Talk:Living creatures (Bible)

message: Confusingly like the Christian seraphim; could somebody look at this in reference to the above?
Aristox (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Like Seraphim? 

message: How is "Chayot" inflected? Apparently, by the usage, "Chayot" is the plural form. Is the singular "Chayah"? (Compare: Sephirah, Qliphah.) SpectrumDT 18:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidently "chayah" is a word, with apparently the same meaning. But I don't know enough Hebrew to be confident about adding this to the article. SpectrumDT (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "chayah" is the singular. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the grammar? 

message: The Tetramorph article covers the same concept. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, the Ezekiel tetramorph may be the most notable tetramorph (though it is rarely called that "living creatures" is WP:COMMONNAME) but it is notable enough to have its own article. I would say Ezekiel's living creatures is probably overweight a bit in the tetramorph article and needs some of that content pasted back here with a MAIN. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Tetramorph? 

message: The body of the article currently states that "The four living creatures that John of Patmos sees in the Book of Revelation, is the author's reworking of the living creatures in the visions of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1:5-28)[7] and Isaiah (Isaiah 6:2).[8]" This observation is not sourced or attributed to anyone - did Jonathan Edwards say it (referenced in the previous sentence)? Otherwise it seems like original research implying that John simply "reworked" what he read in Ezekiel and Isaiah. If so, this sentence seem to acknowledge that Ezekiel and Isaiah had "visions," but John did not.
It's not clear whether John is the one meant by the term "the author," and just as a minor point, there shouldn't be a comma after "Revelation."Sadiemonster (talk) 08:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: one can see things in visions based on ideas that circulate in one's cultural surroundings - so there is no direct contradiction 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:95B:B5DC:38E5:ED07 (talk) 06:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: The "Author's Reworking?"

message: The references given in regards to Daniel I do not see in the text referenced.
The articles says "In the Book of Daniel, four living creatures surround the white throne upon which the Ancient of Days sits Daniel 7:7-13. This white throne is also referenced in the final judgement in Revelation 20:11-15. The four beasts differ from the four beasts in Ezekiel chapter 1 and Revelation 4:6–8 in that there are a lion, a calf, an eagle and a man faced creature."
Where in the world is the person who wrote this getting this from? There are no lion/calf/eagle/man beasts - at least I could find.
I'm going to do a mass deletion of that section. If this deletion is in error, feel free to revert it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brak (talk • contribs) 06:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daniel????? 

message: The bibleref2 macro for "Isaiah 6:2" is malformed. It is taking me to (domain)/passage/?search=Isaiah+6&version=2, which currently (5 Oct 2021) redirects to a non-english translation. I suspect the correct link is going to be something like ./passage/?search=Isaiah+6:2 or /passage/?search=Isaiah+6&version=NRSV. But putting the 2 in the version is not going to work. Not sure how to fix this; I'm not a regular wiki editor. I tried to but failed, so I left a note here instead.
(I've also never edited a talk page before, so apologies for any faux-pas here. Should I have top-posted? Also I have no idea on whether linking to specific translations or using single verses rather than contextual chunks is the norm. Any other etiquette I've missed?)
69.143.249.198 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macro issue? 

message: This is surely a garbled version of what the source said. The author of Revelation is John, and he came after Ezekiel. So it makes no sense to ask if Ezekiel's hayyot are original with John. One could enquire whether John's vision was based, directly or indirectly, on Ezekiel. And if one assumes that hayyot are real, it also makes sense to ask if both men saw the same hayyot. But it makes no sense to ask if Ezekiel's hayyot were made up (or divinely experienced, independently) by John.
That's as far as the logic of the statement goes. As for answers, yes, both Ezekiel and John spoke in terms of imagery that would have been very familiar to their audiences. In fact, a single glance at Assyrian/Babylonic ornamental art will tell the interested reader more than I can in a thousand words. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:95B:B5DC:38E5:ED07 (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:   "the hayyot in Ezekiel are perhaps not original with the author of Revelation"