Talk:Seven Archangels

Simiel = Samael?
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)

Samael was supposedly the guardian of the Seventh level of Heaven, though he resides in the fifth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.126.132.241 (talk) 18:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad contradiction
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)

Angels
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)

Wrong. First, don't confuse the heavens: sky, low-earth-orbit, our solar system, deep space with heaven: an ideal frame-of-mind where one is close to God and family, and feels like they're in a paradise setting within space and time. Second, Lucifer or Luciferous is Latin for 'light bearer' or Morning Star/Evening Star which is the Planet Venus. In the Latin Vulgate, the Book of Isaiah describes the Morning Star as "Lucifer". In The Revelation, Jesus is described as the Morning(7 letters) Star(4). The Freemasonry/Masonic(7,74=M13+A1+S19+O15+N14+I9+C3) Code(4) of Lucifer(74=L12+U21+C3+I9+F6+E5+R18) and Jesus(74=J10+E5+S19+U21+S19) is produced through Simple(6,74) English(7,74) Gematria(8,74). The Roman Catholic Church has historically attacked all Paganism and ancient mysteries. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 03:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Enochian = Abramic?
207.118.27.139 03:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)If the first verified source of the Seven Archangels comes from the Ethiopian Book of Enoch, I would think describing this as an ancient Abramic tradition is stretching things. Most scholars agree that Enochian texts originate at the earliest around the time of Jesus' life. This would make it Christian or proto-Christian, but neither ancient nor Abramic.
 * 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)

what is up with this. each religion has the same angels, but no one can agree who is an angel, and who isn't. and why isn't this page on the same as the archangels? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.156.238.139 (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC) There is only one arhangel in the bible not seven and that is micheal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.78.135 (talk) 21:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

"The 7 moving objects in the heavens that can be seen with the naked eye" and their correct order from 'Morals and Dogma'
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)

Seven Archangels in 1 Enoch?
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

The authentic book of Enoch.
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)

External links modified (January 2018)
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)

comments on other spiritual beings other than the seven plus lack of neutrality on a couple of sentences.
I have removed the following two sentences: ''In the oldest Biblical texts ever found, the Dead Sea scrolls, God rules and guides the world through his Seven Angels. Though, probably under Zoroastrian influences, the nature of Angels became dualistic with one Archangel Michael representing good and the Satan being diametrically opposite in nature.''

- To begin with it starts with wording such as "oldest" or "ever found" (see neutral pov). Plus it continues with non neutral "God rules through his seven angels" when the texts clearly identify other figures such as "the son of man" or the "Lord of Spirits" (and I'm talking about 1 Enoch not the gospels).

- The hint about Zoroastrism is interesting but not relevant in as much as it mentions other "spiritual beings" (or fallen) that are not part of the seven which is what the article focuses on. That dualistic thing found in Zoroastrism could be added to the Michael Archangel article instead but it'd need at least an inline reference such as in what text is that being said. 181.56.131.236 (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not restoring the material because it was unsourced, but it's an objective fact that the oldest Biblical texts we have found so far are the Dead Sea Scrolls. Codex Sinaiticus is from the 4th century AD, the Dead Sea Scrolls are from the 4th century BC.  That's several centuries older.
 * Assuming that the DSS did say that God rules through the seven archangels, it would be neutral to say that that's what the DSS says.
 * Again, I'm not restoring it because it's not sourced, but you don't seem to understand what "neutral" actually means. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * On a second thought, the Zoroastrism influence on the development of the Babylonian culture more than justifies the mentioning of it in the article, even more so when the typical represenation of Ahura Mazda is known to have had a tangible influence on the development of Jewish (and thus abrahamic) angelology...i.e winged angels. 186.86.29.163 (talk) 19:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Yazidi Archangels?
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)

Requested move 19 October 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 02:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Seven Archangels → Seven archangels – Noun. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 13:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Bad idea because Archangels (first sphere) are different from archangels (third sphere). Bulgarios (talk) 14:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There are many ways to order angels, even within Christianity, but I'm not aware of a distinction between upper case and lower case archangels. Could you provide a citation? Jonathunder (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 13:59, 27 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Clean up the content this article is mess of lazy original [re]search and needs a thorough rewrite with sources. The title is the least of the article's problems. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Unacceptably poor nomination rationale, should be speedy closed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. Archangel is a common noun and not capitalized. Flooded  with them hundreds 16:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * But, the “Seven Archangels” are present as a highly specific set. A proper name. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * True but they are not named collectively as "The Seven Archangels", which is just a term to refer to these particular angels of rank from the Abrahamic religions. E.g. "7 billion people on earth" is not a name but a term to refer to people on earth as a collective. Flooded  with them hundreds 08:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The lede sentence implies a special seven. So I look for the sources for this.  The article ever returns to the topic.  This shouldn’t be renamed, it should be merged and redirected to Archangel. The few mentions there are not worth this spinout. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Seven Angels and planets
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)