All right,
jallanite, I think I see your point, at least according to Eru=YHWH. I did not consider that, but you are right. I think we radically differ in the view of the things, especially what is "natural", so the arguments would be invalid in both ways since we are coming from different perspective. The way I understand it (stated very simply, but I think it should sum up the main differences in your perspective from mine, correct me if I am wrong), you see Arda as the early ages of our world, hence Eru=God (or whichever highest power there is), and hence also natural laws of our world=natural laws in Arda.
So basically, it is that if you wanted to say "okay, Eru is YHWH", then you have to basically end up with saying "for some reason, in the beginning, he did not act the way he acts now." And that's right, of course, if you look at the biblical story "chronologically", YHWH indeed does not really intervene in much bigger ways than Eru until Abraham.
But, just to further elaborate on what I intended to say in my last post (and that concerns also the view what are "natural laws", where we differ), I, on the other hand, wasn't speaking about our world at all, I am focusing only on the tale as it is in Simarillion, LotR etc. I know that Tolkien intended the tale to refer to the past of our own Earth, and I am all with it, but in the same way the biblical story also isn't literally from our world and yet it is, but it is "only" a tale (but if that's a matter of belief, let's not start about it, but that is where I am coming from. That way, it's better to concern oneself only with the story, since that way there can be no conflict). The point is what both of these want to
say about the gods they speak about, and in that, they differ.
It doesn't matter to the Silmarillion what kind of "natural laws" are there, they are set by the story itself. If, according to Silmarillion, islands can float or animals can speak, and people are not that much surprised by that, that is still "normal" (not, obviously, completely everyday, but it is not apparently considered "breaking the very laws of the universe", because in Middle-Earth we can kind of count on enchanted swords and talking animals being present, which in our world would be considered by an average modern person to be "breaking the natural laws").
For me, the so-called "natural laws" are, in the universe where we have a central creator and laws-of-the-universe-maker figure, the laws that are set by the highest power and are not possible to be broken, unless the highest power in question makes an exception. And that is undisputably Númenor, that is (possibly, if Manwë really did ask Eru for permission) the Istari, and it is also the growing retreat of Valar from the world. "Natural laws" in our world are that stones fall down when dropped, that swords do not glow with goblins around, and actually very likely also that goblins themselves don't exist. "Natural laws" in Arda would be that stones fall down when dropped, that Elves fade with time and leave Middle-Earth and so do Valar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jallanite
You don’t indicate what you disagree with. I only cited Tolkien for what I posted. Do you disagree with what Tolkien wrote?
|
No, but I do not take that as any proof that Arda wasn't flat. It is
your conclusion based on Tolkien's remarks. He does not say "Arda was never flat, point." He says "the tales are legends transformed by Men". Right. I agree with that. But in my interpretation, Arda was still flat originally, since the tale very much indicates that. I do not have any other indication elsewhere that would say "no, it wasn't". The tale has been twisted by tradition, but who can say in which aspects?
So, it isn't that I prefer
Inzil's interpretation to Tolkien's. What a blasphemy that would be! (Sorry,
Zil 
) It is that I prefer Inzil's interpretation of Tolkien to your interpretation of Tolkien.