Bats, the flying mammals, have two legs and two arms, the arms of which have become highly adapted wing structures, for a total of four appendages. Birds, quite different from mammals, and have four appendages, two legs and two arms that are true wing structures. No bird, reptile, amphibian or mammal has six appendages.
Why is it that angels are depicted as having three pairs of appendages, two legs, two arms AND two wings, a total of six appendages, more like the insects? And if they are insects, then why aren't they depicted as having compound eyes and and exoskeleton?
Are these "angels" proof that the ancient theologians had absolutely no concept of science and morphology and that ancient theologians were truly the first dolts on the planet?
Come to think of it, why do angels need wings anyway? If they are superior god-sent creatures which materialize out of nothing, or at least fly in from heaven through the vacuum of space, why can't they just, you know, fly?
2007-10-03 07:48:27 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Don't know why, but the automated question direction-bot wanted to send this to Science & Mathematics > Zoology.
2007-10-03 07:49:34 · update #1
I wonder if angels have exoskeletons.
I think the easiest way to test whether angels were mammals or bugs would be with some angel DNA. Now if I can just find some to give to Em Adjineri...
2007-10-03 07:53:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
Why zoology - because you mention insects in the byline.
Isn't everything around us only based on perception? Since no one has seen an angel (except in drug filled dreams) anyone can make up their own interpretation of what an angel looks like.
I don't think it is coincidence that angels and fairies both have wings. I am sure that the concept of angels (like everything else in christiandom) is based upon pagan concepts.
2007-10-03 16:18:42 · answer #2 · answered by Cinthia Round house kicking VT 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Angels depicted in the weird visualisation of so called Artists are not natural, correct, true. It could be termed a blasphemy to draw an image of a Sacred Creation out of human imagination.
2007-10-03 15:03:03 · answer #3 · answered by sunamwal 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Do flying ants have compound eyes? Er, wait, I guess they'd have 8 appendages, with 6 legs and the pair of wings. Well crap... my brain hurts.
2007-10-03 14:56:20 · answer #4 · answered by Brandon's been a dirty Hore 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, angels are not insects. It doesn't fit the context of scripture where you see grown men falling down, scared to death, when they see an angel. (When was the last time a guy did that when he saw a bug?). Also, it doesn't explain how they TALKED. Have you ever seen a talking bat or insect?
2007-10-03 14:54:19 · answer #5 · answered by RLW 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
lol big beasties
but I suppose technically they would be classed as insects when you think about it like that
but although I believe in angelic/higher spiritual beings
they would have no need for wings at all
2007-10-03 14:51:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Fallen angels might look as you discribe...
God made some angels with wings, others do not have wings..he made them for his pleasure and as he desired them. They are servants of God..make sure you are ready to see God..if you see them.
FYI they look like very large stern men, clothed in light.
2007-10-03 14:53:26 · answer #7 · answered by Eartha Q 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
cz ancients never flew in a plane, so they thought wings sticking out of one's backside are only way of flying.
2007-10-03 14:52:27 · answer #8 · answered by mega_mover 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
dude that would be awesome!
you know what else?
they also have a glowing halo, a self made light like a firefly
and i heard they have castes like termites, theres low angels and high angels
2007-10-03 14:51:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
no where in the bible does it refer to angels as having wings. Unclean spirits have wings not angels
2007-10-03 14:51:05 · answer #10 · answered by jesussaves 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋