I HATE MILK

daughter-of-sapph0:

I won’t blame goyim for calling them “biblically accurate angels” because that’s the term that most of the internet uses. but it’s really incorrect and you probably shouldn’t use it.

the most outlandish and crazy depictions of angels that you probably see the most as “biblically accurate angels” are the depictions from the book of Ezekiel. the ones with flames and eyes and animal heads and basically not resembling a human form at all.

but these angels are not from the bible. they’re from the Tanakh. the Tanakh came first, and the bible followed. Judaism came first and christianity followed.

I really hate how people have turned the angels that appear in a book that’s part of the Tanakh into “christian cryptids”. they aren’t a xian creation. they’re a part of Jewish lore and angelology. so maybe don’t call them something that implies they’re from a xian text. because they aren’t. those types of angels don’t appear in the xian bible, and even if they did, they were a part of Judaism long before xianity was invented.

again, I’m not blaming you if you didn’t know. if this is your first time hearing about this, I’m glad I taught you something new. I would suggest simply calling those angels by their names, seraphim and cherubim and ophanim. and if you want to learn more, try looking into Jewish angelology.

(via sigmabunny)