Talk:Seraph

Lucifer

Is this quote saying that Lucifer was counted among the seraphim correct ? I have seen an exact copy of this sentence on alot of sites, so I don't know if it originated here or if it was copied from somewhere else. I believe Lucifer is an Archangel. If any reference for this is needed, take a look at the following site : http://www.steliart.com/angelology_fallen_archangel.html

Searching for more references shouldn't be more difficult.

-- Paul Marcus

Lucifer, as far as the Tanakh is concerened, doesn't exist. What christians call Lucifer is Helel Ben Shachar, or son of the morning star (aka the light bringer). This is located in Isaiah 14:12 only, and concerns a worship of another God (Phaëton).

As far as christian mythology goes, Jerome's Vulgate translation of Isaiah 14:12 has made Lucifer the name of the principal fallen angel, who must lament the loss of his original glory as the morning star. This image at last defines the character of Lucifer; where the Church Fathers had maintained that lucifer was not the proper name of the Devil, and that it referred rather to the state from which he had fallen; St. Jerome transformed it into Satan's proper name. SF2K1

Lucifer is a specifically Christian concept. I understand (I don't know this) Lucifer is regarded as a Seraph in the Christian angelarchy, but Lucifer does not appear in the Jewish angelarchy as a Jewish angel (at all). This is one of a number of differences between the two religions's perspectives on angels. Judaism doesn't interpret Isaiah 14:12 as a reference to Lucifer, this interpretation is a Christian one. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And not all christians, either! 15:26, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge this article with Hierarchy of angels

Some of this material could be used to amplify a section on seraphim in the Heirarchy of Angels article.

The linked list there links the reader here. --Wetman 21:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oppose merge. The Hierarchy of Angels article describes a specifically Christian angelarchy. But there's a Jewish angelarchy. Seraphim appear in both Judaism and Christianity, and are somewhat different in each, although with overlap. The Seraphim article mentions both Jewish and Christian (as well as New Age) perspectives. --Shirahadasha 04:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

To re-affirm: there is no hierarchy in a choir!

Wheels within wheels

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I worked too hard on this article for it to be merged! --206.72.25.210 (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It mixes new age with classical tradition

The phrase:

The Seraphim are primarily concerned with vibrational manifestations which keep Divinity in perfect order. They have been described as being the angels of love, light and fire.

They help to carry positive energy through the orders of the angels to us in the physical realms.

Implies new age connotations to the biblical seraphim that do not actually exist. In a specialized section pertaining to the Christian doctrine of seraphim, this is out of place.

I agree, and the statement: "Seraphim, as classically depicted, can be identified by their having six wings radiating from the angel's face at the center" is just as bogus. What "classical" depiction is being thought of here? An album cover I imagine. --Wetman 00:13, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "classical" depiction the author referred to is the Easter Orthodox iconographical tradition. Google search eastern orthodox icon seraphim and you'll get tons of examples.

The classical depiction they are describing is Ethiopian Iconography. And yes, it is classical.71.191.13.254 (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Interestingly enough, Thomas Aquinas in the Summa Theologica offers a description of the nature of the Seraphim:

The name "Seraphim" does not come from charity only, but from the excess of charity, expressed by the word ardor or fire. Hence Dionysius (Coel. Hier. vii) expounds the name "Seraphim" according to the properties of fire, containing an excess of heat. Now in fire we may consider three things.

First, the movement which is upwards and continuous. This signifies that they are borne inflexibly towards God.

Secondly, the active force which is "heat," which is not found in fire simply, but exists with a certain sharpness, as being of most penetrating action, and reaching even to the smallest things, and as it were, with superabundant fervor; whereby is signified the action of these angels, exercised powerfully upon those who are subject to them, rousing them to a like fervor, and cleansing them wholly by their heat.

Thirdly we consider in fire the quality of clarity, or brightness; which signifies that these angels have in themselves an inextinguishable light, and that they also perfectly enlighten others. (Emphasis added)

The objectionable quote referenced "angels of love, light and fire." Aquinas directly mentions (note the bold text above) the nature of Seraphim being "fire" and "light," and he utilizes the term "ardor" which references intense love. (Run a quick [dictionary.com] search on ardor.)

Further, Aquinas references a penetrating action which rouses, clenses, and enlighten those subject to them; that sounds an awful lot like "carry[ing] positive energy" and "keep[ing] Divinity in perfect order."

Aquinas, beyond being a well respected figure in Christianity, can by no means be described as "new age." The Summa is certainly an acceptable reference, and I think the quote, with some revision, can successfully be integrated. Essjay 08:50, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

Seraphim in popular culture

I reverted a deletion of this section because I believe deletion of a section like this should be discussed first. However, as things presently stand there is some reason to support such a deletion. The section is essentially unsourced. It consists of little more than lists of characters named or called "Seraph" who appear in various video games, with no discussion. No evidence that Seraph is anything more than a name (Analogy: characters named "Smith" and "Miller" aren't necessarily examples of the role of millers in popular culture.) --Shirahadasha 19:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I was too precipitate in deleting this list of largely unlinked and irrelevant cruft. Seraphim in popular culture would make a neat package. We'll give it a header paragraph, repeat that paragraph here, with a link to Seraphim in popular culture --and "open the pod bay door Hal". Then those who want to diddle about with it may do so, and we don't have to watch. --Wetman 20:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The section seems rather long and rather pointless, I am in favor of deleting it.68.211.221.93 02:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Hello, removed this material to this talk page pending sources. Note that a similar list was removed in the Cherub article. Want to make sure that each entity is identified as a Seraph by some source, and that we identify the POV involved. The identity and nature of Biblical figures and angelic beings can be controversial so WP:A and WP:NPOV is especially important. Best, --Shirahadasha 19:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• ===Names attributed to this angelic order===
• According to various Jewish and Christian traditions, several angels and demons are of this rank:
  • Michael
  • Seraphiel
  • Nathanael
  • Jehoel
  • Chamuel (Kemuel, Shemuel)
  • Lucifer
  • Satan
  • Abaddon
  • Asmodeus
  • Astaroth
  • Leviathan
  • Samael
  • Semyazza
  • Metatron

Etymology

could we please get some modern, scientific and theologically neutral etymological information on the word seraph? ive come across some claims elsewhere that it means something about fiery serpents. im sceptical and would appreciate any illumination. ƒaustX 19:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I agree. There doesn't appear to be any other etymology listed on the Internet than that 'seraph' is from srp = to burn FreezBee 17:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The word seraphim appears with the word nachashim (serpents) in Numbers (21:6) and Deuteronomy (8:15); to describe venomous snakes. In Numbers (21:8), seraph is used alone, in place of the word nachash to describe the image of a snake that Moses creates. So, while seraphim is certainly derived from 'srp'-'to burn' it did seem to acquire an association with snakes (especially venomous snakes), and on occasion became a synonym for the same. This was possibly due to the agony ("burning") of snake bites. Apart from the vision of the heavenly court, Isaiah uses the word Seraph twice (14:29 and 30:6), both times to describe a flying monster and both times in close association with words to describes snakes ('Nachash'-serpent, in 14:29, and 'Efeh'-viper, in 30:6). So, the association with serpents is not without merit, though this is probably not the origin of the word.ElijahBenedict 17:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Blessings to Godde[ss] Serendipity

"Definitions: 'The Seraphim srpym (fiery winged serpents) are no doubt connected with, and inseparable from, the idea "of the serpent of eternity - God," as explained in Kenealy's Apocalypse. But the word cherub also meant serpent, in one sense, though its direct meaning is different; because the Cherubim and the Persian winged gruphes "griffins" - the guardians of the golden mountain - are the same, and their compound name shows their character, as it is formed of kr (kr) circle, and avb "aub," or ob - serpent - therefore, a "serpent in a circle." And this settles the phallic character of the Brazen Serpent, and justifies Hezekiah for braking it. (see II. Kings, 18,4). [....]' [Based on: T.S.D. Vol. 1, by H.P. Blavatsky (1999 edition), p. 364 (+ footnote)]. Associated spellings/words: srpym." Source: [1] (accessed: December 27, 2007)

NB: B9~hummingbird~hovering of naga totem offers this edit to the titans of primordial chaos, the Asura/Æsir. Left-handed Hummingbird is of the Old Gods. 108 svaha.

The Principality of Serendipity
B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me try a few. In my romanian language, the word "sireap" means "fast or untamed" horse who eats in mythology/fairytails only burning coal(carbune=coal). Also is the name of "alba"(white) star from the horses forehead. Another version: "S" could come from "sase"(six) while "arp" from "aripa"(wing)=6 wings. "Sarba" is folk dance with people joining hands and rotating. "Sarpe" means serpent. "A sorbi" means "to sip"(like horses are drinking water. Another similarity is "corbi"(ravens), birds associated usually with Odhin's/Saturn's throne in european myths. The "solar" Asura/Æsir is also a good connection. The Harpies could also be connected. Bigshotnews 04:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not insert your comments inside other editor's comments. Seraph is from a Semitic language, Romanian is an Indo-European language, so it's unlikely that Seraph has an Indo-European root. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

bizarre band description

it's right at the bottom of the page, should this really be here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.6.19 (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Trisagion vs. Sanctus

I corrected the article to say that the hymn that Seraphim chant is the "Sanctus" -- it had said "Trisagion," but this wasn't quite right, given that the Sanctus is the name for the hymn that quotes Ezekiel and Revelation and begins "Holy, Holy, Holy," whereas the Trisagion (as per the article on it) is somewhat similar but quite distinct, beginning "Holy God, Holy and Mighty, Holy Immortal One . . ."113.22.49.31 (talk) 15:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, Hearing Archangel Gabriel is not a reliable source???

NA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.4.205.217 (talk) 02:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Here are the reliable source guidelines. Hearing voices is not listed as a reliable source, regardless of whether it is Gabriel or not. At any rate, you didn't cite your sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

'Dragon-shaped'

"They appear also in the Christian Gnostic text On the Origin of the World, described as "dragon-shaped angels".[5]"

That's a bit misleading, because the concept of dragon/draco/δράκων in late classical antiquity, the era of that text, didn't imply the winged, limbed, fire-breathing, rather dinosaur-like creature it does in the modern mind; it simply means a (usually large) snake or serpent. 'Dragons' in classical myth may be winged, fire-breathing, etc, but not particularly more often than other important animals (horses, bulls etc.) 165.91.166.236 (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Plural

@Jmcgnh: I don't understand why you reverted my edit. In the 300 years of English usage, the plural was (in my opinion) always "seraphim" (or "seraphims") and not "seraphs". And why did you remove my sentence about "seraph" being a back-formation? I did not say that it's forbidden to use it! Also, why did you remove my correction to the Hebrew, where it said that the word "seraph" is used in the Torah? It's not used, because it doesn't exist in Hebrew. (Actually it does exist, but it means resin.) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Eric Kvaalen: Your edit did not introduce any sources to back up your changes. It struck me as original research WP:OR. I reverted the whole thing in order to more cleanly bring the discussion here to the talk page.

In my experience, Wikipedia has a bit of status quo bias, so that changes to a longstanding practice may need more justification and backup than was needed to put the original wording in place. By making your changes, you were asserting that a stylistic choice by an earlier editor had to be changed to a different stylistic choice.

If I were speaking of these entities, my own preference would be "seraphim" because that usage echoes the original language from which English took the word, but that might be considered excessively pedantic. Conscious of this criticism, I thought it would be better to sound out other editors to get consensus before allowing the changes to go through.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I note that at some point in November 2010, the singular "sarap" was being used in the section Origins and development. I would have to do more investigation to see if this subject has been considered in this article before. I also note here that you made a related change at English plurals.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Certainly, "seraphs" is a plural, though not the usual one: "Ye wingèd seraphs fly, bear the news, bear the news!" StAnselm (talk) 18:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jmcgnh: The fact that "seraph" is a back-formation from "seraphim" is in any dictionary, such as the The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language or the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). I'm sure the OED gives citations showing that the plural was usually "seraphim" or "seraphims", not "seraphs" (as User:StAnselm says), but I don't have access to it. As for the fact that "seraph" is not the Hebrew word, just look in any dictionary or concordance. ("Sarap" is just a different way of transliterating the Hebrew word which I transliterated as "saraph".) I really don't see why we have to give references for every little fact. If you think it's not true, then you can put a Citation Needed tag, or even better, ask on the Talk page, but don't just revert! There was no citation for what was there before I corrected it, by the way (about the word "seraph"). I don't agree that we should leave articles the way they were, just because that's the way some previous editor decided to write them. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 07:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I do indeed believe we need to give references for every little fact. Demanding that helps make the article stronger.

I also believe this falls under the same sort of "respecting the choices of earlier editors" as does the choice of date styles or whether to use British or American spellings and vocabulary.

Given that there has been very little input so far, and no objections to your change (remember, it matches my own general preference as well, but I was conscious that it might be considered pedantic), I think you can declare that consensus has been achieved and proceed with your change. Just put in the appropriate cites and you won't hear any more complaint from me.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am happy for the plural in the article to be "seraphim" (per the proposed change), and for the comment about back-formation to be included if a source can be found. StAnselm (talk) 07:18, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Miswriting/

Origins:

Change ´sun´ to ´son/daughter/offspring´. There is no doubt of the tempora, the temperament, nor the temporary.

That what does not shine as brightly, is merely one trick of those whom ´mind´ away from that distinction, they themselves, being able to make that distinction, purely withing that what is their own ´mind´. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.92.204.150 (talk) 16:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

====================================================================

i´ve found this very interesting!! take a look guys!!

The Angelic Ranks Originally presented at the 1991 Jumonville Conference

Stephen E. Rodabaugh, Trinity Grace Fellowship

I. Motivation and Preliminary Comments.

A. Comment on Terminology. The word "angel" is a transliteration of the Greek AGGELOS, meaning roughly "sent messenger". It is clear that many angelic ranks described below are not comprised of "sent messengers". Throughout this outline we use "angel" in the broadened sense of "supernatural created being"; occassionally, we use "angel" in its original, strict sense, and these instances are so noted.

B. Necessity of the Topic of Angelic Ranks.

1. Regeneration compels us to seek to understand Scripture in accordance with the normative hermeneutic (Deut. 29:29, II Tim. 2:15).

2. The Body of Christ has the Hope/Certainty of ruling the universe under Christ by ruling and administrating the highest angelic ranks. It will therefore seek to understand the angelic ranks/ministry to the fullest extent Scripture permits.

a. Hope of the Body includes ruling over all angels: see (especially the Greek texts of) I Cor. 6:3 8:5-6, Gal. 1:8-9 4:8-11, Eph. 1:18,20-1 2:6,19-22 3:10, Phil. 3:20-1, Col. 1:12 2:8-10,14-8 3:1-2, I Thess. 4:14,16.

b. A ruler is obligated to understand what and whom he is ruling, for how can one rule wisely in ignorance (Prov. 1:1-7)?

c. Regeneration compels true members of the Body to seek to understand its Hope, and such understanding is part of the assurance of salvation (Rom. 8:24-5 16:25, II Cor. 3:18 4:4-5, Eph. 1:17-8 2:16 3:10 4:1-16, Phil. 1:9, Col. 1:27 2:2, I Thess. 4:13-5:11, I Tim. 3:9, II Tim. 2:17-8, Tit. 1:1-3). A companion principle obtains in Israel's dispensation (Dan. 7:16,19 8:16-7,19 9:22-3 10:14,21 11:2 12:3, Heb. 6:18-9).

3. The Body, through the angels, administers Israel's kingdom but this kingdom is patterned after the angelic realm, especially with regard to ceremonial religion, for the earthly is patterned after the heavenly (Ex. 25:40, Heb. 8:5 9:23)

II. The Heavenly CHERUBIM.

A. Some preliminary comments.

1. The Hebrew word KeRUB is of rather uncertain origin; see [Gesenius-Tregelles (GT) 413-4] and [Brown-Driver-Briggs (BDB) 500-501]. However, as noted in these authorities and also in [Companion Bible (CB) Appendix 41], the consonant group KRB is almost universal, occuring in many different languages of different language groups: Assyrian KaRaBu/KiRuBu, Persian GiRiFten/GRiFFen/GRiFFin, Greek GRuePs, German GReiFen, English GRiP/GRasP, and similar forms in Arabic, Aramaic, etc. In all cases, the meaning appears to be "ONE WHO GRIPS, HOLDS FIRM, GUARDS".

2. Keeping these facts in mind, as well as its usage in the Hebrew Scriptures, a CHERUB, in the context of heavenly beings, is a THRONE-GRIPPER, i.e. a THRONE-GUARDIAN, THRONE-COVERER, the Throne being that on which the Word of God sits in the Third Heaven. Collectively, the heavenly CHERUBIM comprise the guardians of the Throne in Heaven, or in rabbinical terms, the innermost folds of Jehovah's personal covering, the innermost portion of His angelic Tallith with which He is pleased to wrap His Throne in Heaven, the innermost Shekhinah.

3. Appropriately reflective of the Triune God which they enwrap, this inner Tallith is tri-partite, i.e. the (heavenly) Cherubim comprise THREE ranks; so that we should understand the "Cherubim" as a general class of heavenly beings and NOT some specific rank. In other words, the Hebrew words "Cherub" and "Cherubim" are generic terms, needing sharpening from the context. These claims will be borne out by the evidence presented below. While these claims appear to be (hopefully) a real advance over what is usually taught, there is a bit of a partial hint along these lines in [BDB, loc cit].

4. As a follow-up to 3. above, note that the statues of the KeRUBIM in the holiest place of the Tabernacle do NOT appear to imitate precisely to those ranks of angels which are or should be designated KeRUBIM: these statues are KeRUBIM simply in the sense that they are gripping and guarding the Mercy Seat (the ceremonial throne). This implicitly confirms our understanding of KeRUB as a generic term meaning a gripper/guardian. Also see C(2) below and the passages cited there. Another follow-up to 3.: KeRUBIM's first occurrence is of the guardians of the Tree of Life in Eden (Gen. 3:24), which are simply angels assigned the role of guarding, and are not the beings described in Ezek. 1,10,28:14, thus confirming our view of KeRUB as a generic term.

5. The three ranks of heavenly Cherubim, or Throne-Grippers/Coverers, are, in descending order of administrative position: SERAPHIM (dragons/serpants), ZOA (living ones/creatures), and OPHANIM/GALGALIM (wheels). We now to examine each of these ranks.

B. The Three Ranks of (Heavenly) Cherubim.

1. SERAPHIM.

a. The Hebrew word SARAPH, plural SERAPHIM, denotes a FIERY SERPENT/DRAGON (from a root meaning "to burn"). In the context of angelic beings, it is used synonymously in the Hebrew Scriptures with the word NACHASH, denoting GLORIOUS/SHINING SERPENT/DRAGON (from an assumed root meaning "to be bright"). The proofs of this claim (pointed out to me by REW) can be found more-or-less in [CB Appendix 19]: saraph is used of flying winged serpents in Is. 6:1-7, and so may nachash is its usage; Moses used the two words interchangably in Num. 21:8 (saraph) and Num. 21:9 (nachash), both describing the same serpent of brass; and Satan is a Nachash in Gen. 3:1, and a comparison of Is. 6:1-7 (the Seraphim hover over the Throne) with Ezek. 28:14,16 (he covers the Throne) establishes that Satan is an angelic Saraph. Much more on Satan below. Incidentically, the phrase "beasts of the field" in Gen. 3:1 is literally "living creatures of the field": it is a consequence of the descriptions of the various ranks of Cherubim that the basic kinds of land creatures were modeled after these angelic ranks; the Seraphim are the models for the reptilian and amphibian orders, especially including the great dinosaurs; and man was modeled after the Son Himself as the Logos or Ancient of Days; and so with biology, as with ceremonial religion, the earthly is patterned after the heavenly (Ex. 25:40, Heb. 8:5 9:23). We also note: Satan appeared not in the Garden as a snake, but in his full Saraphic glory; see [CB Appendix 19] for full discussion.

b. Basic details about the Seraphim from Is. 6:1-7:

Location: ABOVE/OVER the Throne, a canopy over the Head of the Son. This indicates that the Seraphim have the highest position of all cherubic and angelic ranks. Also see C.2.

Description: Each Saraph has ONE FACE and SIX WINGS with the appearance of FIERY DRAGONS/SERPENTS. They have mobility (see also c. below). The number of Seraphim is unspecified.

Work: Guard/overwatch the purity of doctrine for Israel and her Gentiles, act as priests in this regard. They lead in the praise of God and sing "Holy, Holy, Holy is the LORD of hosts; His glory is the fulness of the whole earth."

Speech: Speak to men.

c. Justification for viewing the Seraphim as a rank of Cherubim.

i. Satan is a Nachash (Gen. 3:1) who hovers over the Throne (Ezek. 28:14,16), and so is a Saraph (see a. above), and yet is called a Cherub (Ezek. 28:14,16). Indeed, Satan is above all appointed as the covering Cherub, for the Hebrew calls him "THE ANOINTED CHERUB (KERUB) WHO COVERS", indicating Satan is the CHIEF SARAPH, chief over those charged with guarding/gripping the truth (see "Work" above): this should humble us and cause us to fear. Also note how the context of Ezek. 28:14,16 connects Satan with both "brilliance" (v. 17, cf nachash) and "fire" (vv. 14,16, c saraph), as does also II Cor. 11:14 ("angel of light" = "glorious angel"). Note that "mountain" in Ezek. 28:14,16 is really a mistranslation: literally, Satan was set in/on the holy height of God, i.e. he was set to hover over the Throne in Heaven. Also, Satan is mobile (Ezek. 28:14), as are the Seraphim; see also Is. 14:13-4. Finally, note Satan was wiser than any living creature of the field, and presumably, than any of their heavenly models (= various cherubic ranks); i.e. Satan was the wisest of all created beings, and such wisdom could only be in keeping with his position as the Chief Saraph in charge of overseeing the keeping of revealed truth.

ii. The Seraphim, in their covering the Throne overhead and guarding the truth, fit perfectly the notion of GRiPPers or KeRuBim.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Seraph. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140113212636/http://www.smsbellevue.org/seraph.html to http://www.smsbellevue.org/seraph.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Friends of Sabbath Reference

I'm moving this section to the talk page for a bit of discussion. There are a couple of issues to discuss.

1) Can you please provide a proper citation for this reference. I am not the only editor that has brought up copyright concerns. In that citation can you please provide a page number for the specific section you are quoting for this support?

2) Can you edit your submission for proper grammar, including capitalizations? Also please review a bit to ensure it is written in an encylopedic manner.

3) Can you offer a bit to support that this source meets WP:RS requirements?

Here is the relevant text:

A connection between seraphim and the Egyptian uraeus motif is well established in artistic and contextual clues.

Thanks,

Squatch347 (talk) 17:33, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to bump this a bit for review over the next week or two. I think A. Parrot answered point 3, so I think we can mark that off. I looked through the encyclopedia and couldn't find anything like what was mentioned in the edit addition. Squatch347 (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Falconfly, your latest revision stated: "A substantial portion of their entry on seraphs discusses the serpent imagery and even alludes to multi-winged uraei in Israel." I'm not arguing related to the serpant iconography. I'm asking you elaborate on 'connection' to make it a meaningful addition to the article. Similar styles are fun factoids, but do not meet encyclopedic standards. If you want to say something like, "multiple instances of a uraeus-like (winged serpent) imagery can be found in Hyksos-era Palestine and Egypt that when combined with Hebrew philology indicate Seraphim were seen as winged serpants with certain human-like attributes." That would fit the source you are quoting. But a vague "connection" without any details that leaves out the important chronological relationship referenced in the source isn't encyclopedic. Squatch347 (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

https://imgur.com/DIeErVW

Thank you for providing the text you feel supports your addition. Can you update your citation to properly reflect that page number, version, and other citation data to comply with wikipedia citation guidelines?

I'm not sure what you offered quite meets what you wrote. I would suggest that a small edit to better reflect the text you quoted; "There is emerging consensus that the motifs used to display seraphs in Hyksos-era Palestine had their original sources in egyptian uraeus iconography." Squatch347 (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Guys, DON'T LINK TO COPYRIGHT VIOLATIONS! Properly cite the original book instead of linking to the copyright violation. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:13, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

  I already had the original source in question and have updated the citation. The source is high quality (even if the pirating site was fringe), and the material added reflects the source. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Dragon Template

As Seraphim are included on the dragon template, should the template be added here? I'm a bit uncertain, given that they are angels first; I'd just like a second opinion. Promestein (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Phoenixes and the Chalkydri

The article contains a paragraph describing the Phoenixes and Chalkydri in excessive detail. It suggests that these angels are the same as the Seraphim, but the source provided (Dictionary of Angels) only has this to say:

CHALKYDRI: Archangels of the flying elements of the sun. Mentioned in Enoch II, where they are linked with the phoenixes and placed amidst cherubim and seraphim. The chalkydri are 12-winged. At the rising of the sun they burst into song. Their habitat is the 4th Heaven. In gnostic lore, they are demonic. In Charles' Introduction to Enoch II, the chalkydri are described as "monstrous serpents with the heads of crocodiles" and as "natural products of the Egyptian imagination."

I don't think that an article about a particular type of angel needs discuss the etymology of a different type of angel just because the two are mentioned side by side in one text. After all, the article doesn't go into detail about ophanim, cherubim, etc.

IYY (talk) 23:21, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

pop culture icon

just adding that Warhammer 40k uses seraphs as a icon/background char around all the heroic space marine named chars of the ultramarine chapter. as these are not true seraph but winged babies akin to cupids with cybernetic parts and described in lore as some sort of mutant race I am not sure if they are worthy of adding or not. they are no doubt inspired by Seraph with 40k's use of religions for their leadership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.167.226.89 (talk) 02:35, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hinduism?

This note is under the Media section:

"In Hindu mythology Serpentine-related deities Shiva, Krishna and Anantha Padmanabha are examples of evolution of the entities from the Book of Enoch. Serpentine figures guarding the treasures of Historical temples also evolved from the 'seraphim in the God's throne room'."

This doesn't seem right to me, and feels too much like it's trying to force a non-Christian religion into a Christian lens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:C01:CAAF:F4AF:DBB7:D9C:392D (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Change article name from Seraph to Seraph (שָׂרָף)

Original hebrew text needs to remain as the word in hebrew contains numeric value. The English translation is never an exact, but an interpretation of Hebrew religious text that is safeguarded in Judaism and can never be changed.

Guuurrrllll

Guuurrrrllll 141.168.57.182 (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Book of Enoch is not "non-canonical" to all Christians

As is noted in the article about the Book of Enoch it is considered canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Church. So this statement is an incorrect generalization: "Seraphim are mentioned as celestial beings in the non-canonical Book of Enoch and the canonical Book of Revelation.".

This sentence should be revised to use a more accurate, and less sweeping description. ZeroXero (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2023 (UTC)