So, in short, you are upset about writers of fiction not following the true portrayal of angels and the like, as they appear in the Bible and various other texts?
edited 2nd Mar '12 9:55:17 AM by Lemurian
Join us in our quest to play all RPG video games! Moving on to disc 2 of Grandia!In Hellboy's defense, it's never definitely stated that the flying maggot is really supposed to be a seraphim. The only word we have on the matter is that of the crazy guy who thought it was a good idea to open a portal for the thing.
edited 2nd Mar '12 10:09:34 AM by MetaFour
Most people don't know this stuff, so they're hardly the angels "we all know".
That said, I am not sure that it's a matter of "getting it wrong". It could well be that they never intended to get things "right", that they're simply taking the basic concept (which many of us are familiar with, as opposed to the details) and building off of it (or even knowingly, deliberately changing it) so that they can have it fit in to their story while also gaining the advantage that audiences recognise terms and phrases to some extent.
If you don't like the situation here, wherein creators of works are using terms in ways inconsistent with your interpretation of religious texts, here are two solutions:
- get over yourself, allow creators their creative license, and enjoy the works in their own right
- avoid the works and perhaps create your own, consistent with your interpretations of the religious texts
edited 2nd Mar '12 2:50:00 PM by ekuseruekuseru
For the most part, I do avoid fiction with any religious(mythological or folk lore too) focus because I know its going to have grossly inaccurate takes on whatever the current Bible fad is. Right now they are probably butchering Revelation and Daniel since "2012" proved not to happen. Thing is, 7 out of 8 of the works listed were are not obvious takes on Christianity or anything Abrahamic.
I had some curiosity too though. Anyone who knows of the Twelve plagues of Egypt knows the Angel of death does not look like this
, except for Wikipedia and the entire company who was providing those paintings-that's what's got me scratching my head. If they don't know, why hasn't pop culture osmosis carried it to them, if they do know, why not show us?
Besides, I like creative use of consistency. Why is Marvel Thor different than the Thor we know? Because Ragnarok happened and a new phase began. I liked Dogma's Cosmic Retcon of Jesus rewriting things to be more like the way people wanted them to be and how the film linked it to an actual passage. But I supposed I could follow your second point too, I could Start My Own.
Buldogue's lawyerI've just read Madeleine L'Engle's Wind in the door, in which a cherubim (used singularly) was basically a ball of wings, eyes and fire.
All in all, I don't think it's a problem. They're supposed to be otherworldly beings, right? I don't see anything wrong with people doing their own interpretations.
Be not afraid...There are angelic-type beings in non-Abrahamic religions too, you know.
edited 2nd Mar '12 4:02:03 PM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian"Winged humanoid" works well on the level of metaphors, though. A humanoid being is an useful way of representing a being having personhood and a mind; and wings are easily associated to spirituality, as are halos. Same reason why we often depict God the Father as a flying bearded dude and the Holy Trinity as a shiny triangle, although it is fairly obvious that this is factually incorrect.
It's not the only possible representation, but it is one that works. And really, any depiction of angels in terms of visuals is essentially a metaphor, as far as I am concerned — angels are pure spirit, they don't have a body to begin with except perhaps in some rare instances.
And really, if a Seraph wants to appear to you as a winged, haloed humanoid, he will. You Cannot Grasp the True Form anyway, so why not?
edited 2nd Mar '12 4:31:58 PM by Carciofus
But they seem to know where they are going, the ones who walk away from Omelas.They are in a few books. Mostly prophecy books in my experience. One involved what apparently appeared as two flaming wheels spinning inside one another or some such. Another beings with many eyes.
Of course this is just memory for me. I couldn't tell you where though. I do feel certain that Revelation was one of the books though.
edited 2nd Mar '12 5:04:03 PM by Aondeug
If someone wants to accuse us of eating coconut shells, then that's their business. We know what we're doing. - Achaan ChahEh. I think getting the underlying concept of angels right is more important that getting some half-metaphorical physical description correctly
Likes many underrated webcomicsAlso, centuries of church art have shown angels as humanoids with wings and halos. And if the Church is okay with portraying angels as such, I don't see why writers of fiction should get flak for doing the same.
edited 2nd Mar '12 5:28:30 PM by Lemurian
Join us in our quest to play all RPG video games! Moving on to disc 2 of Grandia!The descriptions are in the books of Ezekiel (for Cherubim) and Isaiah (for Seraphim). As for wings... they seem to be older than one would expect.
EDIT: Uh... semi-ninja-ed?
For the uninitiated: do not confuse the Holy Trinity with the Triforce.
edited 2nd Mar '12 5:23:33 PM by Pyrite
Not a substitute for a formal medical consultation.![]()
Wouldn't know. Not too familiar with deuterocanonical / apocryphal stuff, since it's HERESY! *BLAM*
edited 2nd Mar '12 5:27:11 PM by Pyrite
Not a substitute for a formal medical consultation.Well, this was larger than just angels, they are just the most obvious and most common offenders of shockingly distorted portrayals of some the most widespread texts ever.
But really, that churches do it isn't any better as they should know the Bible better than anyone. Yeah, they've been doing it for a long time, but it really should have stopped after the dark ages when the monks decided it would be a good idea to translate the Bible into common tongue and people started reading it, forming their own opinions and starting what we know as the protestant reformation.
To their credit, most churches nowadays do get most right though they generally have little imagery at all besides crosses and Jesus of the most prominent "race" in the area. Mosques frown upon images in their places of worship and I've never seen such in synagog.
Buldogue's lawyer

Sadly Mythtaken is usually understandable but Christianity and Islam are for the most part, contemporary. They're practiced in a wide variety of areas and their texts are translated in a wide variety of languages. Ogre would be as out of place in the Aztek tongue as a series of clicks would be in English(Ethiopians don't click that much either) but you'd think people would know their angels by simple Pop Culture Osmosis.
Yet they get it wrong every, single, time. Cherubim were not glowing balls of light nor were they giant rotting rabbits. Thrones were not walking recliners nor humanoid at all. Seraphim were not maggots, Nephilim are debatable but the one thing everyone could agree on is that they were big.
Mixing them up would be more understandable. Our Angels Are Different page claims Putti are often mistaken for Cherubim, but I've never actually seen that happen. The easiest thing to do would be to just call any random actor an angel but that gets screwed up by wings and halos. Wings they had and some were humanoid but at the same time? The closest to that is one Islamic interpretation of Gabriel, and even then, that comes from paintings, not the text and even the artwork would be a stretch as his figure is blurred, the halo is still absent.
A halo wouldn't be inaccurate, it is just silly to treat it as part of their clothing or biology but angels get off easy compared to God. Odin is the Grandpa God God god appeared as an old man once to test Jacob, his usual forms were a booming disembodied voice, a whisper in the wind and a shining pillar of water vapor and flame besides Jesus, with his dark skin and wool like hair, which you never see. Also you will never see any of his second coming guises.
My question is that the texts are malleable, would it be that hard to name your own types of angel rather than distort ones we all know? Aren't there innumerable "heavenly bodies" that can be used other than old man God? I find the original interpretations to be much more interesting, if you aren't going to use them why not use your own rather than go pretend use the real thing?
edited 2nd Mar '12 2:24:52 PM by IndirectActiveTransport
Buldogue's lawyer