Hi all,

By the way, may I recommend a book called Master of Middle-Earth by Professor Paul H. Kocher. It has lots of good stuff on this topic.

God bless,

Luke

Hi everyone, and especially Mercy.

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to your posts. I wanted to have the time to reread them and give them a good think before I responded. They deserve (and require!) effort on my part - you have some excellent posts here!

That said, I won't be able to address everything here. Again I'm at work (spent most of my spare time this afternoon rereading and looking at different translations of the Timothy verse) and don't have a lot of time left before I have to go home. But I'll try to address at least a few of the less time consuming issues.
(Again, thanks for raising this discussion - I'm really enjoying it!)

At one point you mentioned that one reason why the Lord of the Rings is not a Christian work, but rather a humanist one, is that the characters look inside themselves rather than to a higher power for help in their struggle. I can think of at least one example to counter this. In the Fellowship of the Ring (the chapter "A Knife in the Dark" in the dell under Weathertop, Frodo, faced by the king of the ringwraiths, calls out in the extremity of his need "A Elbereth! Gilthoniel!" In case you're not up on your elvish ( ) that is an appeal to the Vala Elbereth, or "Varda" as she is called in the Silmarilion, a sort of goddess figure, subject to the will of Iluvatar. She may not be the ultimate God, but she is a part of him , and it is she to whom the elves are taught to call in their need, as the Valar/gods are appointed and given the power by Iluvatar to look after the world (Arda) and his children therein. He does this again in another instance - I'm not sure, but I think maybe Sam does too at one point. And in all instances, the invocation of the name causes the evil threat to fall back. I consider this comparable to the idea that "At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow" and the idea that the name of God has power to throw back evil. Also, after Gandalf's 'death' in Moria, he returns to Valinor and rests and recoups in the presence of the Powers there.
(Note: Gwaihir the windlord (the eagle we see all the time) is a servant of Manwe, the king of the Valar. He comes and goes at the will of Manwe.) Thus Gandalf looks to the divine powers when he is in need of aid.

Before I read through all of your posts and the responses again, I looked at the 1 Timothy 4:7 verse in several translations.
I don't really have a preferred translation, aside from the fact that I usually use the American Standard Version Catholic Bible I received for my confirmation, but today I used what was easily available on the Net.

My results:
NIV: Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives tales...

NASB: But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women...[is this the version you're quoting?]

Amplified Bible: But refuse and avoid irreverant legends (profane and impure and godless fictions, mere grandmothers' tales) and silly myths, and express your disapproval of them...

New Living Translation: Do not waste time arguing over godless ideas and old wives' tales...

KJV, NKJV, and KJ21: But refuse profane and old wives' fables...

English Standard Version: Have nothing to do with irreverant, silly myths....

American Standard Version: But refuse profane and old wives' fables...

Worldwide English: Have nothing to do with foolish stories....

Young's Literal Translation: And the profane and old women's fables reject thou...

Darby: But profane and old wives' fables avoid...

Your case against the LOTR, if I'm understanding you correctly, is based on the word 'worldly' in the verse you quoted. However, I would point out that, in all the translations quoted here, only the NASB uses the term "worldly"; all others use "profane" or "foolish" or "godless" and I think that this speaks to the intent of the translator when using the word "worldly" - the modifier of stories/fables should not be merely "of the world" but "opposite to God". Thus the popularity of the LOTR as a secular book does not preclude its inclusion as an "acceptable" fable on the grounds that it is not profane, foolish, irreverant, or godless. If you disagree, the burden of proof of godlessness is on you.

I have to go now and do my close-up stuff. To be continued...

Love,
Susan

[This message has been edited by SusanW (edited 08-28-2002).]

Susan:

Your take on the verse was nice, correct and on the mark, as usual. I think we are in perfect agreement on this one.

MB: You focused on the word, rather than the sentence.

jtw

Susan,

I agree with you as well. But that is not to say that LOTR is a Christian work, it's just not anti-Christian.

Have a great night!

------------------
By His grace-



And when I stand, let me stand on the promise,
that you will pull me through,
And when I fall, let me fall on the grace,
that first brought me to you.
-Rich Mullins.

Susan,

First of all, you absolutely cracked me up within the first paragraph with something I don't think you meant to be funny. Here's your quote,

"I wanted to have the time to reread them and give them a good think before I responded."

Give them a good think? ROLF!

I am SOOO not mocking you in this moment, just found incredible humor in the moment of your words. Forgive me for laughing as hard as I did. It won't happen again (assuming you don't make me laugh that hard again).


Secondly, I must state that I disagree with your assertion that Frodo and/or Sam called a "part of God" being representative of calling on a higher power. Seemed you were reaching pretty far with that response. I didn't laugh as hard though on that.

Thirdly, and this is where I give you some credit. I loved your breakdown of the verse in Timothy.

After reading your breakdown, I went back to the greek text. You see, when every translation suggests a slightly different meaning to a word that ultimately affects a debate, discussion, or conversation, its better to go to the original. So guess what I found?

I Timothy 4:7 - tous de bebhlous kai grawdeis muqous paraitou gumnaze de seauton pros eusebeian

To most, I'm sure that its jibberish. But there are a few things to note here that are not obvious to the viewing eye. Keep in mind that you are already being credited as proving me wrong in my use of this verse.

First of all, let's break down the translation and see just how literal these words become? Not the whole verse, just the preceding sentence that begins the verse.

tous - you (plural)
de - but
bebhlous - what is open and accessible to all
kai - and
grawdeis - silly as an old woman
muquos - tales/fables
paraitou - refuse

Gosh, this is really forcing me to test my study of ancient greek language. One of the reasons that the verb (refuse) is put at the end is because of how words are organized within the writing of such ancient language. That happens often.

But let's key in on the "what is open and accessible to all." The word bebhlous is comparable to our word "profane." Which means (from Webster), "lacking reverance toward God or sacred things." In turn this could be taken to mean that the words used in Timothy were meant to infer...

"Refuse the silly fables of old women that are profane."

To the extent that you have proven that the word "worldly" is not necessarily accurate, I agree with you. To the extent that you have suggested that the "fables" mentioned here are simply fables that are irreverant stories that disregard God, I also agree. These stories are not so much worldly, but rather, they are profane and/or unholy.

If you would be so kind as to to elaborate (or anyone else can when they get time) on what types of fables these might be, I'd be curious. While you have proven that the word "worldly" is not necessarily the key focus in this verse, you have not proven what IS the key focus in this verse.

Within the context of Paul's words, the theme is doctrine. In the preceding verse, Paul uses the words,

"nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following," I Timothy 4:6

In the following verse, the theme does not stray, but rather enhances a thought that was surfaced in the beginning of the letter.

"As I urged you upon my departure fro Macedonia, remain on at Ephesus, in order that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless geneologies which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith." 1 Timothy 1:3-4

Is Timothy's instruction regarding ungodly men who might teach strange doctrines? If it were, Timothy would not be instructing them to begin with. Hence, this is Paul's instruction to Timothy that he teach other teachers NOT to teach strange doctrines, nor to get carried away with myths or geneologies.

The issue is doctrine. Foundationally, what is presented is that TRUE doctrine can be thwarted by the simplest distraction of myths, fables, geneologies, and/or strange teachings which do not adhere to the administration of God's grace through faith.

If you present that the verse in Timothy does not use the word "worldly" you would be most accurately correct. But in seeking to prove that presentation, the theme of the entire book of First Timothy is lost in the mesh.

By the way, not to distract from your words, but I believe my concern with the word "worldly" came from the other verse in question. The phrase was "elementary principles of the WORLD." Hence, I began to focus on how we, as believers in the world, can tend to take pleasure in things that have the character of godliness or the morality of religion, but in the most extreme sense are still "worldly" because they lack Christ as the core.

Simply suggesting that Frodo and Sam called out to a "higher power" or a "piece of God" does not support your cause and point. Ultimately, there is no correlation between that and how one might call out to Christ. For if you are indeed suggesting that Frodo and Sam were calling out to a "piece of God," then you are suggesting that our call to Christ is simply a call to a "piece of God" and not God Himself.

Sorry if I just became longwinded. Nothing meant by it.

After all this, I'm still trying to hold back laughter on the whole "give them a good think" comment. Hope you're not overwhelmed with whatever you're doing.

Enjoy your evening,
Mercy

just wanted to say that i am yet in agreement with Mercy on this!!!!
i'm still patiently waiting for someone (maybe you, SusanW or Luke) to show me our God in this!
mainly, Christ Jesus!
for He is the core of Christianity!!!!

without Christ/God, there is no Christianity/us!

let me ask you a question, if i may, SusanW!

perhaps you (and maybe some others) are into Lotr so much that you are making it reflect or become a shadow of Christianity, you think?
(i ask you this in love )

so far, SusanW, in this debate it seems as if you and maybe a few others have been defending Lotr, proclaiming it to be of Christianity, yet you have not succeded in showing us Jesus/God!!!!!

don't get me wrong, i'm loving this topic (really) but as a reader who is not sure about Lotr, you haven't motivated me to get into it or check it!!
you haven't shown me the Lord yet!!!
(think of other readers who may be in my shoes just waiting for someone to say, "here is Jesus right here in it or here is the Lord right here in it"!)
because, if the Lord is not in it, it should caution us about being it!!!!

now, please, don't read me wrong - i'm not saying that you may get in trouble if you participate in something that don't have God in it! (thats clearly up to the Father)
but if we lable something God (the God of Holiness) that is not God, then we could be (and more than likely be) accountable for that!

i'm thinking that if Christ was in it - it shouldn't be hard to point Him out!!!

now, again, i agree and have agreed with Mercy sensed the beginning of this topic!

Lotr is in the same category as 'The Never Ending Story', 'The Labyrinth', 'Star Wars', and etc.!
now i have seen these movies and more but i have not said that they are of Christianity or they are Christ/God based!

even tho some of them , at times, had godly values in them!!!!
but they are not God based!

honestly, tho the movies and the stories are good, they don't necessarily edify me!
in other words, they don't necessarily point me to Christ!
if anything (personal testimony) the holy Spirit convicted me for spending so much time in things that i wanted to do and not with God or my Word!!!

Susan, your Majesty , i use to collect comic books and some of them put godly values in them!
but that didn't make the comic be specifically Christianity!!!

and i think that the theme of most comics is the same theme in the Lotr series!
basically, it is 'good vs evil'!!!!

it was always the good guys against the evil guys!!!!
"the Avengers, the Mighty Thor, Spider-man, Iron-man, the X-men, the Hulk, the Fantastic Four all against villains such as Thanos, Doctor Doom, Magneto, Venom, Sabertooth, Dr. Octopus, Hobgoblin, and etc.!"

it was fun to read, very entertaining!
but it wasn't pointing me or motivating me to God!

think about it, if comics did point me to God - think of the thousands of people it would reach!
but it didn't!
it simply entertained us!

and comics had all types of stuff in them!
myths, magic, sorcery, - you name it!!!

and i was all in it too!!

and plenty of times the Holy Spirit would get my attention and remind me, you haven't spent that many hours in my Word or with me, Phlo!
(i spent hours in my comics just reading away)

hey, i even tried to compromise with the Lord - i said, "Lord, don't the fact that i always go to church and praise you and stuff count for any of the hours ?"
No!
that simple!

it got to the point that before i would crack my comics open to see what happened next - the Lord told me to crack my Word (bible) open and read!
and read it as if i was reading a comic - 'WITH ALL OF ME IN IT'!

well, i know that i have gotten a little too long, so please forgive me!

i still want to see Lotr and even HarryP (believe it or not) but i'm not pushed to see them!
they sound interesting and i love adventure and stuff!

maybe you or someone could show me Christ in a simple way and that would motivate me to do it!

thanks for reading me, if you did!

much Love infinitely,
lets love the 'mess' outta each other; like Christ Jesus do!

Hi all,

It's hard to get away from this conversation. Like Mercy, I feel as if some parts of my posts weren't read (I don't mean the long one that didn't make it because of the password problem). As I understand it, we (who consider the LOTR to be Christian literature) are still being asked who is the Christ figure, and where is Christianity obvious? But I have asserted that literature may give allusions rather than extended analogies, and literature can be subtle rather than obvious. I think that this is part of the value of literature; it is very useful. This is the case with LOTR. So when you ask over and over, "where is the obvious Christ figure," we have said from the beginning and at least a few times that it isn't that simple, and I re-affirm this.

If I had time to rewrite my 3-hour post detailing the Christian aspects of LOTR, and detailing why other religions do not fit it, I would. I'm sorry to say, my obligations don't give me the time. Can you give me the benefit of the doubt, at least suspend judgement? On this point, though, I must say to Susan that I don't know what she might mean when she says that Elbereth was "part of" God. I think she may have written hastily, and meant something else. The Vala (pl.) are created angelic persons who can take bodily form if they wish, as I understand it, and not parts of God. Gandalf is a lesser Valar (sing.), and one rather Christian thing about him is how lowly he is; he doesn't think he is part of God. Susan, please correct me if I remember incorrectly?

As for LOTR being worldly, I note (again) that "worldly" and "of this world" in Paul's warnings mean anti-Christian in various ways. There are three levels: evil (sin and error), nature (good), and super-nature (by which I mean good and graced). The LOTR is not evil, certainly, and I'm glad that we seem generally agreed on this. Nor, I think, is LOTR merely good on the natural level, a pleasant fiction; I find rather that it illustrates and alludes to the things of grace. It doesn't have an altar call, if that is what we reduce Christianity to, but it affords much Christian insight and takes out many errors of false religions, to one who digs into it.

I hope this helps.

Best wishes and love to all in Christ,

Luke

[This message has been edited by LukeFromAedificatio (edited 08-28-2002).]

Hi everyone,

Mercy, I'm glad I made you laugh! I have found great delight in some of your words as well. Sorry I didn't get back to this last night; I have to confess, I got caught up in playing the Sims. Man, that game is addictive!

Thanks, JTW and Servant for your encouragement. Servant - point taken.

Mercy -
Just a quick note, then I hope to revisit this this evening.

Elbereth as a "part of God" - I worded that very poorly. That's not what I meant. The Valar are like the stewards of Iluvatar/God in Arda/on Earth. They are more than angels but less than Iluvatar. BUT they have been entrusted with power by Iluvatar to do His work in Middle Earth and as such, when they are prayed to in Middle Earth, they are capable of answering. But the actual nature of the Valar and their relationship to Iluvatar is irrelevant other than that they are the deities to whom Frodo and Sam would cry out - and they do cry out to her in the same way that we would cry out to God for help - or, perhaps, in the way a Catholic prays to God through the intercession of Mary in prayers such as the Salve Regina. But we probably shouldn't get into that here. It isnt' that well explained and I'm venturing into the realm of assumption if I go that far. The issue was do the heros of the story look only into themselves for strength or do they look to the divine for aid? They do, whether Elbereth be a "part of God" in that unfortunate phrase, or not.

" For if you are indeed suggesting that Frodo and Sam were calling out to a "piece of God," then you are suggesting that our call to Christ is simply a call to a "piece of God" and not God Himself." No, I'm not. I'm not suggesting anyting about our own call to God. What I am suggesting is that this instance works against the hypothesis that LOTR is purely humanist because the characters never look to the divine for aid.

Phlo - Unfortunately, I'm feeling rather a lot like Luke here, that I and others sharing my position have already explained how we see Christ in the Lord of the Rings (again I emphasize, the BOOKS, NOT THE MOVIE), and how the Lord of the Rings has much more depth to it than comic book heros or contemporary fantasy works. Please, Phlo. Read the books. Then maybe you'll understand. You won't be spiritually harmed by them. That you do not accept our arguments I can't help. I say again, we can't point to a single character and say "he represents Christ." What we can do is point to instances of how each character in his/her way represents aspects of Christ, and how the story represents aspects and principles of Christianity. I don't know what more I could say.

As to why anyone would ever want to disguise a Christian message in an allegorical or symbolic story where it is subtly present but maybe not super obvious: have you ever heard an old saying "He strains to hear a whisper who will not hear a shout"? I think the principle is the same. Sometimes you need to package something in a new way for people to recieve it anew. Ever watch the Simpsons? Hardly a paragon of Christian virtue, but nonetheless. In one episode, we see Homer believing that he is going to die that night. He goes and gets a set of the Bible on tape and sits down with the earphones to listen to it. We hear a voice saying "And [name] begat [name], and [name] begat [name]" and so on in a dull, dry, monotone. In another incident we see the Reverend Lovejoy over to dinner. He quotes a bible verse to Homer, who responds with saying "Well, you just remember Matthew 20:15 [random number, I don't remember what the actual reference was]." And the Reverend looks at him soberly, and intones "And he went out into Bethany and he lodged there?" Why are these funny? They're funny because that is the stereotypical view of Christians and Christianity. Boring. Stuffy. Repressed and meaningless. People don't see Christianity as adventuresome, exciting. That's why sometimes people sometimes put a new face on Christian topics and principles - so as to avoid the immediate preconceptions that come with overt proclamation of religious alignment.

Mercy,

Thanks for going into the Greek! I appreciate that. I don't have enough Greek to do it myself yet (but I'm taking Classics 160 this fall, so after that, watch out!) - all I know is Kyrie Eleison.

I believe that the fables/stories/myths etc being referred to in the Timothy books are those which teach a false doctrine, i.e. one that is opposed to the truth of God. An example might be the myths of the Greek/Roman pantheon which would be prevalent at the time in the area where Timothy was ministering.

More than that I can't type right now - gotta go and actually do my job.

I will try to get back to this and address more of what you have been saying (and maybe explain my own thoughts a little better) tonight, but I just got a call inviting me for dinner, so we'll have to see how it goes!

Cheers!
Love,
Susan

Luke,

quick question before i roll out!

you said that 'literature may give allusions rather than extended analogies and it can be subtle rather than obvious'!

i immediately thought, "what if the Word was written and presented to us like this"!

i ask you this question, now, Luke!

what if the Word of God was presented to us like this?

i think no one would know what God was trying to say to us!
not specifially!

and 'sublte', Luke??????

thats a word i associate with the Serpent!

do you think that the Word of God is 'sublte'?

(i'm not trying to be smart or sarcastic, here, Sir Luke )

i think that Christ was very obvious instead of subtle!

okay, wait, first (before i jump the gun), is the Bible literature?

okay, now we can back up!

what do you think?

much Love infinitely,
Love is what its all about!

ps - appreciate you, Luke, and your insights!

Hi Phlo,

Thanks for your expression of love and care. Never lose this gift!

On to our issue: I didn't say that nothing is allowed to be obvious, or that everything has to be written like LOTR. Jesus Himself is our model, and sometimes He spoke subtly with hidden meaning; sometimes He spoke plainly.

I think we are getting to the heart of this issue. Many here at WUG are Christians with Fundamentalist leanings. By "Fundamentalist" I mean making the assumption that words must be taken literally, not figuratively / obviously, not subtly / on the surface, not deep / denotation, not connotation. In the past at these forums, I have spoken about how deep the Bible is, and how clever, and why one can study the Bible one's whole life and re-read the Bible a million times and not get to the end of its truths. I have listed verses that cannot be true if taken literally, and I have asserted that some things in the Bible are not easily understood. Then some people get upset and alarmed, though this is needed for the Bible to be defended as inerrant (and I do defend its inerrancy). But I say again, let us follow the example of Christ, who spoke sometimes in parables and sometimes plainly, who spoke in allegory to the Greeks, and who revealed a little to people at a time, as was appropriate. Paul also said to some that they were not ready for meat so he would only give milk. What a difference this is from the approach of some street preachers' easy-salvation hand-outs! Not all Christians are Fundamentalist in their approach to reading (whether Scripture or other works, incl. LOTR); I think we at WUG need to accept this.

You wrote, "and 'sublte', Luke?????? thats a word i associate with the Serpent!" I answer with the instruction of Christ in Matthew 10:16: "Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves." The devil's temptations are sometimes subtle (sometimes just overbearing), but his are never as brilliant or as gentle as God's words. God is more subtle (infinitely more).

God bless, everyone, and Glory to God in the highest,

Luke

[This message has been edited by LukeFromAedificatio (edited 08-28-2002).]