Originally posted by elfofdoom
I do have that comic so now we know Neyaphem probably means human mutated into a demon. are somthink like that.
The Yidrizal one is before he killes that guy. still haven't write it down though.
I'm a little fuzzy on this idea here that by arbitrarily deciding what things must mean, you have somehow done authoritative research on the topic.
"Neyaphem" is the word "Neplilim" with an alternative spelling. You may not like Chuck Austen, (I think
that's the whole point of this thread) but he did do some research into angel mythology before writing this arc. He should get some credit for that.
Nephilim is a word that comes from ancient Hebrew (as Angelique said the suffix "im" gives away the masculine pluralization form). It basically refers to a race of giant beings who were fallen angels living on earth during the earliest times in Earth's history as recorded by the bible
. You can read about them in Genesis 6:4
So Nephilim doesn't mean "human mutated into a demon. are somthink like that", it means "mythological race of giant angelic/demonic beings."
And while we're at it, "Cheyaphem" - is an alternative spelling of "Seraphim", one of the choirs of angels. The Seraphim were basically God's attendants and are (according to myth) supposed to look like how we imagine angels looking - with wings and halos etc. So it doesn't mean "mutant who looks like an angel", it means "an angel". You can read more about Seraphim here.
Of course, if Austen had intended to say that all these mythological beings, that is demons and angels, were really just mutants from our past who have since been immortalized in the dogma of our religious doctrine then yes, a Seraphim is a human mutant with an angelic appearance. But that was never clear to me in the story.
I actually had the pleasure of meeting Chuck Austen and we discussed the Draco at length. One of the things we talked about was the many difficulties and disappointments that he had while working on the arc when it came to both the art and editorial process. Obviously there were some issues with the art since it completely changed in the middle of the arc and there were are a number of mistakes (missing tails, Abyss drawn with a nose, etc...). I think an even bigger disappointment though was what the editorial process did to the story. I got the impression that editorial edited what could have been a really amazing revelation about Nightcrawler's past into a big mess that often didn't make sense. I think it's a real shame. I got the impression that if Austen had been allowed to tell his story without these creative hindrances, we would have all loved the Draco as well as we love Darick and Roberto's new series.
Just a note - this is what real research looks like. I looked things up, wrote about them, checked my spelling, and cited my sources. One of the great things about Nightscrawlers is our discussions. Recognising that our members come from different scholastic backgrounds as well as different countries where English might not even be spoken, I am always impressed by the level of intellecualism and thoughtfulness that goes into the discussions here.
I don't think it's too much to ask, ElfofDoom, that you proof read your posts before hitting the reply button. Often they have so many errors in grammar and spelling as to be unintelligable. I recognise that not everyone here is an English scholar, but as I said there is a certain level here that we all strive to attain. I've seen some of your posts where you reach that level, so I know you can do it in all of them.