Talk:Archangel/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Other traditions

Is there a citation to support the claim of an early Christian tradition of invoking the 4 archangels as guardians of the 4 directions? I'd believe gnostic, but that was never considered part of the Christian church and is clearly based on a non-Christian source anyway.

Isn't "Tarish" in this context fictional? I suggest we not include fictional depictions of archangels as representing "other traditions" since an exhaustive list would dominate the article, and there's really no reason to favor one fictional world over another. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to the Tarish; I have not been able to find any resources to validate the statement that was in the article. If anyone knows more about this, feel free to add it back with the appropriate link. Zahakiel 17:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Early discussion

168.122.214.55 04:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Benjamin Hemeon is an archangel.168.122.214.55 04:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Are the archangels in Islam 3+1, 4+1, or 7+1? The text is not clear...Jorge Stolfi 01:51, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Four archangels in Islam - Michael, Gabriel, Israfel & Azrael. - Lee (talk) 02:19, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hello everyone;

In islamic traditions; CAMI (which means Mosque) represents the four archangels. CAMI = Cebrail (Gabriel) , Azrail (Azrael) , Mikael (Michael) and Israfil (Israfel, some translates it as Uriel.)

I would like to ask a question; I have prepared the archangel document of Remiel and Ariel and I was also thinking adding Jeremiel but it is represented as Remiel here. In many traditions, the name of such archangel is always Jeremiel but I really don't know how to change the name of the document. Anybody could help ? Or any ideas ?

Thanks. --Nerval 13:56, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No explicit references to archangels in the Old Testament?

Isn't the Hebrew word Elohim currently translated as "The Archangels"? This is one of the two most common words for God in the Old Testament.207.118.47.197 09:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No. "Elohim" is translated "God". TCC (talk) (contribs) 09:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is Elohim translated as "God"? Christians translate it as "The Trinity". The only two Hebrew translations I have come across are "The Others" and "The archangels". "The Others" suggests an origin separate from Yahweh, so it can hardly be canon. Rabbis I have spoken to on the matter say that the reason every archangel's name ends in "el" is a reference to their position as one of the Elohim. Can I ask for a source for translating Elohim into God, aside from the scribes of King James?69.29.217.85 21:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You can check any lexicon of Biblical Hebrew. You can read the Strong's Concordance or Thayer's Lexicon. Elohim in Hebrew is almost unversally translated as "God." Specifically, the word Elohim occurs in the Masoretic text 2606 times. This was the set of documents from which all the older versions of the English Bible, not just the King James, were translated. Of those times, it is translated into "God" on 2346 occasions. It is translated into the word "god" 244 more times, when it refers not to the God of the Hebrews, but to heathen deities. In a very few instances it is used as an adjective, e.g., "mighty" or "great." It is never translated as "the others" or "the archangels" in the Old Testament in any version of which I am aware, and the word "Trinity" does not occur in the Bible in either Testament. ◄Zahakiel► 21:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Scribes of King James"? That's a new one on me. The KJV was made by translation committees, not by a professional class of scribes. To the extent they still existed at the time -- literacy was more widespread than it had been -- they were called "scriveners".

I suspect either you misunderstood the rabbis or they were deliberately misleading you. That can happen when someone asks what they feel is an inappropriate question, or where they judge that the true answer would do more harm to the inquirer than good. Most archangels' names end in "-el" because they translate to a description of some way the archangel relates to God, not because they are God.

Christians translate "Elohim" as "God", as you ought to know since you have apparently read the KJV. (If you haven't, then you should if you're going to be entering discussions on the subject.) I defy you to show even one place in any Christian translation where "Elohim" is translated "Trinity", "archangels" or "the others".

As for Jewish translations, the 1917 JPS translation is PD and easy to find on the web. You'll fine "Elohim" translated "God" there as well, right from the very first sentence of the Law. [1] TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Since personal communications are not evidence and retranslation of Biblical texts nigh impossible in today's political climate, I will simply ask one last question.

Why then is it Elohim (a plural) rather then Eloha?69.29.217.85 23:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There are various theories on the etymology and morphology of the word, which Elohim summarizes. It also gives various fringe theories, such as those of the Raelians and anthroposophists, which need not be taken seriously.

Biblical texts are retranslated all the time, some with particular social agendas in mind and others without. You can only say this is impossible if you're not familiar with the subject. If it were possible to translate "Elohim" as "The Others" or "The Archangels" there would surely be a translation that does so. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the contradictory nature of your explanation. Thank you.69.29.217.85 23:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

To give you a concise answer regarding why it is Elohim rather than Eloah, in Biblical Hebrew (and you can check with the Rabbis you mentioned about this) it is sometimes the case that pluralizing something increases its importance. For example, behamah is "beast," and Behemoth (fem. plural) is not literally translated as "the (female) beasts," but as "the great beast." It is the same with El/Eloah; plurality in form indicates importance of concept. You can verify this by both context and subject-pronoun agreement in the documents themselves. ◄Zahakiel► 05:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

it's all Greek to me

Isn't the Greek for archangel spelled with a "nu" insted of two gammas? αρχανγελος ? P.M. Kernkamp 07:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No... see the corresponding section re: the Greek spelling on the Angel talk page. ◄Zahakiel► 14:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

oops! yes, you're right of course. Thanks for putting me right! P.M. Kernkamp 15:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

can archangels be seraphs? If not so does this mean that arch angel michael isnt a serpah, and therefor as the general of gods army either stronger than a seraph or didnt the seraphs take part in the war in heaven? As the highest order of angels youd think the serpahs would lead or fight in a battle that determined the fate of the universe.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.170.135 (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Scientific section needed

Evidence needed? Why did the idea of an archangel evolve? Mike0001 (talk) 20:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

In Islam

the explanation of the Angel of Death in this section is essentially illegible. i am interested to see that the name Azrael, which i have heard before, is attributed to this figure, but is that even true? whether it is or not, is that the information that this section is trying to convey? can someone who knows please replace that "sentence?" What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

translation

the hebrew translation at the start of the judaism section was far from pealing to my opinion. first of all, the closest thing to archangels is the judaism is the sherafim and the cherubim, but that is far from the point. מלאך יהוה should be translated to "angel of jehovah" (or messengers of you insist, its the same word in biblical hebrew). jewish people say adonay because by the judaism it is wrong to call the god by his name, but the word יהוה means jehovah. after that הקודשים is trancelated as "the holy ones". the holy ones is הקדושים, what written there (הקודשים) means sacredness or holiness but in the form of many. i know ther is no english equivalent to this word, but "the holy ones" is far off. i am sorry if my english isn't correct, english is not my mother languege. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.108.231 (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

something that i noticed later: the translation to the "upper ones" is written with a spelling mistake. it should say העליונים not העוליונים. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.81.108.231 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Archangel gender

This sentence seems confused; "To be exact Nakir and Munkar are never mentioned as archangels in the Quran or any other Islamic Text; it is emphasised in Islamic texts that angels are genderless". 'Archangel' is no more or less gendered than is 'angel', so I can't figure out what point the writer was trying to get across. 85.8.12.78 15:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't either... I have cleaned up the paragraph a bit, and removed the "by-the-way" statement about gender. That should probably be covered in Islamic view of angels, although it isn't, and may be incorrect. Angels like Harut and Marut are described as falling in love with mortal women, so the statement was open for debate anyway. ◄Zahakiel► 15:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Qur'an (53:27) - "Those who believe not in the Hereafter, name the angels with female names."

the noble Qur'an says angels are male. period. :) also can someone cleanup the Orthodox angels bit? as they don't match correctly, 8 angels? 7 with different angels for different Apostolic Churches. ..I'll have a go but i'm not promising anything :)dava4444 @0:57 GMT@12/sep/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dava4444 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC) ended up doing the Catholic additions, but God willing I'll get round to it :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dava4444 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Spurgeon Believed that Michael was Jesus?

The article claims that Charles Spurgeon believed that Michael was Jesus, and cites . However, that interpretation of the reference seems very dubious, because Spurgeon's exact meaning is unclear, and outside of further evidence, the most obvious interpretation is that Spurgeon is using Michael as a metaphor. Thoughts? Either a better reference is needed for this claim or it should be removed.

Alweth (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Image of Gabriel at the top of the article

Archangel Gabriel (detail) in Polyptych of the Resurrection by Titian, 1522.

I vote for the change made 14:24, 26 October 2009 by Johnbod. The Titian is the better choice. --Robert.Allen (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I was just restoring the old pic, I think. Ideally it would go lower down, on the left so it faces in. I'll keep an eye out for a nice full-length for the lead. Johnbod (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)