As fictional characters, angels can have as many wings as the storytellers desire so it does indeed depend on which story you're discussing, as Cariad correctly said. The word 'angel' can also be applied to a human who has done something really nice or amazing for someone else in which case none is the correct answer. Also, she didn't claim that angels have two wings, she was simply referring to an instance where two wings were the norm so she didn't deserve that klaxon. As a practising pedant, I love QI but sometimes their own pedantry is off-target!
In Zechariah 5, he sees two women with wings like a stork. Most people would interpret that as the classic angel look; although, at the time the perception would likely have been wings for arms not wings at the shoulder blades. The shoulder angel is based on Greek gods; namely, Nike.
Took me a moment to realize you meant shoulder angel as having wings attached to their shoulders in addition to arms lol. There's also some other gods like Isis who might've influenced it. Also while trying to confirm my thoughts I stumbled upon the Winged Genie though those are male with two to four wings, which maybe could've inspired Cherubim? And then the putto got wrapped up in that symbolism as well as for Cupid. My initial thought about what you meant btw was the cartoony angels standing on your shoulder and I was like "That's not Nike, that's the Genius." But that said having a little Nike on yer shoulder would be awesome lol. I could use more triumphs in my life.
Now that's quite interesting. I'd thought angels with wings was an entirely pagan Greek thing adopted into the bible by the translators but it seems that's not so. Are there any other angels mentioned by name in the old testament? And - do you know the original (presumably Aramaic) word for angel?
@@vipertwenty249 Michael is named in Daniel. Raphael is named in an Apocrypha book, Tobit. Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew not Aramaic, but the word angel is malak in both. Most notably the Angel of the Lord being the malak Yahweh. Primarily cherubim and seraphim are mentioned with any details. Many times angels are mentioned they have no description other than looking like a man, such as the angels that went to Sodom, and the angel that Joshua encounters.
I remember sitting on the feet of the AotN when it was still somewhat new, was just a load of old iron to me, but then I was a young teen on the way to the Metro Centre where oddly enough Micheal Barrymore was filming there that day... :P
"How many wings does an angel have" "It depends" "Sorry, that's too vague to be an answer" "Renaissance angels tend to have 2" "Wrong, the answer is it depends (also, we're only talking about biblical angels now)" I get that the show has always been very "Um, actually" with the answers, that's the humour of it, but what the fuck man
How many fit on the head of a pin? Multiply that by n, where n equals # of wings per angel-- and don't confuse angels with cherubim, seraphim, archangels, and the rest of the nine choirs of angels.😢
To paraphrase the great Pratchett, it's not how many angels you can fit on a pin that's the issue but rather how to stop falling between the gaps between the atoms.
The seraphim and cherubim are not described as angels in the Bible. The beings actually called angels don't have wings at all. However, around a thousand years later, Christian angelologists described seraphim as the highest order of angels, followed by cherubim, with regular angels at the bottom (the others varied in order and number depending on the author).
When I believed in Christianity, I assumed all angels had two wings, like birds. I didn't know there were angels with four or six wings. Why would anyone need that many extra wings? Perhaps the extra wings were just there for decoration? Now that I'm an atheist, angels can have a score of wings for all I care. Which I don't.
2:07 But nobody is talking about the fact that the QI Elves claim that 54 meters is longer than a 747, with the average 747 actually being over 76 meters long. (Even the _shortest_ 747 (SP) was 56 meters long!)
@@Daoibhéar but they are wrong, the wingspan of the angel of the north is not longer than the wingspan of a 747. The Wikipedia article on the angel of the north states it's longer than the wingspan of a _757_ (38m), which is probably where their info came from but it got muddled along the way
None of them are. The biggest statue in the world is in India. It's the statue of unity. The angel of the north, christ the redeemer and the statue of liberty don't even make it to top 50.
I guess you could say that the OG concept of angels did not have any two-winged angels. But Cariad specifically said renaissance-angels, so the alert was still very unfair.
The quality of question on QI has gone downhill when it relies on nitpicking and leaving out information from the question, rather than simply containing facts which are unexpected
She's technically correct! Definatively, a Christian angel has two wings, as do archangels. Principalities have 2 but it's of everything it's weird. Powers have two, so do Dominions but the rest of them look like something from the subconcious of H.P. Lovecraft. Virtues and cherubim have 4, Seraphim 6 and Thrones are geometric shapes with way too many eyes and are constantly on fire. Can you believe I'm Atheist? Actually, considering what I just told you, you might. Because someone was trippin' when they wrote that down. Someone picked some fun mushrooms there.
Why would any of these have a definite number of wings? The seraphim and cherubim are the only creatures in the Bible who are described as having wings which were later called angels. The other things didn't have wings in the Bible (e.g. angels), or in most later Christian writings for that matter. In Genesis, angels visit Sodom and are confused by the locals for men. So presumably those angels didn't have wings at all.
The Bible doesn't describe angels as having wings. Renaissance painters portrayed them as such as the wings were symbolic of the being having come from above.
Er ... sorry Sandi, that's not strictly correct. Angel is a translation of a Hebrew word for messenger, as in God's spokesperson. They appear as men, without wings. The Seraphim and Cherubim did have wings but were thought of as different orders of divine beings, not angels. Also, the lovely, cute images of them come from much later and they were originally more terrible. The Bible describes a seraph as a winged snake that breathes fire and cherubs as having 4 faces, that of a man, a lion, an eagle and an ox. Sorry? Pedantic? No, I don't think I am 😁
Depends what you mean by take seriously. Most panelists on QI probably don't take anything in the bible literally. I think anyone would be a fool to dismiss the impact the book has had for good or ill (mostly ill imo) on the world. People also just take an interest in it in a purely theological and historical impact sense.
Cariad " It depends on the type of angel " Sandi : ERRR NO. Also Sandi : It depends on the type of Angel. Sandi ruined this show for me. Her constant UM ERRR NO ( shrugs at audience ) got REALLY tiresome.
Depends who you ask because the Sadducees didn’t believe in angels at all and there’s no evidence any of the writings of the Old Testament existed before like 300 bc
Some parts of the Bible have been found that are substantially older than that. The Ketef Hinnom scrolls contain the Priestly Blessing (mentioned in Numbers) and date to 600 BC. Although manuscript evidence is mostly lacking, there is substantial textual evidence that many parts of the Bible are much older than 300 BC. Some books like Amos, Hosea, and "first Isaiah" (the Book of Isaiah appears to consist of two parts written at very different times) are probably from the early 7th century or earlier. Deuteronomy's composition doesn't make any logical sense unless it was completed during or shortly after the exile in the early 6th century BC, and parts (such as the law code) are probably older. And so on. "No evidence at all" is definitely a hot take.
@@EebstertheGreat "doesn't make sense" (according to you, anyway) does not constitute evidence. Actually i was being generous by saying 300 bc. There's nothing to prove they existed as they are now, whatsoever. The amazing thing is that people continue to believe they did based on nothing.
@@john.premose I already pointed you to artifacts from 600 BCE containing a prayer that is in the Bible. That's a part of the Bible that is a hell of a lot older than 300 BCE. You can just dismiss any evidence as worthless if you want, but actual scholars don't get to do that. They have to look at the evidence that exists and give the most plausible time it was written. Much of the Bible was clearly written before 300 BCE, at which time (as you pointed out) the Sadducees already existed. Super weird that they were worshiping the Torah before it was written. Where did you even get that 300 BCE date from? Seems like you're the one basing this on nothing.
No one in the show is suggesting they do exist, nor was that Cariads point. If someone asks me who Aragorn from LOTR is my answer isn't going to be "no one he doesn't exist". She was hard done by because what she said was correct but just did the oopsie of mentioning two winged angels.
@@Croyles while I take your point, which is well made, I must beg to differ. In the spirit of overly pernickety accuracy beloved of QI, it is a basic principle of mathematical logic that all statements about the contents of the empty set are true. For example; for all a ∈ Ø, a = 2 is true. Likewise; for all a ∈ Ø, a ∈ {4,6} is true. With regard to non-mathematical sets, "all angels are as described in Zachariah" is true, but so is "all angels are as depicted in Walt Disney's adaptation of Pinocchio". On that basis, Cariad's interpretation of "it depends" was correct.
Shirley if a, which is not nothing, belongs in set B, then that set B can't be empty? It is logically true that anything false can be used to prove anything true or false, ie false -> false and false-> true are both true. (The only false outcome of the implies operator is true -> false.)
![[LIVE] นาทีนี้ต้องพี่ทนาย | ทนายแก้ว vs ทนายไพศาล | #คุยให้เด็กมันฟัง EP.47 (02/11/67)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/HmquaO-PL_M/mqdefault.jpg)
Cariad is the most adorable QI guest in all of time and space.
you have terrible taste
@@booperdee2 You may find that you are in an awkward minority.
@@booperdee2Someone's angry with their life, don't take it out on us.
I totally agree!
Well her name is the Welsh for daling so I guess it fits!
Cariad lloyd ❤❤
Every time a klaxon rings, Cariad gets her wings! ❤
How many wings does one person need.
@@stevo68 Enough to carry the weight of Hobbit fandom.
Noel actually looks quite good in his Christmas jumper - the turtle neck coddling The Nose, short black hair...
As fictional characters, angels can have as many wings as the storytellers desire so it does indeed depend on which story you're discussing, as Cariad correctly said. The word 'angel' can also be applied to a human who has done something really nice or amazing for someone else in which case none is the correct answer. Also, she didn't claim that angels have two wings, she was simply referring to an instance where two wings were the norm so she didn't deserve that klaxon. As a practising pedant, I love QI but sometimes their own pedantry is off-target!
That was really unfair to Cariad.
I mean what the hell.
I love Anthony Gormley. Lake Ballard is incredible and the Boat hotel in Singapore was built around his lampshade. Truly beautiful 😍❤
Just discovered Noel Fielding in "Swansong" yesterday. Very well done, moving.
This was the most unfair klaxon given to such a beautiful and correct woman!
Sandie literally goes on to say that the answer is the answer she refused to accept
@@michaelbaker7499 QI really went downhill after Stephen left.
@@DavidOakesMusic No, Sandi is a great host and a worthy replacement. This was just a misstep by the show being too eager with the klaxon.
@@michaelbaker7499 "literally"
@@wanderlustwarrior_dyslexic card_
Thank you, anyway
In Zechariah 5, he sees two women with wings like a stork. Most people would interpret that as the classic angel look; although, at the time the perception would likely have been wings for arms not wings at the shoulder blades. The shoulder angel is based on Greek gods; namely, Nike.
Took me a moment to realize you meant shoulder angel as having wings attached to their shoulders in addition to arms lol. There's also some other gods like Isis who might've influenced it. Also while trying to confirm my thoughts I stumbled upon the Winged Genie though those are male with two to four wings, which maybe could've inspired Cherubim? And then the putto got wrapped up in that symbolism as well as for Cupid. My initial thought about what you meant btw was the cartoony angels standing on your shoulder and I was like "That's not Nike, that's the Genius." But that said having a little Nike on yer shoulder would be awesome lol. I could use more triumphs in my life.
@@DoveJS Yes, shoulder angel was a bad choice of words. That would be the Kronk, conscience angel.
Now that's quite interesting. I'd thought angels with wings was an entirely pagan Greek thing adopted into the bible by the translators but it seems that's not so. Are there any other angels mentioned by name in the old testament? And - do you know the original (presumably Aramaic) word for angel?
@@vipertwenty249 Michael is named in Daniel. Raphael is named in an Apocrypha book, Tobit.
Most of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew not Aramaic, but the word angel is malak in both. Most notably the Angel of the Lord being the malak Yahweh. Primarily cherubim and seraphim are mentioned with any details. Many times angels are mentioned they have no description other than looking like a man, such as the angels that went to Sodom, and the angel that Joshua encounters.
@@litigioussociety4249 Thanks.
You should have gone into the other angels. Like the one that's just a wheel of eyes around an eye, or something like that.
The Ophanim
I usually have a dozen wings, but some places sell them in baskets of ten.
You need a baker's dozen of angel wings
Isn't it weird that they sell angel buns in packs of 12 but angels in packs of 10?
I remember sitting on the feet of the AotN when it was still somewhat new, was just a load of old iron to me, but then I was a young teen on the way to the Metro Centre where oddly enough Micheal Barrymore was filming there that day... :P
💜Cariad
And "it depends" is absolutely am answer.
What do birds eat? It depends. What birds?
Who is the gorgeous creature in the green top? Damn.
An angel may have two wings if they'd lost a fight...
The lack of laughter when she says the Hobbit is based on fact is hilarious as they probably think angels are real!
Yeah. I felt bad for her when that deafening silence greeted her comment, but I'm certainly glad she said it.
Noel Fielding kinda looks like Elvis
You've just got to love Cariad
beautiful Cariad xxx
"How many wings does an angel have"
"It depends"
"Sorry, that's too vague to be an answer"
"Renaissance angels tend to have 2"
"Wrong, the answer is it depends (also, we're only talking about biblical angels now)"
I get that the show has always been very "Um, actually" with the answers, that's the humour of it, but what the fuck man
Yeah it didn't play out very well in this scenario. Sandy tried her best to defend it but nope.
Sure, but the show is also about 'have the klaxon-klaxon playing lots of times'
2:12 - Wrong! Angel of the North wingspan - 54 metres
Boeing 747 length - 56.3 to 76.2 metres (and wingspan - 59.6 to 68.5 metres.)
Sandy, Sandy...Gabriel, the messenger archangel, may or may not have had wings at all.
How’d he fly down? Or did he take the train?
@john.premose Scotty beamed him down and back up again. Hopefully after the transporter was fixed to work properly.
African or European Angel?
Listen ti how everyone goes quiet as if shes actually thinks its true lol
Or they realised she was mocking people who believe in angels... Eg them
How many fit on the head of a pin? Multiply that by n, where n equals # of wings per angel-- and don't confuse angels with cherubim, seraphim, archangels, and the rest of the nine choirs of angels.😢
Heaven forfend! 😉
@@YvonneWilson312 Yea, verily.
To paraphrase the great Pratchett, it's not how many angels you can fit on a pin that's the issue but rather how to stop falling between the gaps between the atoms.
The seraphim and cherubim are not described as angels in the Bible. The beings actually called angels don't have wings at all. However, around a thousand years later, Christian angelologists described seraphim as the highest order of angels, followed by cherubim, with regular angels at the bottom (the others varied in order and number depending on the author).
angelologists? Good one
@@varoonnone7159 It's what historians call people from the middle ages who wrote about angels.
When I believed in Christianity, I assumed all angels had two wings, like birds. I didn't know there were angels with four or six wings. Why would anyone need that many extra wings? Perhaps the extra wings were just there for decoration? Now that I'm an atheist, angels can have a score of wings for all I care. Which I don't.
2:07 But nobody is talking about the fact that the QI Elves claim that 54 meters is longer than a 747, with the average 747 actually being over 76 meters long. (Even the _shortest_ 747 (SP) was 56 meters long!)
I assumed it was "longer than a Boeing 747 ('s wingspan)", but also wrong there, it's at least 59 meters.
I think they're talking about the wingspan, and not comparing the largest dimensions
@@Daoibhéar but they are wrong, the wingspan of the angel of the north is not longer than the wingspan of a 747. The Wikipedia article on the angel of the north states it's longer than the wingspan of a _757_ (38m), which is probably where their info came from but it got muddled along the way
What makes the Angel of the North count as "the largest art statue in the world", but not Cristo Redentor? Or the Statue of Liberty, for that matter?
None of them are. The biggest statue in the world is in India. It's the statue of unity. The angel of the north, christ the redeemer and the statue of liberty don't even make it to top 50.
It's the largest statue _of an angel_ in the world.
Art statue, as opposed to religious statue or political monument.
Rather a false distinction in my opinion, but presumably what the elves had in mind.
Fictional characters.
No wings?
2 wings?
4 wings?
A jetpack?
The correct answer is "there is no such thing as angels".
r\atheism is sending out new troops again
Question was "angels" not "angels as specifically described in the bible"...
I guess you could say that the OG concept of angels did not have any two-winged angels.
But Cariad specifically said renaissance-angels, so the alert was still very unfair.
I thought angels were non-corporial, so they don't actually have wings (but they may appear like they do)
The quality of question on QI has gone downhill when it relies on nitpicking and leaving out information from the question, rather than simply containing facts which are unexpected
Ok boomer
I would have looked at Cariad or Sandi and said, "Well, I'm looking at one now, but she doesn't have any wings at all."
🤢
Simp.
🤮
None
Can you tell them good folks at BBC that we're grateful for the Doctor Who Specials but Canada wants all your programming to come to Disney+?
My gran reckons if you see a white feather near you, you are being watched over by an angel.
or it fell off a bird
Or there are birds nesting nearby/above you.
It's probably more to do with the donut in your hand, just before the feathered thief makes off with it...
Real gamers know angels only have one wing.
Five. Take a closer look at his legs. I'm saying this, knowing full well it's literally referred to as "one winged angel"
Angels have no wings because they're not real.
None :)
none, theyre fictional......
She's technically correct! Definatively, a Christian angel has two wings, as do archangels. Principalities have 2 but it's of everything it's weird. Powers have two, so do Dominions but the rest of them look like something from the subconcious of H.P. Lovecraft. Virtues and cherubim have 4, Seraphim 6 and Thrones are geometric shapes with way too many eyes and are constantly on fire.
Can you believe I'm Atheist? Actually, considering what I just told you, you might. Because someone was trippin' when they wrote that down. Someone picked some fun mushrooms there.
Why would any of these have a definite number of wings? The seraphim and cherubim are the only creatures in the Bible who are described as having wings which were later called angels. The other things didn't have wings in the Bible (e.g. angels), or in most later Christian writings for that matter. In Genesis, angels visit Sodom and are confused by the locals for men. So presumably those angels didn't have wings at all.
The Bible doesn't describe angels as having wings. Renaissance painters portrayed them as such as the wings were symbolic of the being having come from above.
Er ... sorry Sandi, that's not strictly correct.
Angel is a translation of a Hebrew word for messenger, as in God's spokesperson. They appear as men, without wings.
The Seraphim and Cherubim did have wings but were thought of as different orders of divine beings, not angels. Also, the lovely, cute images of them come from much later and they were originally more terrible. The Bible describes a seraph as a winged snake that breathes fire and cherubs as having 4 faces, that of a man, a lion, an eagle and an ox.
Sorry? Pedantic? No, I don't think I am 😁
Zero, angels aren't real......
And people still take that book seriously? Have they actually read it?
Depends what you mean by take seriously. Most panelists on QI probably don't take anything in the bible literally. I think anyone would be a fool to dismiss the impact the book has had for good or ill (mostly ill imo) on the world. People also just take an interest in it in a purely theological and historical impact sense.
I've got some bad news for you: many people who take the bible seriously have never read it
YES. The Hobbit is nothing BUT serious. Infidel!
@@dielaughing73 And many of the people who actually do read it become atheists.
The wings are not what you think. The wings are groups of fighters, as in jet fighters. They were commanders.
Cariad " It depends on the type of angel "
Sandi : ERRR NO.
Also Sandi : It depends on the type of Angel.
Sandi ruined this show for me. Her constant UM ERRR NO ( shrugs at audience ) got REALLY tiresome.
Depends who you ask because the Sadducees didn’t believe in angels at all and there’s no evidence any of the writings of the Old Testament existed before like 300 bc
Some parts of the Bible have been found that are substantially older than that. The Ketef Hinnom scrolls contain the Priestly Blessing (mentioned in Numbers) and date to 600 BC. Although manuscript evidence is mostly lacking, there is substantial textual evidence that many parts of the Bible are much older than 300 BC. Some books like Amos, Hosea, and "first Isaiah" (the Book of Isaiah appears to consist of two parts written at very different times) are probably from the early 7th century or earlier. Deuteronomy's composition doesn't make any logical sense unless it was completed during or shortly after the exile in the early 6th century BC, and parts (such as the law code) are probably older. And so on.
"No evidence at all" is definitely a hot take.
@@EebstertheGreat "doesn't make sense" (according to you, anyway) does not constitute evidence. Actually i was being generous by saying 300 bc. There's nothing to prove they existed as they are now, whatsoever. The amazing thing is that people continue to believe they did based on nothing.
@@john.premose I already pointed you to artifacts from 600 BCE containing a prayer that is in the Bible. That's a part of the Bible that is a hell of a lot older than 300 BCE.
You can just dismiss any evidence as worthless if you want, but actual scholars don't get to do that. They have to look at the evidence that exists and give the most plausible time it was written. Much of the Bible was clearly written before 300 BCE, at which time (as you pointed out) the Sadducees already existed. Super weird that they were worshiping the Torah before it was written.
Where did you even get that 300 BCE date from? Seems like you're the one basing this on nothing.
@@EebstertheGreat there’s no evidence the Sadducees existed in 300 bc. They are not attested until about 100bc
@@EebstertheGreat now why did that comment disappear?
The people who wrote this stuff must have been on something very strong.
Cariad is f##king hot
In point of fact, any given number would be perfectly correct, as angels do not exist. Cariad was rather hard done by here.
No one in the show is suggesting they do exist, nor was that Cariads point. If someone asks me who Aragorn from LOTR is my answer isn't going to be "no one he doesn't exist".
She was hard done by because what she said was correct but just did the oopsie of mentioning two winged angels.
Sigh.
" _Within the context where angels feature and are taken as things that do occur_ ...... "
@@Croyles while I take your point, which is well made, I must beg to differ. In the spirit of overly pernickety accuracy beloved of QI, it is a basic principle of mathematical logic that all statements about the contents of the empty set are true.
For example; for all a ∈ Ø, a = 2 is true.
Likewise; for all a ∈ Ø, a ∈ {4,6} is true.
With regard to non-mathematical sets, "all angels are as described in Zachariah" is true, but so is "all angels are as depicted in Walt Disney's adaptation of Pinocchio".
On that basis, Cariad's interpretation of "it depends" was correct.
Shirley if a, which is not nothing, belongs in set B, then that set B can't be empty?
It is logically true that anything false can be used to prove anything true or false, ie false -> false and false-> true are both true. (The only false outcome of the implies operator is true -> false.)
@@daddymuggleNonexistence in reality does not imply the empty set. Fiction exists, which consists of a non-empty set of specific ideas.