A POLITE Discussion about Singing Angels

[Sparko]

I just dont see angels being covered in eyeballs. That has to be representative. perhaps of them seeing everything.

[Cow Poke]

That was my first question.

Yeah, I missed it, til I went back to figure out what the heck you were talking about. My bad.

They are either a higher form of angel, or something different, because it mentions the angels and the four living creatures as seperate in some places. And there are only 4 of them.

It would be much easier if there were something like "the 4 beasts and the OTHER angels" - but they appear to be named separately, yes.

But they seem to be the same as what Ezekiel saw.

Then again, revelation is a vision and a lot of the stuff John saw was representations of things. Apocalyptic imagery.

[Cow Poke]

Are not angels 'living beings'?

I have no reason to doubt that they are.

You still have not defined what is and is not an angel.

That would be silly of me, since I have repeatedly said I don't know.

Do you think that the creatures in Revelation are not intended to allude to the same seraphim in Isaiah 6?

I don't know. In the OT, the creatures, which are called Seraphim, "call", and we'd have to force "singing" on them.
In the NT, they are not called "Seraphim", but have similarities, and it says they sing.

Again - I don't know.

[Sparko]

And I don't think anybody is disputing that the beasts and the winged creatures sang.

I guess the next question would be "are they angels"?

That was my first question. They are either a higher form of angel, or something different, because it mentions the angels and the four living creatures as seperate in some places. And there are only 4 of them.

But they seem to be the same as what Ezekiel saw.

Then again, revelation is a vision and a lot of the stuff John saw was representations of things. Apocalyptic imagery.

[robrecht]

The Seraphim in Isaiah - the Hebrew there is also "called", not "sang". I'm inclined to think they WERE angels, and not a good "proof" that "angels sing".

On the other hand, the words in the NT from which "beast" comes -

zo'on

a living being

an animal, brute, beast



Not as likely, in my opinion, to be considered "angel" - but, again, I don't know.

Are not angels 'living beings'? You still have not defined what is and is not an angel. Do you think that the creatures in Revelation are not intended to allude to the same seraphim in Isaiah 6?

[Sparko]

OK, I think I'm going to give up.

Yay!!! I win!!!

I am not "arguing from silence" -- I'm just aware that there is a lot of "teaching" out there that comes from tradition, or somebody's opinion. I am NOWHERE stating that angels do not sing, or cannot sing -- I have tried to make that clear several times throughout this thread.

I'm simply asking if there are any verses where it clearly says they DO sing.

did someone say something?

[Cow Poke]

What else would they be? Do you also think that the 6-winged seraphim in Isaiah 6 might not be angels? What is your definition of 'angel'?

The Seraphim in Isaiah - the Hebrew there is also "called", not "sang". I'm inclined to think they WERE angels, and not a good "proof" that "angels sing".

On the other hand, the words in the NT from which "beast" comes -

zo'on

a living being

an animal, brute, beast



Not as likely, in my opinion, to be considered "angel" - but, again, I don't know.

[robrecht]

And I don't think anybody is disputing that the beasts and the winged creatures sang.

I guess the next question would be "are they angels"?

What else would they be? Do you also think that the 6-winged seraphim in Isaiah 6 might not be angels? What is your definition of 'angel'?

[Cow Poke]

I already did, in Post #53:

And I don't think anybody is disputing that the beasts and the winged creatures sang.

I guess the next question would be "are they angels"?

[robrecht]

Please, Robrecth -- just state your opinion, ok? You think they are "angels"?

I already did, in Post #53:

The four living creatures in Revelation 4,8 each have six wings and surround the throne of God, which seems to identify them as angels, presumably the seraphim mentioned in Isaiah 6, and in Revelation 5,9 these creatures are singing a new song, which probably also implies they were singing in Revelation 4, but, regardless, they are definitely singing in Revelation 5.

[Cow Poke]

I think you are trying to argue from silence. But there are verses that indicate that angels sing. I don't see why they would not or could not sing. They can speak. So why would they not be able to sing? Singing is speaking in various tones and pitches. It would make sense that they can and do sing praises to God.

OK, I think I'm going to give up.

I am not "arguing from silence" -- I'm just aware that there is a lot of "teaching" out there that comes from tradition, or somebody's opinion. I am NOWHERE stating that angels do not sing, or cannot sing -- I have tried to make that clear several times throughout this thread.

I'm simply asking if there are any verses where it clearly says they DO sing.

[Teallaura]

When angels are mentioned, the word is "taught" or "said" or "called".
When the beasts or elders are mentioned, the word is definitely "sang" and "song".

I can't accept that this is just sloppy translation or observation on John's part.

I didn't even imply that it was merely sloppy - there is probably a reason for it and that's what I've been saying we're missing. We don't know the translator's reasoning and without that you're just guessing which should be which.


I gotta run now - later!

[Cow Poke]

How many different types of 6-winged creatures are there that surround God's throne?

Please, Robrecth -- just state your opinion, ok? You think they are "angels"?

[Sparko]

OK, I see what you're saying now -- I brushed over it because I already allowed (in my own head) that IF the 4 living creatures (and or the 4 and 20 elders) were actually to be considered angels, then there's a stronger case, for sure. Just like the very first mention that BTC made in the OT.

I think you are trying to argue from silence. But there are verses that indicate that angels sing. I don't see why they would not or could not sing. They can speak. So why would they not be able to sing? Singing is speaking in various tones and pitches. It would make sense that they can and do sing praises to God.

[Cow Poke]

In this instance when we have competing - not necessarily contradictory - translations you need a reason why.

When angels are mentioned, the word is "taught" or "said" or "called".
When the beasts or elders are mentioned, the word is definitely "sang" and "song".

I can't accept that this is just sloppy translation or observation on John's part.