[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/Jump to content

Talk:Cherub

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image

[edit]

the third paragraph, starting with "In the Book of Ezekiel" mentions the 'tetramorph' of ox, man, lion and eagle. The image next to it, however close to a tetramorph, pictures not a cherub but the Four Evangelists left to right Luke (ox), Matthew (man/angel), Marc (lion) and John (eagle) in the middle above these; each represented with a book in hand (or hoof, claw, wing as it may be) SintermerteSintermerte (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plural form

[edit]

Ot3 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)"cherubims" is a strange form: "-s" added to "cherubim" which is already (the Hebrew) plural.[reply]
S.

It's in fact the typical English usage, strange as it may seem. Don't forget that English speakers don't know the Hebrew plural--and vice versa. The modern Hebrew word for "french fries" is "chipsim". Further discussion of this is invited. --Len

Why is this article at "Cherubim" rather than at "Cherub"? I for one learned the singular and plural as a child without actually paying any conscious attention to the question. Michael Hardy 02:54 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

"Cherubims" (sic) for example in the King James Bible needs a quote.An odd solecism for those schoilarly ol' bishops eh. Wetman 17:09, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Cherubims What Wetman actually means by the above comment is that in the King James Bible, (the official bible in use in English speaking countries from 1611 until the 20th century and still widely used), the words cherubims and seraphims are used consistently. The "schoilarly ol' bishops" of the King James version were not translating from Hebrew directly, but using a number of earlier translations, including that of Tyndale, who had translated from the Hebrew and others who had translate from the Latin "Vulgate". It is possible that they were not scholars of Hebrew. It is also possible that they deliberately Anglicised the words as they were writing not for scholars, but for the "common man".

--Amandajm 05:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "official bible used in English speaking countries" because English speaking countries universally have citizens of more than one faith. For starters, the KJV was commissioned for the Church of England and is not used by Catholics. Add to that the popularity of versions like the NIV and NKJV (both of which update "cherubims" to "cherubim"), and I think we can agree to go with a usage that post-dates the standardization of spelling. In modern English, "cherub" is the singular, and both "cherubs" and "cherubim" are acceptable plurals.Pwoodfor (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology still being referred to in the entry is the 19th century all-embracing kind of pan-Indo-European-Semitic etymologizing and needs to be better explained and put into context. Dillmann, Duff, and others even made a connection with γρύψ ("gryphus" = the Hindu "Garuda." Wetman 17:09, 23 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Satan

[edit]

I am in doubt: Ought Satan to appear in the list of known named Cherubim? Intuitively I would say yes, since Satan is normally considered identical to Lucifer (who appears in the list). But I suppose one might argue against it also. Opinions? SpectrumDT 20:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


~~ Gabriel ~~ According to "The Book of Enoch", Gabriel is the ruler of the cherubim. Gabriel is the highest cherub.

The whole list is unsourced, and I intend to remove it unless sources are found. Specific sources need to be found for each individual name. It's important to identify the relevant religion as well, and whether or not the sources are extra-canonical. Best, --Shirahadasha 10:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Satan was (I believe) a Seraph, the highest order of angel, though of course this would vary between christian and Jewish theology —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.198.232 (talk) 13:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he was almost certainly a Seraph, as he was supposed to be the highest ranking angel.--Kurtle (talk) 20:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Satan is referred to as, "the anointed cherub that covereth," (Septuagint LXX), and "the far-covering cherub," (Masoretic Text), in Ezekiel 28:14. This indicates that Satan may have been at one time the leading cherub angel. easeltine 10/28/2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easeltine (talk • contribs) 13:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

picture

[edit]

I think the picture accompanying the article is actual a seraph - not a cherub. Note the six wings.

note also the four faces. —Charles P. (Mirv) 21:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
and the wheels within wheels. note those too. —Charles P. (Mirv) 19:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The prophet Isaiah describes the seraphim- Isaiah chapter 6. In Ezekiel there is frequent reference to cherubim. They are described as "standing" and no wings are mentioned. --Amandajm 05:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


A Seraph or could be an early conception of one of the brings of the Apocolypse - the 4 with 4 faces, 4 wheels turning in each direction, and 4 arms or in this case more like wings though the image has 6. But the four faces is the best clue and some Cherubium tales mention 4 faces - though I chalk it up to the bringers of Apocolypse because the same tale mentions FOUR such beings : the FOUR horsemen - see a connection? ~~ArmorBlade~~ more on this below in "Cherubium"

I think the picture should be changed to an image that most people consider to be an accurate representation of a cherub. ~~HomicidalDoctor~~

I disagree, HomicidalDoctor. The current image (Bernardino Fungai's "The Virgin and Child with Cherubim") may well support a popular expectation of what the cherubim are, but those are clearly putti — not cherubim — and Wikipedia should not be in the habit of sustaining misconceptions for the purposes of popular opinion. I'll wait a week before changing the image myself, but whatever variation of the cherubim that it is, it should definitely not be a putto or putti. ~~CherubCow~~ (2015-04-09) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.65.169 (talk) 09:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I am not sure if you changed this or not, but if so someone changed it back. I am removing the image. Is there any way to prevent people from changing the image to match what everyone here seems to agree is a popular misconception (that putti are cherubim)?Pwoodfor (talk) 23:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the Winged Bull

[edit]

I'm not happy about the wording that was under the image, to the effect that the biblical description of angels may have been inspred by the winged bull, This seems to presume that the "winged bull" is an actuality, rather than a piece of statuary. I think that what was intended was "The biblical description of cherabim may have been inspired by Babylonian sculpture of winged bulls such as this one." But that is not how it read. I have a feeling that Ezekiel and Isaiah would probably have claimed that their descriptions of cherubim and seraphim were based on visions. A lot of people since that time would also make this claim. And then we ask - what inspired the Babylonian sculpture to creat a winged figure (bull or otherwise, with a human head? The answer is probably that in the flat alluvial valley and broad cloudless sky of Babylon, the bull and the eagle reigned supreme. On the other hand, perhaps some poor captive Israelite rambled on with visions of sublime creatures who stood in the presence of the Almighty Creator God! Just a thought!

--Amandajm 05:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please rely on reliable sources for article content. Thanks. --Shirahadasha 10:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-religous references

[edit]

Should we mention that "cherub" is the nickname for attendees of the nationally renowned summer program at Northwestern known as the National High School Institute? Or any other secular references to cherubs?

No, unless there is independent proof that this is a notable use of the term. --Shirahadasha 10:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sources, Please!!

[edit]

A number of claims made in this article are unsourced. Unsourced statements will be removed per WP:RS. Sources, please. --Shirahadasha 10:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most of them are sourced in the sense that they can be supported from the sources listed. What they are not is footnoted -- but if you removed every unfootnoted statement from Wikipedia there wouldn't be much content left.
Admittedly, the main source for Jewish information wasn't explicitly linked. It is now. The Jewish Encyclopedia is the source for characterizing the "Living Creatures" of Ezekiel as Cherubim. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My source for a difference is Maimonides' version of the Jewish Angelarchy, which also appears in the Jewish Encyclopedia's "Angelology" article. In Maimonides' version of things, there are ten ranks of angels and Chayot are #1, while Cherubim are #9, clearly a big difference. It looks like there may be multiple opinions within classical Judaism and who says what should be sourced. The traditional liturgy pretty much uses Maimonides' version, it's certainly a major opinion within Judaism. I'll look into it more. --Shirahadasha 06:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sources in the Origins section are woefully out of date. Some interested and enterprising person needs to make use of the monumental and definitive Chicago Assyrian Dictionary for all Assyro-Babylonian (i.e. Akkadian) word forms and definitions used in this article. Citations from the (1906?) Jewish Encyclopedia certainly do not reflect modern understandings. So much of Wikipedia's Mesopotamian stuff is similarly antiquated. Dubsarmah (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Ezekiel

[edit]

Removed this text from the article:

They also appear in a significant dream sequence in the Book of Ezekiel, in a passage[1] near-universally regarded as being difficult to interpret, and which was seen in classical Judaism as being so holy that discussion of the passage was completely outlawed; according to the passage, cherubim had four wings, the feet of a calf, the hands and general proportions of a man, and four faces - lion, ox, eagle, and man, respectively[2].. The passage from Ezekiel goes on to state that in the context of the dream, two wings from each cherub extended upwards, to sustain the throne of God, while the other two stretched downward to cover their bodies; in addition the cherubim, in the dream, went only straight forward rather than turning, with the ofanim next to them[3].

The Hebrew word for Cherub never appears in Ezekiel 1:5-28, so a claim that Cherubim "appear" in the passage simply can't be presented as bare fact. I understand some commentators believe that what Ezekiel saw were Cherubim, but since the Hebrew Bible doesn't say so directly, our source for this belief is the commentators, not the Hebrew Bible. Note that in another section of Ezekiel the word Cherubim is specifically mentioned, Ezekiel 10:1-3. The Book of Ezekiel knows how to use the word if it wants to. It appears that the question of whether Ezekiel saw, in Chapters 1 and 10, a single vision with the same kind of angels, or two separate visions with separate kinds of angels, may be a matter of dispute among interpreters. Judaism appears to be mixed on the issue. A reference to the angels involved in Ezekiel 1 as Cherubim appears in the Talmud (and the Jewish Encyclopedia Angelology article cites it), but Maimonides' view that what Ezekiel saw were Chayot, a distinct kind of angel from a Cherub, appears to have prevailed and they're referred to as Chayot rather than Cherubim in Jewish liturgy. If a passage from Ezekiel is desired, why not simply use Ezekiel 10:1-3 which specifically uses the word "Cherubim", rather than relying on a passage that doesn't and is the subject of dispute? --Shirahadasha 00:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Ezekiel 1:5-28
  2. ^ Jewish Encyclopedia
  3. ^ ibid

Removed unsourced section to talk

[edit]

Please source this section and identify what religious perspective it represents.

Names attributed to this angelic order

[edit]

(Please specify who attributes these names, and in what religion.?zohar?)


Thanks, --Shirahadasha 06:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Chinese page goes on to add Fallen Lucifer Azazel Asmodues Beelzebub Berith Lauviah

which suggests confusion of the original article between Cherubs and Angels. Cherubs strictly must derive from Cherubim but in art as Putti or Putto depicted with wings indicating merely the concept of heavenly creatures, confusable with angels. As such, the confusion happening within art and merely the symbolism of heavenly rather than earthly, these articles need further attention.

Dollist (talk) 09:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tanakh "part of Hebrew Bible"?

[edit]

Third line in the first main paragraph. Actually Tanakh is coextensive to "Hebrew Bible". I have removed the words "part of". Newby Sukkoth 23:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


POV

[edit]

the end of the introduction under the heading Christianity says "do note though that the bible in no way implies an Angelic heirarchy" directly after stating that there is an angelic heirarchy in Catholic theology. It says nothing else besides those two pints in the introduction, this seems like a clear case of POV, there should be a short synopsis of all Christian views. If you don't know other Christian ideas on the subject than it seems fine to put the Catholic view since its a Catholic belief to a larger degree than other branches of Christianity. A person will eventually come along and put the views of other Christians. But just stating the Catholic viewpoint and then giving the statement that the Bible, which is clearly the cornerstone of all organised Christians faith, doesn't support it ie: "in no way implies". What you just stated was a belief of the Catholic church, without mentioning any other Christian viewpoints, and the statement about lack of biblical support is completely unsourced, seems like anti Catholic POV. I am all for somebody putting the views of all Christians under the heading Christianity. But stating the Bible doesn't support something with not even one opinion or anything as a source, and only mentioning the one view the Bible supposedly doesn't support comes close to slander in my opinion. I'm going to remove it.Colin 8 05:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree statement should be removed. Wikipedia's atribution policy prohibits including an editor's personal interpretation of the Bible in an article. While some may think the Bible doesn't imply an angelic hierarchy, others might possibly interpret it to imply one. People find many implications in the Bible, and different people may find different ones. Accordingly, great caution is needed in encyclopedic comments about such matters, and reliable sources are essential for statements about the Bible's implications. --Shirahadasha 06:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the name 'Cherubim'

[edit]

Material added by 81.103.189.182 on April 9th under the heading "The meaning of the name 'Cherubim'" is either entirely OR or is at least written as if it were. Unless the work has been published somewhere such that it can be referenced reliably, OR should be removed. —Antireconciler ◊ talk 05:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it from the top of the article to a section further down and added dispute tags to indicate you are disputing it. I agree this material is problematic but some of it may be salvagable. --Shirahadasha 21:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cherub in Islam

[edit]

There is nothing in Islam that describes Buraq as it's been described here. only Leon Uris's novel "The Haj" which isn't by any means considered as an Islamic reference. The only description of Buraq is found at the Buraq article. so I'd like to remove the "a woman's head" part as it has no reference in Islam. Saleh 17:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the part "with a mule's body and a woman's head" and put the description from the Hadith found in Buraq article Saleh 18:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology

[edit]

The article should say something about the occurrence of a cherub in Scientology's weird, weird Space Opera belief system. Ben Finn 16:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment above refers to weird, and is so far from the mainstream understanding or relevance of the word that it should not. Dollist (talk) 09:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suckrs

[edit]

Suckrs, the cRuwbim were not babes, or bulls, or lions, but winged rams!

the relevant terms:

cR (3733): lamb/ram/tup/howdah
cRuwb (3742) {−1400 etc.}
cRowz/cRz (3744/3745) {−600 to −100 Daniel}: a herald/herald; Hellènic ceras/ceri for horn/wax*
cRcRh (3753): dromedary
cRqh (3766): kneel/crouch; (3767): leg
cRR (3769): dance/whirl
Rb (7227): much/great
Ruwd (7300): roam/wander
*qRn (7161) {−1400 etc.}: horn
qR- (7121): call

In the ark, the caruwbs were of olivewood and goldleaf. Their job was to guard Jahweh and pull his chariot in the heavens, whose house and "gate" was somewhere near the sunrise. Compar the Hellènic thriheaded hellhound Cerberos, and other winged-rams (Hicupta/Igupti and Ashshuri/Assuri): [1]. That who bore the golden flees was a gift from Hermes, who dons wingedwear and a golden staff, and is a herald of the golden sun like Mercury. As you should know, angel means herald.

There are similar words for other four-legged wihts, and spikes in the IE roots. [2][3][4]

-Autymn D. C.; lysdexia 05:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Revelation

[edit]

Please remove the stated New Testament reference to Revelations as a source for the word cherub, cherubim, or cherubims. There is no english word reference (or the cooresponding Strong's Greek reference number)in the King James New Testament for the word cherub, or the word cherubim. There is only one reference to the english word cherubims in the King James New Testament and that is at Heb 9:5. The greek word search was done using the Strong's Greek reference number 5502. Thank You Ot3 22:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)ot3 29 May 2007[reply]

Nope, sorry. See Rev 4:6-9. Almost always taken to correspond to the cherubim as depicted in Ezekiel 10. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Csernical. Dollist (talk) 09:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mental qualities of a cherub

[edit]

In Digimon Frontier, Cherubimon is tainted by Lucemon's evil and becomes an evil Digimon. Does that mean that a cherub has to be evil? 72.194.116.63 01:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 18.32 23 July 2007[reply]

"Cherubium"

[edit]

The common Cherubim in the Hebrew Torah names these angels as "Cherubium" in their old language from the pre-Assyrian regions from which the Hebrews moved from before moving wayward towards the land of Abraham and later Egypt.

In Genesis, on Adam and Eve's departure from Eden; God places Cherubium to guard the Tree of Life (and Eden) with the 'ever-turning sword of fire'. These specific angels are the Second of the nine orders of angels - God's closest serving beings and guardians. They seem to be made out to not be the 'messenger' angels by this context but as something entirely on another level and maybe even something to be feared. To stretch this point, these may be the 'warrior' angels or powerful guards to things and places most sacred above the physical plane of existance. In short these are NOT the 'messenger', 'cupid', or typical 'guardian' angels.

After the Exodus from Egypt and during the Wilderness travels lead by Moses, some imagery descriptions become available and noted. Mainly there was a definate influence from the Hebrew's time in the land of the Nile as many references tend to build the same imagery as egyptian god descriptions; for example the two facing Cherubiums of the ark resembling more sphinx-like characteristics - both of which are of guardian role beings oddly enough also to note.

There is also the tale of the four angels with four faces, whom each glid on four wheels spinning in all manner of directions (or the wheels turning within wheels), and four arms - two to serve and two for offense. Though these 'four' may also be the beginnings of the conception of the four bringers of the Apocolyse and not the Cherubium. —Preceding ~~ArmorBlade~~ comment added by 134.129.59.209 (talk) 10:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Do you have any sources for these theories? Our verifiability policy requires reliable sources for all content. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are now sources; see a more recent discussion section below. The Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1st edition, 1997 updated CD-ROM, has a detailed article on this issue. RK (talk) 15:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birkat Hamazon

[edit]

In the Judaism section, a reference to Birkat Hamazon is made, with the note that an extra blessing is added if ten thousand men are present. Is it perhaps ten, rather than ten thousand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmausner (talk • contribs) 23:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't hold like this opinion. The law follows Rabbi Akiva that once you have ten the Zimun doesn't change. See Berachot Daf 50A and also Tur Shulcan Aruch O'C 192:1—96.225.27.228 (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dubious: shedu vs. lammasu

[edit]

The article distinguishes Mesopotamian shedu (winged bulls) from Caananite lammasu (winged lions). From what I can tell, these were simply male and female, and both Mesopotamian. I've only seen lammasu as winged lions in modern fantasy lit & roll-playing games, and so tagged the description as 'dubious'. Are we using the wrong terms here? Is this simply a geographic difference in the conception of shedu/lammasu? kwami (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish views of "Cherubs"

[edit]

Previous article mixed biblical descriptions with POV interpretations which were often unsourced and presented as fact or as what the Hebrew Bible itself says. The most critical problem was an unsourced claim, presented as fact, that the vision described in the first chapter of Ezekiel refers to cherubim. The {English} word Cherub never appears anywhere in this vision. Any statement that this chapter has anything to do with Cherubim represents not a straightforward reading but someones interpretation, which needs to be sourced, and should be not be presented as what the Hebrew Bible itself says. The word Cherub does appear in e.g. Ezekiel 9:3, but this is a different vision in a different time and place, and there's no need to represent it as referring to the same entity as what appears in Ezekiel chap. 1. Judaism traditionally interprets the two passages as referring to completely different entities.

Likewise, statements in the Hebrew Bible were interspersed various interpretations in a way that made interpretation and text hard to distinguished. I moved critical interpretations to a new Biblical Criticism section, requesting sources for unsourced interpretations. --Shirahadasha 09:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, wanted to clarify that there may be a difference between the Jewish and Christian angelarchies here. The Book of Ezekiel uses the Hebrew word chayot (literally living creatures). In the Jewish angelarchy, Chayot is considered the name of a separate kind of angel, and they are considered a different kind of angel from a cherub in Judaism. Christianity may have a different view of what these angels are. If Christianity believes they were cherubim, this should be sourced and presented as a Christian belief rather than as what the Hebrew Bible itself says. --Shirahadasha 22:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - That is what I thought as well, but look at this text from the Jewish Encyclopedia:

The name of a winged being mentioned frequently in the Bible. The prophet Ezekiel describes the cherubim as a tetrad of living creatures, each having four faces—of a lion, an ox, an eagle, and a man—the stature and hands of a man, the feet of a calf, and four wings. Two of the wings extended upward, meeting above and sustaining the throne of God; while the other two stretched downward and covered the creatures themselves. They never turned, but went "straight forward" as the wheels of the cherubic chariot, and they were full of eyes "like burning coals of fire" (Ezek. i. 5-28, ix. 3, x., xi. 22). Ezek. xxviii. 13-16 is manifestly a true account of a popular tradition, distinct from that in Gen. ii., iii.

Their editors seemed pretty sure that "Cherub" is the correct translation. By any chance does anyone know what the more modern Encyclopaedia Judaica says on this issue?

I have the 1st edition, updated 1997 Encyclopedia Judaica on CD-ROM, but it won't work at all under Windows Vista. My computer won't even recognize the CD-ROM?! However, I recently got it to work on an older computer running Windows XP, SP3. Their articles on this subject are detailed. RK (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the moment, I have posted part of the article here: Talk:Cherub/EJ_Cherub

Cherub in Islam

[edit]

I guess that the word "Karroub" (کَرُّوب) (which is a kind of Angles) in Quran refers to the same beings. 128.100.5.137 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say that it isn't, but I don't know Arabic. If you can find a source, or list the sura that "Karroub" appears in, we might be able to find some more info on it. Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest removing "Communion of Israel with God"

[edit]

The section entitled "Communion of Israel with God" strikes me as being non-encyclopedic. At the very least, it calls for cleanup--but I'd suggest removing the whole thing. (There have to be any number of allegorical interpretations of the cherubim and their significance, in both Jewish and Christian writings; we certainly can't cover them all in this kind of detail, and I'd be reluctant to cover any of them without a good source attesting that a particular interpretation is widespread.)

I'm adding a {remove-section} template. Any thoughts? -- Narsil (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, hearing no objections... -- Narsil (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin and Cherub

[edit]

(1) If more than a few scholars hold this view, then perhaps the statement in the article that a few scholars hold that view should be removed. (2) Is there a better citation than Propp and Wellhausen to back up this view? If not, why not retain this citation? If so, let's see one. (3) The American Heritage Dictionary has some status as an authority on Semitic roots for English words, and I will readily admit that an argument from silence is not very persuasive, but it's the best that I could find, and I will gladly defer to a better authority. Allow me to add a personal comment, because it may clarify what I am saying: I would be greatly pleased to find a verifiable connection between Semitic kərub and the Greek root for griffin, but I would even more like to have some backing for that connection. I thought that my changes enhanced the support for the connection, albeit suggested that it might be controversial. TomS TDotO (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, in doing a little research into this, I came across a suggestion that the word may be related to the Sanskrit Garuda. TomS TDotO (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The best source would be the Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible - it's the standard reference work for these things. The entry for Cherubim begins at the bottom of page 189 and continues to the top of page 192. It says there's no consensus on the etymology, that there's a probable connection with Akkadian karibu, and that this connection is little help in understanding the Israelite cherubim. I'm surprised that this book isn't cited at all in the Wiki article - if you're interested you might like to re-write it using the DDD as your primary source. The sources quoted are all rather old, so a re-write with more recent ones seems defensible. (I wouldn't mention the garuda - I doubt that a word with an Indo-European origin would be connected with a word with a Semitic root). PiCo (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. BTW, I had no intention of mentioning garuda - that does seem rather an imaginative etymology. Although there are indeed some borrowings between Indo-European and Semitic - griffin being a case at issue here! TomS TDotO (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at "DDD" (Dictionary of Deities and Demons) and I didn't see anything connecting griffin with cherub. There was a mention of griffins and seraphim, but I'm not going to get into that. I still don't see what is objectionable about my original additions. TomS TDotO (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to get into a edit war, but I have seen nothing which invalidates my original additions to this article. I believe that Propp, citing Wellhausen is a legitimate citation for the idea that the English word griffin may have a Semitic origin in a word which related to the Biblical Hebrew cherub. I also believe that the American Heritage Dictionary is a legitimate citation for the idea that that English etymology is not universally accepted. If I don't hear of any reason to the contrary, I will just go ahead and restore my original additions. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Ain Dara Temple and its cherubim

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain_Dara_temple http://romeartlover.tripod.com/Deinair.html

Should we or can we mention the cerubim (winged lions) at the Ain Dara temple site? This temple was contemporary with Solomon's temple c1000-700bce and shares a very close floorplan. --Teacherbrock (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Main Image

[edit]
Unbiblical depiction of a cherub guarding the entrance of the Garden of Eden[1] by Giusto de' Menabuoi ca. 1377.

Why use this picture as the main image? Even its caption states that it looks nothing like a Biblical Cherub. It feels misleading. I'm sure there are more accurate pictures out there. --98.112.160.193 (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, changed. Hafspajen (talk) 18:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Genesis 3:24 (King James Version) at Bible Gateway.com

"Cherub" Needs a More Complete Disambiguation Page added. . .

[edit]

So far, there exist the following page references, plus a few that are not cited but should be in order to prevent confusion:

• Existing 'cherub' page, a type of angelic being.

• For the depictions of winged babies erroneously called cherubs, see 'Putto'.

• For the UK band, see Cherubs (UK_band).

• For the Austin, Texas band, see Cherubs (Austin_band).

• For the Robert Muchamore book series, see CHERUB. *have worked on this - cuber*

• For the birth defect organization, see CHERUBS.

• For the sailing dinghy, see Cherub (dinghy).


killer ninjas (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KRUB / RKUB

[edit]

Kerub (כְּרוּב) (http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/3742.htm) and Rekub (רְכוּב) (http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/7398.htm) are indeed anagrams. How is this disputable ?? Rakab (http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/7392.htm) is also "anagrammatic" (ie lacking only one letter) and Merkabah (in turn) is clearly similar (http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/4818.htm). It doesn't have to be a perfect anagram to make poetical sense. Nevertheless, KRUB and RKUB are (perfect) anagrams. Ben Ammi (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BenAmmi, welcome to Wikipedia, but go slowly at first and please listen to what experienced editors like Dweller are saying. Read up on WP:PRIMARY and do not use WP:OR conclusions drawn from software such as http://biblesuite.com/hebrew/4818.htm or indeed any non WP:RS htm sources on such a subject. Happy editing. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

<edit conflict>As stated on my talk page, the lesser issue is that you're trying to match KRV with MRKV, which doesn't work. The far greater issue is that it's you that's trying to do the matching. This is the very essence of original research and it is prohibited on Wikipedia, by policy: WP:NOR. It's an interesting idea - incorporate it in a dissertation, journal article or sermon, or even on a blog or other internet service, but not on Wikipedia unless you're quoting an idea vouched by a reliable source, not merely synthesising. --Dweller (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind." (Psalm 18:20 NIV) "He mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind." (2 Sam 22:11 NIV) notice it's plural Cherubim, not singular, at least in NIV.(see: http://biblez.com/search.php?q=rode+upon+cherubim or http://bible.cc/2_samuel/22-11.htm or http://bible.cc/psalms/18-10.htm) Even if this were not the case, and it is, but even if, then KRUB and RKUB are still anagrams and contextually related to riding, which bears being mentioned. If a link to merkabah cannot be included, big deal, I can live without that. Ben Ammi (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller, In Ictu: Thank you for your advice, but I don't think this is speculative. The blog suggestion however is unhelpful, as Wiki apparently doesnt accept the quoting of blogs, so I don't see why I would do that. (Moreover, if I cannot quote the Hebrew text to establish that they are anagrammatic then I don't see how it can be established, for this or any purpose.) Ben Ammi (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting you write it on a blog and keep it out of Wikipedia. No matter if your idea was 100% unarguably correct, it doesn't belong here precisely because it's your idea. --Dweller (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

[edit]

I propose that Living creatures (Bible) be merged into Cherub for the following reasons:

  1. The main page suffers from multiple wp policy issues
  2. The wp:scope of both pages cross over and share exact content
  3. The main Cherub page will benefit from the Living creatures (Bible) references
  4. The Living creatures (Bible) page content is small enough to insert into Cherub, reducing wp:redundancy while strengthening the Cherub page.

Please consider. Thanks,   — Jason Sosa 17:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't looked at that article, but if we do merge, we should direct it somewhere else, since it's not a good title for a redirect here. — kwami (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

−== Should this be in the lead? ==

"Cherubim are also mentioned once in the New Testament, in reference to the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant (Hebrews 9:5)".

Is it better to remove this from the lead and put it somewhere else, or is it just fine to keep it there? It kind of feels too specific...Gonzales John (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I removed it, if you want otherwise, feel free to commment.Gonzales John (talk) 06:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cherubim with four feet?

[edit]

"Other than in the book of Ezekiel, the Bible describes cherubim with one face, one pair of wings, and four feet.[5]" Nowhere does the bible describe cherubim as having 4 feet. Why is this in the article?

Origins and etymology, storm wind sentence needs help

[edit]

A sentence from the Origins and etymology section needs to be looked at for a couple of reasons:

It has been suggested that the image of cherubim as storm winds explains why they are described as being the chariot of Yahweh in Ezekiel's visions, the Books of Samuel,[1] the parallel passages in the later Books of Chronicles,[2] and passages in the early[3] Psalms: for example "and he rode upon a cherub and did fly: and he was seen upon the wings of the wind."[4][5] In particular, in a scene reminiscent of Ezekiel's dream, the Megiddo Ivories depict an unknown king being carried on his throne by hybrid winged-creatures.[6]
  • "It has been suggested" are weasel words, and should be clarified.
  • Verification needs to be done on the Wright source, particularly to determine if "...the image of cherubim as storm winds explains why they are described as the chariot..." is the correct comparison order, of if it should be "...the image of cherubim as storms winds are derived from their description as the chariot...". Unfortunately, the only research ref (the Bible refs simply mention the cherubim and the chariot, but make no attempt to make the academic connection posited here) is a physical book, and no page number is cited. Hopefully someone who is familiar with this source can provide the necessary verification.
  • I don't think the Bible refs need to be cited here; the claim in the sentence isn't in the mere existence of the cherubim and chariot in the mentioned places, but the comparison of seemingly disparate imagery between the Bible and non-biblical art/writings (e.g., maps that have the "blowing faces" at the four corners). I don't believe we need to cite something that isn't particularly claimed, nor would I anticipate any genuine challenge to the existence of the aforementioned imagery.

Obviously, a consensus should be garnered, and someone with access to and/or familiarity with the Wright source needs to weigh in on the accuracy of the statement. Trumblej1986 (talk) 06:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ 1 Samuel 4:4, 2 Samuel 6:2, 2 Samuel 22:11
  2. ^ 1 Chronicles 13:6
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Jewish Encyclopedia2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ 2 Samuel 22:11
  5. ^ Psalms 18:10
  6. ^ Wright, G. Ernest, Biblical Archaeology (Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1957)

Cherub in Islam

[edit]

Why the names of the angels like in this line " The latter include the canonical four Islamic archangels Gabriel, Michael, Azrael and Raphael" are from Christianity and not from Islam? Can you replace them to original names from Islam and not from Christianity? Like Jibrail, Mīkhā'īl and Isrāfīl Azrael is written same in English as in Arabic. And Allah knows best. Demonicsheikh (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acording to MOS:ISLAM we should translate the Arabic names to English whenever possible. Jibrail and Mikail are just the Arabic variant of Gabriel and Michael. Azrael is already the Arabic name with Latin letters. Raphael might be disputed and some argue it is "Seraphim" not Raphael (however Seraphim are Mushafirin, and the common identification is Raphael anyway). The names are not derived from Christianity either, but both Islam and Christianity adapted the names from Hebrew sources. Actually, none of their names are from Islamic languages like Persian or Arabic, nor are they from languages often used early ahderences of Christianity like Greek or Latin, but Hebrew words. They often mean something like "whom God helps" or "my strengh it God" with the Suffix "El" indicating a "God" or "Higher power". So, Gabriel, Michael and Azrael are basically just transcripted into English anyway.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

most anime media depict the cherubim not as written here but as a rabbit

[edit]

... sadly spoken, my neighburs rabbit died. Than afterwards, him, too. So sad! Anyways, Cream The Rabbit from Sonic X and Cherubimon from Digimon share traits of a rabbit.

Cherubimon from Villains Wiki: https://villains.fandom.com/wiki/Cherubimon Cream: https://sonic-x.fandom.com/wiki/Cream_the_Rabbit

So, why is it depicted elsehow in Japanese anime like this? I do not know, please tell me! --2001:16B8:57F0:1C00:1C1C:D328:CE29:823B (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Wild animals"

[edit]

Shouldn't that read "wild mammals" as eagles are animals. Jack Upland (talk) 02:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cherub&oldid=1217255460"