Grant Morrison Explains What Angels Are In The New 52

[Rich Johnston]

At the end of last year, 77% of Americans believed in angels. Only 15% believe in evolution. Over a third believe in aliens.

Well, Superman believes in all three. And in Action Comics #14 out today, he tells you exactly what they are.



After fighting them for a bit, of course. Now these aren't Weeping Angels, creatures of a singularity of time, but they have something in common. They are... something else.



Which, one could say, fits into Christian theology quite nicely. The four dimensional expression of something far larger, and greater? I'm sure that's in the Book Of Mxyzptlk...

[mbecks114]

Grant keeps it interesting that's for sure!

Now we sit back and wait for the inevitable onslaught of Grant Morrison hate to fill this thread...

[rudecherub]

Not read this yet, but I'm really looking forward to it.

Since Rich has gone theological I'll just note in the Judeo-Christian tradition Angels ( from Angelos and Malak, Greek and Hebrew respectively ) means in both cases "messenger" and is translated as Angel only when it's obvious that the being in question is something else.

Angels vs Aliens is another topic.

This does lead to a couple of interesting translation questions - for example Peter is mistaken for a Ghost, in Acts but the word used is Angel, ie Messenger.

Bottom line is angels are not as Supeman #236 told us necessarily good.

These are some snippets from the research I did when plotting my fantasy novel. Which is about Dragons. Again another story.

[The G]

The Angels are a fork.
Brilliant.

[nusan]

Not read this yet, but I'm really looking forward to it.

Since Rich has gone theological I'll just note in the Judeo-Christian tradition Angels ( from Angelos and Malak, Greek and Hebrew respectively ) means in both cases "messenger" and is translated as Angel only when it's obvious that the being in question is something else.

.

actually it's malhach[and ch like in chrome not like cherry or character] and not malak.
and only 15%!? really???? good thing that evolution doesn't need you to believe it for it is fact.....

[avidreader514]

I wonder if they serve Gah Lak Tus?

[Tom Strong]

Weeping angels!

[Rich Flair]

and only 15%!? really????

No, not really.

[rudecherub]

actually it's malhach[and ch like in chrome not like cherry or character] and not malak.
and only 15%!? really???? good thing that evolution doesn't need you to believe it for it is fact.....

I'm sure you're correct on the transliteration into English, I was simply remembering the word from the English Sources I'd referenced, and that was spelling I recalled.

[Comicsfan101]

I'm sure you're correct on the transliteration into English, I was simply remembering the word from the English Sources I'd referenced, and that was spelling I recalled.

Hebrew to English transliteration does seem to be one of those that results in multiple correct spellings. Just look at how many different "correct" spellings there are for Hanukkah. In this case, I think ch might be "more correct", but I don't think either option is exactly incorrect.