Talk:Seven Archangels

message: I doubt he is Samael (too demonic ;p), are not him (Simiel/Symiel) Chamuel/Kamuel/Camael? And please link Oriphiel to Phanuel, like here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archangels .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.94.33 (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simiel = Samael? 

message: The article now states in the first line that the systhem (?) of the seven archangels originates in Christianity. Then the next line states that the earliest grouping of seven archangels is from Enoch I... This book predates the christian era, to my knowledge. I suggest the first line to be erased.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xact (talk • contribs) 14:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad contradiction 

message: Lucifer is also an ArchAngel.
:No, Lucifer WAS an Archangel. According to Christianity, when he was cast out of Heaven he lost that title, as he no longer serves God. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Angels

message: 207.118.27.139 03:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text does not say the tradition originated with Abraham. Nor, since there is also a Jewish tradition of seven archangels, (see archangel; this article is incomplete) is it "proto-Christian". Read Abrahamic religion to see what that term means. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enochian = Abramic? 

message: I added a brief explanation of the 'luminaries' and placed them in their traditional order with a ref... the traditional seven "luminaries" (the seven moving objects in the heavens that can be seen with the naked eye): the Moon, Mercury, Venus, the Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn<ref]Morals and Dogma (of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry) by Albert Pike (1871, 1948, L. H. Jenkins)</ref] - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 02:13, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The 7 moving objects in the heavens that can be seen with the naked eye" and their correct order from 'Morals and Dogma' 

message: Is there more than one version of the text of 1 Enoch? Because I can't find anywhere a reference to the seven archangels in the version I read. There's only a mention in chapter 20 of the Holy Angels who keep watch: Uriel, Raguel, Michael, Saraqael and Gabriel (they're five, not seven, and nowhere called "archangels"). Chapter 40 mentions Michael, Raphael, Gabriel and Phanuel, but again, they're not called archangels. Unless there's some version of the text I'm not aware of, it seems that the seven archangels are an exclusively Christian idea.84.125.23.220 (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The R.H. Charles translation and the E. Isaac translation in Charlesworth's Old Testament Pseudepigrapha both refer to the seven as archangels in the title of the chapter.  Charles lists Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Michael, Saraqael, Gabriel, and Remiel in chapter 20, and Isaac mostly follows suit (though placing Remiel in a footnote since he is found in Greek copies but not Ethiopian), as does M.A. Knibb in H.F.D. Sparks's Apocryphal Old Testament.  We would need mainstream academic sources that indicate that the original Jewish authors did not intend for these figures to be labelled archangels to make any further claims.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: But the titles are additions made by the authors. In this case, the article should say that some translators interpret the list as that of the archangels, not that 1 Enoch says so, because it doesn't. The version I read, for example, doesn't have titles. Regarding the intention of the text, the burden of proof is on those who want to interpret things that aren't explicitly there, not the other way around. Specially if there aren't any other Jewish sources of the same time which present a system of seven archangels.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.23.220 (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia only presents interpretations if they are in published sources, not individual users of this site.  Sources published by Wm. B. Eerdmans, Oxford university press, Mohr Siebeck, and Brill publishers refer to the seven figures in Enoch as the seven archangels.  It's just a common term for "angels in charge of the other angels."  You need to present more secondary sources that argue that "archangel" is inappropriate to refer to those figures. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case the article should make clear that the seven archangels in 1 Enoch are according to the interpretations of X authors. I'm not saying that such an interpretation is right or wrong, but simply that there should be a separation between what the original text says and what later scholars or authors read there. For example, Catholics consider Gabriel, Raphael and Michael as archangels, but it would be incorrect to say that they're called "archangels" in the Old Testament, because this is not so. In fact, I'm starting to doubt that the concept of archangels existed before Christianism.
Other issue I see here, and in general in all articles about angels, is the lack of direct sources. For example, it's said that Pseudo-Dionysios and Saint Gregory made lists of the seven archangels, but nowhere I've found where exactly they presented those lists. Most references are to webpages or modern books which also fail to say where are the original sources.84.125.23.220 (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seven Archangels in 1 Enoch? 

message: It is important to understand the risk in regarding the widely published "Book of Enoch" as the authentic version.
It is equally important to make the distinction that even though there is a reference to a "Book of Enoch" in acknowledged scripture, that the version that is readily available is likely not the one referenced.
For those that have actually read the widely available publication, they will probably come to the conclusion that multiple authors were involved.
These authors spanning a period of time that a discerning reader will likely conclude was written post scripture and not pre-scripture (this includes the Judaic as well as the collection available to the scholars of the King James project).
Consider as an example, that in the distant future the United States Judicial dependence upon the written constitution is historically known. However the actual constitution has been lost to time. A clever author or authors decide to scribe their own interpretation of what a constitution would have contained based on their expectation from the knowledge of that era. These authors then offer their version as the original and the proof is only that is has been quoted and therefore should exist. Since they offer it as "the constitution" then it must be the one that was referenced. I trust you can see the problem with this type of proofing mechanism.
Again for those that have read the widely offered version. I believe you will notice the similarity between Greek mythology (as a theme of presentation) and the "book of Enoch" that is currently being offered as the original. 
It is likely that scribes and scholars collectively came to the same conclusion and therefore did not include the available version of the "book of Enoch" on it's own merits in the modern rendition of scripture of that era.
This is of course not suggesting that such a book does not exist only that it is foolish to accept the one offered as the authentic version.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.39.197.76 (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The authentic book of Enoch. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Seven Archangels. 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/20150930123110/http://www.urielsg.org/sections-read-7.html to http://www.urielsg.org/Sections-read-7.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080926170511/http://www.stgeorgeslennoxville.com/WhatareAnglicansAnyway.dsp to http://www.stgeorgeslennoxville.com/WhatareAnglicansAnyway.dsp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080511234543/http://christchurcheureka.org/documents/ChronicleSeptember.pdf to http://christchurcheureka.org/documents/ChronicleSeptember.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:29, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Are there conflicting lists of Yazidi Archangels?  Besides the Melek Taus, there are Dardail, Israfil, Mikhail, Jibrail, and Shamnail.  However, Sebastian Maisel's Yezidis in Syria: Identity Building among a Double Minority identified the seventh archangel as Turail, not Azrail. 64.180.23.108 (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yazidi Archangels? 

message: The archangels are the seven planets of the ancients. Only later was the concept of an archangel separated from the planets about the same time as the Romans and Greeks began to separate the planets from the gods of the same names. However, the fact still remains that the Archangels are the planets. The reason why they were turned from forces of nature into spiritual beings was to hopefully get people to forget that the planets were alive with intelligence such as our own world Gaia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.68.4 (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seven Angels and planets