that picture's not biblically accurate at all

>>25306503


I SUGGEST THAT YOU READ THE HOLY BIBLE, SO THAT YOU REALIZE HOW STUPID THAT QUESTION IS.

>>25306503
not a novel but Ted Chiang's short story [Hell is the Absence of God] is literally about biblically accurate angels

"Biblically accurate angels" in the meme sense is so stupid and biblically illiterate it's insane. People conflate heavenly beings like seraphims and the wheels with angels. In fact angels appear in the form of humans frequently in the Holy Bible.

>>25307337
>In fact angels appear in the form of humans frequently in the Holy Bible.
This. An angel is just a spirit that doesn't naturally have a body, so in itself, it doesn't 'look' like anything, because there's nothing to look at! They have the ability to take on temporary bodies, which they can use in order to communicate and otherwise interact with humans. Most of the time that means a humanlike appearance.
The 'heavenly creatures' as described are similar to depictions of mythological/religious beings in the surrounding culture that existed at the time, so it is likely that the angels took on the form of what people in that time & culture would expect to see.

They probably took on that form rather than a humanlike appearance in order to show something of their nature as a 'higher' level of being, revealing the Glory of God as expressed in their creation.

So any depiction that matches the description I gave at the beginning would be a 'biblically accurate angel.'

Personally I would recommend CS Lewis's Cosmic Trilogy:
Out of the Silent Planet
Perelandra
That Hideous Strength

>>25309520
Do you have suggestions for books on (biblical) angelology? Because I've heard lots of differing things. That the "messengers" are angels and that the other beings described in the Holy Bible are different kinds of heavenly spirits, but not angels. Conversely I've seen infographics showing how there's a ranking of angels. The latter seems a little too New Age for me. I think you're probably actually most correct with your assertion that the wider context of the ancient world was obviously heavily tied into it.

>>25309520
do different spirits have different volumes

>>25306503
tfw genuinely can't tell if this is smt4 or monster girl quest

>>25307296
>the all caps pedo tripfag is back
You haven't figured out how to turn caps off in like 8 years. Kys.

>>25309520
>do different spirits have different volumes
Do you mean their temporary bodies? Any angel can create a temporary body of any size or shape.

If you mean in their inherent nature, spirits are entirely immaterial. They do not physically take up space. They can be said to have a location in the sense that they are located in any area they are acting upon.

>>25309576
The word 'angel' is used both as a general category of all immaterial beings that do not naturally have bodies (other than God), and also the beings specifically in the lowest level of the Angelic Hierarchy. I stress, "do not naturally have bodies", in opposition to spirits that do, which are humans. Even when a human after death loses their body, they remain a human spirit, they have not become an angel.

I can't think off the top of my head of any books on angelology. I can give you a link to the angels article on Catholic Encyclopaedia
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm
which will cover the Angelic Hierarchy, which is mainly a Catholic thing as far as I am aware, most (well, low church at least) Protestants don't put much stock into it.
While the Bible describes different kinds of angels, it's not unambiguously clear which way to order the levels from lowest to highest, and whether some terms used denote distinct groups or are just different words for describing the same thing. Although I think they do agree with Catholics with Seraphim being the highest level, and Cherubim being another high level group under the Seraphim.
For Protestants, there's also the issue of where the archangels Michael and Gabriel fit in (They don't recognise Raphael as an archangel, because he originates in the book of Tobit which they do not consider canonical). Do they rank somewhere in the hierarchy below the Seraphim, or do they have a special position above the rest of the hierarchy? In the Catholic hierarchy, archangel is actually the second lowest level, above that of angel.
I am unsure of the Eastern Orthodox position on angelic hierarchies.