A blog where I discuss intelligent issues and discuss rationality, logic, evidence and my non belief in sky daddies.
Hi Mike,Let's see if we can make some sense, shall we?From the link:The good Professor of Biology examined pictures of angels and cherubs, and arrived at the shock conclusion that they structurally aren't up to the job.And from the Prof's conclusion, you conclude further, that angels don't exist, right?Ok, if the Prof's conclusions are correct, that would mean that the angels and the cherubs in the pictures were actually present for the artist(s) to paint. But if they were painted from sight (or even from memory), that would mean they exist, and that Mike Wright's conclusion is wrong.If, however, as i suspect, the artists were basing their paintings from how they understood how the the written Word describes angels and cherubs, then the Professor's conclusion fails. It would be kinda like when a child draws a picture of a plane.... based on the child's rendition, planes shouldn't be able to fly either. As far as Biblical descriptions, i don't recall angels having wings (they might but i just don't recall). Two angels met Lot and were described as men, if i remember correctly... wait, i'll look it up...Ok, it's Genesis chapter 19. Here's the Strong's definition of the word that is translated into English as 'angel': H4397מלאךmal'âkmal-awk'From an unused root meaning to despatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically of God, that is, an angel (also a prophet, priest or teacher): - ambassador, angel, king, messenger.And for the record, Cherub (Pl. Cherubim) were not the cute little winged babies.Also, check out Seraphim.Sorry i can't be more help... i worship God, not His angels.johnny
Post a Comment