Trilogy and Bible?

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 3</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Does anyone think that the Trilogy(Silmarilion, etc.) may be an allegorical representation of the Bible? If so which characters do you thing would represent whom and which events do you think would represent certain events in the Bible.

~just think

</p>

[Inziladun]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Newly Deceased
Posts: 4</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Trilogy and Bible?

It is an interesting thought,and there appear some similarities to Biblical Creation in the story of the making
of Ea. However,Tolkien said of his work,&quot;It is not 'about'
anything but itself. Certainly it has no allegorical intentions,general,particular,or topical,moral,religious,or
political.&quot; (p 220 The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien)
That book,by the way,is available from Amazon.com and probably other sources,and sheds a great deal of light on
Tolkien's views of allegory,religion, and many other things.


</p>

[the Lorien wanderer]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 40</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Trilogy and Bible?

Tolkien hated allegories didn't he? So I doubt if his books had any intentional representation of Biblical characters. Why, some chap here came up with the idea that elves represented communists. Interesting but unlikely.

Not all those who wander are lost.</p>

[Saulotus]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shade of Carn Dûm
Posts: 288</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Trilogy and Bible?

That would have been me, but it was the region of Dale and the battle there with Dain and Brand as the representation of the German incursion into russia (Germany = Dol Goldur).

In reminder...

LETTERS #45
<blockquote>Quote:<hr> J.R.R. Tolkien
{concerning Germany and Hitler}
&quot;Who are- under the curse of God- now led by a man inspired by a mad,
whirlwind, devil: a typhoon, a passion: that makes the poor old Kaiser
look like an old woman knitting... Anyway, I have in this War a
burning private grudge.&quot;

LETTERS #208
&quot;As for 'message': I have none really, if by that is meant the
conscious purpose in writing THE LORD OF THE RINGS... I was primarily
writing an exciting story in an atmosphere and background such as I
find personally attractive. But in such a process inevititably one's
own taste, ideas, and beliefs get taken up.&quot;
<hr></blockquote>

It undeniably revealed itself when I created the map I posted here earlier.

Apply this however you wish to the original query.

</p>

[lindil]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 155</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
the Bible

I think the trilogy's main relationship to the Bible is that JRRT believed the Incarnation,Crucifixion and Ressurection of Jesus Christ to be the one Myth that was True on all levels and that whatever truth there was in any co-creation was due to it being in some way a reflection or illumination of the reality of our situation which is most clearlt set forth in the Bible. JRRT took great pains toexplain theTruth of Christianity to CC Lewis who after a long night walking w/ JRRT and another Inkling saw the Light as is said and went on to become the greatest Christian Apologist of the century.
For JRRT[who translated the Book of Job from french and hebrew into english for the Jerusalem Bible] the trilogy, while no allegory of the Old and New Testemants are contained [according to his own words] could only on it's deepest level point to the Truth contained in the teachings and Traditions of the Church.Not a popular or PC idea , but one which his own letters testify to plainly.

Lindil

</p>

[onewhitetree]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 26</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: the Bible

Although Tolkien claimed to hate allegory and deny its presence in his writings, I think a subconscious Christian vision of good vs. evil is there.

There is not an acual Christ-figure that comes into play, but I think the nine walkers can be viewed as 'disciples' somewhat, following the righteous path and their beliefs of duty.

Sell crazy someplace else...We're all stocked up here. <a href=http://pub23.ezboard.com/bminasmorgul>Minas Morgul</a></p>

[Saulotus]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Shade of Carn Dûm
Posts: 294</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: the Bible

The 'Christ-figure' that DOES come into play is located in Athrabeth, as a logical extension of the story developed as the Old Hope [a conversion of the earlier Turin legend].

</p>

[the Lorien wanderer]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 45</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: the Bible

Actually, I'm not a Christian so I'm hardly qualified to say whether there is any reference-intended or not- to the Bible in the trilogy. I'm familiar with the Bible but I haven't lived it like most people here-going to Church on sundays and celebrating Christmas in a huge way and whatevr it is you do.

Not all those who wander are lost.</p>

[onewhitetree]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 33</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: the Bible

I am a Christian, but I don't really do any of those things.

I meant there wasn't an apparent Christ-figure in LotR. I haven't read all of his writings (shame on me, I know), but I agree on the fact that Tolkien's creation story drew on the Bible a LOT.

Sell crazy someplace else...We're all stocked up here. <a href=http://pub23.ezboard.com/bminasmorgul>Minas Morgul</a></p>

[Orald]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 93</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: the Bible

I doubt it was meant to be looked at in that perspective, obviously it was. But even when you look at LotR like that, you can't say for sure that anything is taken from the bible.

From the non-biased non-Christian part of me I ask, why do you say bible? why not any other story in the history of the world. There are countless other good vs. evil stories that mirror JRRT's, the bible is a popular book and has several comparisons drawn to its many stories. But couldn't LotR also be compared to the Norse and Greek myth's or how about other legends, Anglo-Saxon and Celtic legends. Does it seem plausible that Tolkien took stories from the bible, changed them around, then said that his stories have nothing to do with anything?

Now from my very Christian standpoint I would have to say that there are many things similar between the Bible and JRRT's works. Yet I still cannot say that he took material from the Bible and used it as his own. For one, I have to much respect for Tolkien to believe that he would stoop to plagiarizing the Bible. And two, he said it himself that he drew no comparisons between the Bible and his works because he said that he completely made it all up, just like fiction writers are supposed to do.

In response to Lorien Wanderer's first post in this topic. Were you talking about Faramir's topic a few pages back, when you said that Elves have communistic tendencies?

</p>

[Orald]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 94</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: the Bible

My first post may seem a bit hard to understand(At least I thought when I went to read it again). So I thought I would sum up my response by saying that I do not think Tolkien was alluding to the Bible when he wrote his stories.

Sorry if my posts are hard to understand. I am a very poor essayist and probably always will be. I think this is do to my lack of general language skills, along with my bad organization skills, and along with my weird sentence structure. Thank you for putting up with me.

</p>

[the Lorien wanderer]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 47</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: the Bible

I was referring to Saulotus' post on some thread here where he likened elves to communists. Personally, I don't agree because I don't think Tolkien wanted to portray ideologies, or for that matter of fact religion. I think he just wanted to write a story.

Not all those who wander are lost.</p>

[mwcfrodo]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 36</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Trilogy and Bible

One could make a reasonably good argument that Frodo was a very Messianic character (although not &quot;Jesus-like&quot; in the Sunday school, personal friend way). His central quest is to redeem the world from evil--to save the people. And, he pays with his own life because although he does not physically die, he is not able to go back to where he had been before. Indeed, he takes the step from mortality to (arguably) immortality by departing from Middle Earth.

I also think that given Tolkien's background there is considerable influence from the medieval &quot;Holy Grail&quot; literature. Frodo as he struggles through Mordor certainly bears some resemblence to the wounded Fisher King..an eerie, haunting story of loss and salvation.

And, as someone else mentioned earlier in this thread, it is perhaps too limiting to think Triology v. Bible. Tolkien is writing about the confrontation between good and evil...a common theme in every type of religion.

</p>

[onewhitetree]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 34</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Only read this if you care

We recently had this conversation @ the Planet, so I'm all fresh on my opinions. <img src=smile.gif ALT="">

LotR was not a parable, or an allegory, or anything like that. It was just a story. However, JRR's devout Christianity leaks through as surely as any other characteristic. Perhaps he didn't realize it, or didn't consider it, but Middle Earth can be considered Christian in its portrayal because the essence of Christianity is the battle of good vs. evil, where love conquers all.

There is certainly not a Christ figure in the Trilogy, because every one of the characters loses self control at one point or another. Self-control is everything. It is unfair to say 'this guy is better than that guy' because, in truth, this guy just represses his inner human savagery better than that guy. The embrace of savage tendencies is what makes human nature, and every single member of the Nine Walkers, and every other minor character in the book, regresses into savagery at one time or another (except perhaps for Sam, but that's another page-long post). Therefore, there is not a Christ.

However, the Nine can be considered as disciples, or followers of Christ, because they display Christ-like attributes in their actions. Their job is to save the innocent and the ignorant from the evil corrupting the world, much like Christian doctrine preaches.

Whew. Sorry for the essay; I won't blame you a bit if you don't read it. <img src=smile.gif ALT="">

Sell crazy someplace else...We're all stocked up here. <a href=http://pub23.ezboard.com/bminasmorgul>Minas Morgul</a></p>

[Orald]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 107</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Only read this if you care

Oh really? Then who would you make Boromir out to be? Judas or Peter. Does Boromir completely betray the fellowship, or does he deny the fellowship and realize his error and try to correct it?

</p>

[onewhitetree]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 40</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Only read this if you care

Well...I wouldn't go so far as to actually assign names connecting the 12 and the 9. I just meant disciples as in followers. If I had to choose, I would say probably Peter, but that is purely my opinion.

Sell crazy someplace else...We're all stocked up here. <a href=http://pub23.ezboard.com/bminasmorgul>Minas Morgul</a></p>

[Mister Underhill]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Wight
Posts: 223</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Only read this if you care

tree, no apology necessary for the essay. I like a post with some meat on its bones! But on the other hand, don't take it from me – if I’m not the most long-winded poster on the board, I'm at least in the running. But I digress.

Your post is well-reasoned, but I think I could make a case for Gandalf as a quasi-messianic figure. Consider:
·He was sent to Middle-earth by heavenly powers to save its people.
·He lived a life of relative poverty, had no home, owned only the possessions that he carried on his back, and traveled constantly in pursuit of his mission.
·He was a teacher and a leader.
·He could perform miraculous feats.
·He was a friend to the friendless (his mercy for Gollum) and a champion of the weak and lowly (of all the so-called Wise, he was the only one with an interest in Hobbits).
·His message was often met with scorn and contempt.
·He died and was reborn.

I can’t remember a time when Gandalf ever really faltered or lost his self-control. Sure he was tempted by the Ring, but Jesus was tempted, too. Gandalf didn’t give in to temptation. And okay, he was apt to lose his temper from time to time, but not in any serious way and only under circumstances that were justified. Jesus rebuked his disciples harshly from time to time, and he blew his stack (albeit righteously) on occasion – remember that table-tipping incident up to the temple? And Gandalf maintained his faith in a seemingly hopeless cause right up to the end.

But I’m really just playing devil’s advocate here (there’s a pun in there somewhere which I suppose is intended). I ultimately agree that LotR isn’t a parable or an allegory. I think you’ve hit the mark – Christian stories, morals, beliefs, and motifs were a part of who JRRT was and so inevitably turned up in his writing. What writer worth his salt would want to write stories that don’t in some way reflect his own beliefs and philosophies anyway?

Durelen, I don’t think you could mark Boromir as Judas. His “betrayal” of the Fellowship wasn’t deliberate and premeditated, and he died redeeming himself. One might say that he played the role allotted to him by fate to perfection. If not for him, would Frodo have found the courage to do what needed to be done? Certainly Pippin and Merry, at the least, would have insisted on accompanying him. Would things have worked out successfully if they had gone to Mordor too? I’ve always been curious about the Ring’s power – was it able to actually control Boromir in some way, or is it like one of those pure energy Star Trek aliens that merely lowers inhibitions or amplifies already existing urges and allows the true self to be exposed? Maybe Boromir best equates to Thomas. Always doubtful, that Boromir.

Whew. See what I mean?



</p>

[Zoe]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Haunting Spirit
Posts: 66</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
...

When it comes down to it, we could all spend hours making connections between LotR characters and biblical figures - but you can connect many characters from many stories with biblical figures, so really, it shows nothing.

Although the comparison between Gandalf and Jesus is interesting - the only difference I can think of is a minor one: unlike Jesus, Gandalf didn't have any other kind of trade (such as carpentry). Oh, and his teaching style was different - I don't think Gandalf was as much a teacher as a wise leader.

</p>

[onewhitetree]

<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Animated Skeleton
Posts: 44</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: ...

We could spend hours and come up with nothing. But in doing that, we develop our own opinions, etc., at least I do. And everyone should have opinions.

I see what you're saying, Mr. U., and I can't really contradict it in a meaningful way, but I just don't think Tolkien would have or did put a Christ-figure in the Trilogy.

Sell crazy someplace else...We're all stocked up here. <a href=http://pub23.ezboard.com/bminasmorgul>Minas Morgul</a></p>

[Luineeldaiel]

Greetings to All! I have just begun a book entitled, "Finding God in Lord of the Rings," by Kurt Bruner and Jim Ware. Perhaps this might provide addtional insights for your reading pleasure. Thank you for all yours.

[dernhelm]

I think Lord of the Rings and all of the stories about Middle Earth have definite similarities to Christianity and the Bible, but they aren't necessarily an allegory. Tolkien, himself, was a professing Christian, and some of his arguments even helped the great writer, C. S. Lewis, convert to the Christian faith. Tolkien believed, as I do as well, that God created man in His image. So, since God is the Creator, man also wants to create things. Therefore, Tolkien called his books a "sub-creation", because they had similarities to God's Creation, but his books weren't exactly like the stories from the Bible. Instead, Tolkien used the gift of creation and writing that God had given him to make up a whole story and world(Middle Earth) of his own.

[Lostgaeriel]

Great discussion! I'm going to think it over for a while before making any serious comments.

In the meantime, in reply to Zoe:

unlike Jesus, Gandalf didn't have any other kind of trade (such as carpentry).

Gandalf had a trade - fireworks! [img]smilies/wink.gif[/img]

But I do grant that he didn't use parables.

[Turambar]

It IS a great discussion. I think that there are also some parallels between Frodo and Christ as well, but I agree with onewhitetree that Frodo could not be called a "Christ figure" in any meaningful way. Mr. U pointed out some intersting parallels between Gandalf and Christ, though I also think that Gandalf resembles one of the OT prophets also (and not only because of the staff!).

[mark12_30]

Hi,
THere is a good article with some quotes from TOlkien himself on this topic. Check out: http://www.fotf.org/pplace/pi/lotr/A0018586.cfm

I was especially fascinated by the quote,
"The Lord of the Rings," he wrote in a letter to a friend, "is of course a fundamentally religious and Christian work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision."

So: when TOlkien started out, he was watching the story unfold; but when he revised it, I'm guessing that he realised he had Christian themes and concepts in there, and made them fuller.

--Mark12_30

[the_master_of_puppets]

i dunno if he intended it to be bible like. when i first saw this i thought it meant u peeps saw the books as ur bible so now im surprised! i never knew JRRT was a christian, but as sum1 above pointed out the age-old struggle of good-vs-evil is most prominantly there, but could we ever get a good book without it?

[Aralaithiel]

Tolkien believed, as I do as well, that God created man in His image. So, since God is the Creator, man also wants to create things. Therefore, Tolkien called his books a "sub-creation", because they had similarities to God's Creation, but his books weren't exactly like the stories from the Bible. Instead, Tolkien used the gift of creation and writing that God had given him to make up a whole story and world(Middle Earth) of his own.

I am of the same mind as the poster of this quote and the poster's opinion, being a devout Christian myself! [img]smilies/smile.gif[/img]

[River Jordan]

Just wanted to add my comments to the "Tolkien & the Bible" Discussion...here's a quote from "http://www.fotf.org/pplace/pi/lotr/A0018586.cfm" about Tokien's spirituality...

"The Lord of the Rings," (Tolkien) wrote in a letter to a friend, "is of course a fundamentally religious and Christian work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision." Humphrey Carpenter, author of Tolkien's authorized biography, takes this claim seriously. Tolkien's writings, he says, are "the work of a profoundly religious man." According to Carpenter, God is essential to everything that happens in The Lord of the Rings. Without (The Lord God), Middle-earth couldn't exist.

Anyone have any comments to offer in response to this?

Your friendly neighbourhood youth pastor,
Chris Jordan (chrisjordan7@hotmail.com)

[Luineeldaiel]

I am currently reading the last book of the Trilogy and am amazed at how many of the characters are figures of Christ, esp., Aragorn. The wise woman of Gondor, Ioreth, states, "The hands of the king are the hands of a healer, and so shall the rightful king be known." The King of Kings and Lord of Lords is indeed the rightful King, risen with healing in His wings for us!

[Kin-strife]

Just to add to Mr. Underhills point about the connections between Gandalf and Jesus, I mentioned in another topic (the image of Eru) that there is a note in 'The Istari' in UT where it says that after the Third age when a shadow was again falling over the kingdom many of the 'Faithful' believed that Gandalf was the "last appearance of Manwe himself, before his final withdrawal to the watchtower of Taniquetil". Now Manwe isn't Illuvatar but he's the next best thing. The belief is then dismissed by Tolkien, but it is interesting to think that Gandalf is said to have certainly become a very 'christ-like figure' in the minds of a small section of people in later history.

[Lindolirian]

Well JRRT was a Catholic but i dunno if he meant to make his works on ME parralel the Bible. His faith did have an impact on the way the story went, whether he meant it or not. For example, Eru (representing God) created the Ainur ( the angels) and created the world with voice. In the Bible God said "let there be light." and Let there be earth and sky and so on. Iluvatar sang the Great music and Ea or the world came to be. Melor can also represent the fall of Lucifer who then became Satan (Melkor=Lucifer, Morgoth=Satan) From there the stoy seemed to spilt off from the biblical story line but Tolkien kept his Christian viewpoint of the whole thing.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

I'm not a Christian, my family's Buddhist, though I respect Christianity and my Christian friends. That said, there are some definate Christian themes in the LotR, as in all western literature, and still more in the background works such as the Sil. I always thought in the LotR it was unconcious, while the Sil. was conciously so.

The bible is one of, no, is the most influential force in western literature, and no educated person wishing to understand western-European-American literature should fail to study it, to recognize those subtle themes.

Poetry, and the poetry of powerful literature, plays our subconcious like a harp, evoking deep-seated imagery and emotional response, our ideals.

To understand Indian lit., you must read the Vedas, to understand Middle Eastern poetry, the Koran.

There is a common emotional language that is not just spoken.

I think Tolkien sought an epic universiality, not an allegory, not something that would only speak to erudite Christian scholars.

But the harp he played so-to-speak, was Christian in its roots. Certainly.

I think his point in rejecting allegory is that he didn't want to limit or make the LotR the sole property of those who call themselves Christian. Or anyone's sole property. He wasn't one who prostelytized, and he didn't want to narrow his audience.
There are those who don't read the Narnia Chronicles because they're labelled "Christian," who think they won't relate to them because of that. And that's a sad loss.

[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[Enkanowen]

To claim The Lord of the Rings as a christian allegory would probably be plain and simply false. Of course anything can be twisted into meaning something else. Good vs Evil is NOT a christian theme. It always has been and always will be a HUMAN trait.
I could go as far as to say Gandalf represents hindu/buddhist/pagan beliefs of rebirth. He falls into shadow and is reborn and someone greater.
Frodo is definately not a christ-like figure because he actually gives in into the power of the ring. It is Gollum who destroys it-accidentally yes but it was still destroyed. Boromir never betrayed the friendship, because right after he threatens Frodo he says something to the extend of "what did i say? i am not myself", this was not shown in the movie as clearly but in the book he realizes that he was drawn into the power of the ring and regrets it.
My point being is that it should not be about religioin, but about hope, love and bravery, and that everyone can be brave. That's what should matter.

[Carannillion]

Let's not forget that Tolkien did in fact start out with creating a language , 'simply for the delight of creation itself' (not sure if that is an accurate quote), and then he decided to make the LotR (and Sil and Hobbit etc.) as a way of binding the language to something. Thus making the language even more complete.

Of course Tolkien's works has some Christian/religious aspects. Everything you write contains a reflection of yourself (except if you concentrate VERY hard on not doing it). Also, everything you read , you will interpret and memorize according to your own personality. It's nothing more or less than being human.

[bryniana]

IMO when I read LOTR I do not see so much paralles to the Bible, but the archtypes that Joseph Campbell worked with in so much of his writing. If LOTR was written after Campbell was done with all of his studies would we be trying to find the hero, villan, and patsy instead of Jesus, Paul, and Jedus?

Were there ever actuall quotes from Tolkien that specifically said that he was trying to draw parallels...or was it just by accident of design that they happened?

In general (and this goes back to freshman year of high school and studing the Scarlett Letter). IMO it takes away from the literature itself to continualy focus on parallels that really aren't there. We have to reach and reach to find any and as soon as we think we are on the right track we come up with something else that works...for the moment.

But at the same time it does make good discussion.

[Marileangorifurnimaluim]

The purpose of allegory is to teach (one reason I avoid it as fervently as Bilbo dodged the Sackville-Bagginses, and I get the impression Tolkien felt the same). It's a hollow mechanism, a candy coating on medicine. Bleah!

The purpose of the LotR is to entertain. And it does just that.

But themes common in Christianity are in there, good and evil, redemption, sacrifice, which give the LotR moral dimension and depth. That doesn't mean that Christianity has a lock on good/evil/redemption, or anything else.

For some it's difficult to erase some negative associations with the word 'Christian.' I'm speaking of course of Christian Theology, not politics.

• Theology embraces and is open for discussion.
• Politics divides, classifies, and creates 'positions.'
• Theology puts the spirit before the law.
• Politics puts the law before the spirit.

This thread seems to be geared for looking for common Christian themes. You could just as easily search for Buddhist or Hindu themes (and probably find some of the same ones).

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: Marileangorifurnimaluim ]

[River Jordan]

As a professor of Hermeneutics at Pacific Life Bible College, one of the things I stress to my students is the importance, specifically in Bible interpretation, in finding out what the author's intended meaning is. There is an object truth in the Bible, regardless of our subjective thoughts and ideas about it. The same can be said about any work of literature, contrary to what many modern thinkers would say today. To find out the true meaning of any piece of literature, you must look at the author (or creator, if you will) and discover what he intended by his writing of the work. You and I may interpret it in different ways, but there is still only one true meaning, and that is what the author intended. Therefore, I think it is safe to say that when it comes to Lord of the Rings, we must allow Tolkien to speak for himself. He himself has stated that the work is not a planned allegory, therefore it is not. However, having said that, there is still the truth that Tolkien, as a devout Christian, was writing from his particular worldview, which comes through in his writings. There is a Ultimate Good, and an Ultimate Evil, and the servants of the Ultimate Good must fight to defeat the Ultimate Evil, or darkness must reign. How different from the modern new age thought of 'there is no good or evil, we are all one with the cosmic universe!".

In conclusion, I am a big fan of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings - I enjoyed the books, I also enjoyed the movie, and I am also a devout Christian.

Your friendly neighbourhood youth pastor,
Chris *River* Jordan http://www.angelfire.com/bc/YMF

[Enkanowen]

Originally posted by River Jordan:
[QB]There is a Ultimate Good, and an Ultimate Evil, and the servants of the Ultimate Good must fight to defeat the Ultimate Evil, or darkness must reign. How different from the modern new age thought of 'there is no good or evil, we are all one with the cosmic universe!".

perhaps you might want to rephrase that sentence, because I belive you must have misunderstood something wrong about so called 'new age' beliefs.

[The Mirrorball Man]

Originally posted by River Jordan:
To find out the true meaning of any piece of literature, you must look at the author (or creator, if you will) and discover what he intended by his writing of the work. You and I may interpret it in different ways, but there is still only one true meaning, and that is what the author intended.

With all due respect, I couldn't disagree more.

A good piece of fiction is not simply a glorified diary entry or newspaper article. Ideally, good literature must offer the reader room for different - and sometimes divergent - interpretations, even beyond what the original author had intended or imagined. It's this quality that makes it possible for some novels or plays to cross the boundaries of time and space, and still be relevant centuries after they've been written, even if all the values of society have changed. Furthermore, a good piece of writing should stand on its own two feet. If you need to study the life of its author in order to properly understand it, it can only mean that the work is incomplete or has become obsolete.

Besides, using the Bible to illustrate your point of view is not very convincing. Even if there's only "one true meaning" in the Bible, it's obvious that scholars can't agree on what it is, otherwise there would probably be less churches and splinter groups of Christians. I think that in that respect, the Bible is not different from any other great book, since it obviously is open to different interpretations.

[Carannillion]

Like my Religion teacher said:

When we read, all that which we read, we interpret, and that's just the way it is. You have an ego (not being egoistic, the 'self'-thing psychologists talk about), and therefore you have subjective opinions. You cannot read and not interpret. You can try, but you will always interpret it. And different people will interpret the same text differently. No matter what. (and the same thing goes for writing)

This may be one of the reasons for why a supposedly all-knowing, ultimate-purpoused book (e.g. the Bible, the Koran) can create so many different factions of people, sometimes even making war on one another over some issue (no disrespect intended).

[River Jordan]

YOU SAID:
Besides, using the Bible to illustrate your point of view is not very convincing. Even if there's only "one true meaning" in the Bible, it's obvious that scholars can't agree on what it is, otherwise there would probably be less churches and splinter groups of Christians. I think that in that respect, the Bible is not different from any other great book, since it obviously is open to different interpretations.

Here's the point I was trying to make. Truth is truth, regardless of what people may think of it. For example, you are sitting in your room, typing at your computer, and if you were to look at your wall, you would find it to be a certain colour (for the sake of argument, let's say white). You may have someone else in the room with you who might say the white wall is green, and another friend who sees it as black, but the ABSOLUTE TRUTH is that this particular wall is white. The same is true with the Bible. Even though many different people may fail to understand its truth, and they may interpret it differently, it is still a deposit of truth. The trick is to discover what that truth means to us here and now, and that's where Hermeneutics - the Science of Bible Interpretation - comes in.

Anyway, this is an interesting discussion topic, nonetheless! As mentioned in a previous post, I am a big fan of Tolkien's writings, (primarily Rings & Hobbit) and also enjoyed the latest movie adaptation. Looking forward to continued dialogue with you all!

Your friendly neighbourhood youth pastor,
Chris Jordan http://www.angelfire.com/bc/YMF