative word is known, as in known at the time). According to our most reliable manuscripts ... one Noah's sons was named Japeth, who had 7 sons including Gomer, who begat Ashkenaz (who settled in Scythia), Ripthah (who settled in Turkey), and Togarmah (who settled in Armenia).
The part of Russia that is in question is named Scythia - not Rosh. The name "Scythian" was used by classical writers as a general term for the barbarians of the steppes. In common parlance, it was a term for the savage and uncivilized. Scythia was the name given by the Greeks to an ill-defined area between the Carpathians and the Don, the western portion of which included the black earth wheatlands of the modern Ukraine. The steppe land was wide open to nomadic invasion, and the Indo-European tribes who occupied it in the 7th century BC are those to whom the term Scythian is the most properly applied. There must have been a considerable "folk-wandering" about this time, because Scythians appeared in upper Meopotamia and Syria between 650 and 620 BC.; and another force reached the middle Danube. South Russia, to speak in modern geographical terms, was firmly occupied. The nomads were formidable soldiers, swift archer cavalry versed in the tactics of desert warfare and mobile strategy. By a "scorched-earth" policy and by their elusive defense they frustrated an attack by Darius in 512 BC and similarly beat off Alexander's general Zopyrion in 325. They exploited the labor the earlier inhabitants and were exporters of large quantities of wheat to the Greek Black Sea colonies. Archeologically speaking, it appears that Greek pottery and metal work were given in exchange, as the tombs of the chiefs have produced a rich profusion of such articles. Historically and culturally speaking, the Celts and Samaritans seem to have displaced the Scythians during the last three centuries before Christ.
Hope this answers your questions.