Is poor good and rich bad?

Originally posted by Rajk999
None of the verses you quoted described angels with wings.

I haven't really followed this discussion much. What is an angel in your opinion and what words does the Bible use when referring to one? (And I don't mean the English translation).

Originally posted by KellyJay
I guess you need to do a little research and see what those creatures are.
Kelly

YOU need to do a little research instead of assuming that angels = cherubims = seraphims = woman with wings = statue with wings etc.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I haven't really followed this discussion much. What is an angel in your opinion and what words does the Bible use when referring to one? (And I don't mean the English translation).

Angels are messengers of God. According to Strongs concordance :

mal'âk
mal-awk'
From an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically of God, that is, an angel (also a prophet, priest or teacher): - ambassador, angel, king, messenger.

Cherubims are other creatures which do Gods bidding. No details in the Bible about them. Strongs says :

kerûb
ker-oob'
Of uncertain derivation; a cherub or imaginary figure: - cherub, [plural] cherubims.

Seraphims :

śârâph
saw-rawf'
From H8313; burning, that is, (figuratively) poisonous (serpent); specifically a saraph or symbolical creature (from their copper color): - fiery (serpent), seraph.

They are all distinct and separate entities.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Angels are messengers of God. According to Strongs concordance :

So why do you associate the English word "Angel" with the Hebrew mal-awk', but not with the Hebrew ker-oob' or
saw-rawf'?

Originally posted by twhitehead
So why do you associate the English word "Angel" with the Hebrew mal-awk', but not with the Hebrew ker-oob' or
saw-rawf'?

The translators did the association. So when you see angel in the Bible it is equivalent to the Hebrew mal-awk .. and so on.

Are you doubting that angels, cherubims and seraphims are three distinct and separate beings, both in the Hebrew texts and in the English?

Originally posted by Rajk999
The translators did the association. So when you see angel in the Bible it is equivalent to the Hebrew mal-awk .. and so on.

Are you doubting that angels, cherubims and seraphims are three distinct and separate beings, both in the Hebrew texts and in the English?

I am doubting that they are distinct in the English. I don't think the translators own the definition. In common usage at least, cherubims and seraphims would, I think, be angels.
What is say the Catholic Churches opinion on the matter would you know?

I see Wikipedia agrees with you regarding the origin of the word, but goes on to say:

The term "angel" has also been expanded to various notions of spiritual beings found in many other religious traditions.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am doubting that they are distinct in the English. I don't think the translators own the definition. In common usage at least, cherubims and seraphims would, I think, be angels.
What is say the Catholic Churches opinion on the matter would you know?

I see Wikipedia agrees with you regarding the origin of the word, but goes on to say:

The ter ...[text shortened]... nded to various notions of spiritual beings found in many other religious traditions.

My beef was with the idea that the Bible had any description of angels with wings and the correct answer was clearly 'no'. The translators used a consistent Hebrew word to translate into the English 'angel'.

Now what happened with religious traditions is another story. Wiki, Webster, Jewish folklore, Catholic church all have their opinions and interpretations.

Originally posted by Rajk999
My beef was with the idea that the Bible had any description of angels with wings and the correct answer was clearly 'no'. .

Actually your beef is the idea that the Bible had any description of mal-awk' with wings. But because you translated that to 'angels' which for many people describes a much larger category of beings, you have caused some confusion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually your beef is the idea that the Bible had any description of mal-awk' with wings. But because you translated that to 'angels' which for many people describes a much larger category of beings, you have caused some confusion.

I translated? I did no such thing.
People described? They did no such thing.

People have added to the translation of the Bible. Thats what caused the confusion.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually your beef is the idea that the Bible had any description of mal-awk' with wings. But because you translated that to 'angels' which for many people describes a much larger category of beings, you have caused some confusion.

"Angel" comes from the Greek word for "messenger". He has a point.

Originally posted by Rajk999
I translated? I did no such thing.
People described? They did no such thing.

People have added to the translation of the Bible. Thats what caused the confusion.

So you are one of those people who think the translation of the Bible was done by Holy King James and is inerrant? The fact is that 'angel' as it is commonly used today is not how you were using it and that caused confusion. If you are simply clearer about what you mean, you will communicate better.

Originally posted by Rajk999
The fact remains that you were wrong when you said that the Bible described angels with wings. And you are wrong now to claim that you can even estimate how old the earth is !

Oral tradition ? You are like the Scribes and Pharisees who Christ condemned.

You are getting a little to harsh equating me with
the Scribes and Pharisees who Christ condemned.
I am in no way trying to force you to believe
that angels have wings. I merely thought I would
educate you on the subject as I understood it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are getting a little to harsh equating me with
the Scribes and Pharisees who Christ condemned.
I am in no way trying to force you to believe
that angels have wings. I merely thought I would
educate you on the subject as I understood it.

Educate yourself first, then try to educate others.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Educate yourself first, then try to educate others.

I think everyone would agree that we all could use more education.

Originally posted by Rajk999
YOU need to do a little research instead of assuming that angels = cherubims = seraphims = woman with wings = statue with wings etc.

Here is what I suggest you do, read the Bible! You will see that from time
to time in scripture people refer to angels as men, does that mean that they
were men or angels? The way you seem to read scripture if it does not say it
they you want, it must mean something something else.

Some examples to save you a little time looking up the some scriptures, both
scriptures are refering to angels, there are more examples, but you can find
them if you want.

Judges 13:6
Then the woman came and told her husband, saying, A man of God came unto me, and his countenance was like the countenance of the angel of God, very terrible; and I asked him not whence he was, neither told he me his name:

Zechariah 2

1 And I lifted up mine eyes, and saw, and, behold, a man with a measuring line in his hand.

If you bother reading Zechariah you'll see the man with the measuring line
in his hand is an angel. So yes I submit to you that women do not normally
have wings so I do not at all think that scripture was speaking that two
deformed women were doing something, and if you look up the words
cherumims and seraphims you'll see they are connect to angels. You can
believe what you will as always.
Kelly