Is Eru God?

[davem]

Originally Posted by Alatar

Do we assume that angels, like their ME counterparts, have creative powers?

I'm not sure the Valar 'create' as such. I think they 'sub-create'. The true source of creation is Eru, who is sole possessor of the Secret Fire. The Valar, in the words of Gandalf are 'Servants of the Secret Fire' - only Melkor (those who followed him, like Sauron, tried to possess it (& failed). The Valar attempted to do the will of Eru, serving as the means of creation (like living 'tools', if you like).

[Lalwendë]

Time does matter, as it's a measurable thing, while those things which are 'outside time' are immeasurable - things like God or Eru. So if the Music happened outside Time we couldn't (or beings in Ea couldn't) necessarily pinpoint a beginning or an end, a little like the idea of God being the Alpha and the Omega, both beginning and end.

Time only seems to exist in Ea itself, as there is also the Void, which is outside this. I say that as the Void is not necessarily empty (Ungoliant came from the Void for example) as would be say, a void space as we understand it, but it is outside the Music and Time. A fitting place to put Melkor?

[Aiwendil]

Davem wrote:

The true source of creation is Eru, who is sole possessor of the Secret Fire.

True, but consider Eru's words to the Ainur:

Of the theme that I have declared to you, I will now that ye make in harmony together a Great Music. And since I have kindled you with the Flame Imperishable, ye shall show forth your powers in adorning this theme, each with his own thoughts and devices, if he will.

So because they have been 'kindled' with the Flame Imperishable, they do have a degree of creative power. The theme is Iluvatar's but the Ainur 'adorn' it with their 'own thoughts and devices'. The role of the Valar is not, I think, merely to carry out the designs of Eru like 'living tools'; they embellish that design with their own free will - even if their creative powers are ultimately derivative of Eru's.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

Roa_Aoife wrote:
Quote:
We cannot pick and choose which parts are true and which aren’t- that’s manipulation.

But what was being discussed was not "which parts are true" (if any).

And I think a great number of Jews would disagree about having to take both Testaments or nothing . . .

Quote:
6 One day the angels [a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them.

I could be very pedantic and say that even if one grants that "angels" does not include "Satan", that does not mean that Satan is not a minion of God. If you look at his role in the Old Testament as a whole, it is really quite different from that in the New Testament. I think this is the point Bethberry was making (though I invite her to correct me if I'm wrong).

Yes, thank you, that was the point I wanted to make, Aiwendil, that there is in fact a gradual accretion to the concept of Satan throughout the Bible, and that early ideas about him were rather different from those developed later, as is suggested in Elaine Pagel's The History of Satan, which is reviewed here . Even the online Catholic Encyclopedia says

The account of the fall of our First Parents (Genesis 3) is couched in such terms that it is impossible to see in it anything more than the acknowledgment of the existence of a principle of evil who was jealous of the human race.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

In any case, it seems to me that what's relevant to a discussion of Tolkien's works is Tolkien's belief concerning Satan's fall. And he quite clearly stated, as Davem quoted:

Quote:
I suppose a difference between this and what may be perhaps called Christian mythology is this. In the latter, the Fall of Man is subsequent to and a consequence (though not a necessary consequence) of the ‘Fall of the Angels’; a rebellion of created free will at a higher level than Man, but it is not clearly held (and in many versions not held at all) that this affected the ‘World’ in its nature: evil was brought in from outside, by Satan. In this [i.e. Tolkien’s own] Myth the rebellion of created free-will precedes creation of the world (Eä); and Eä has in it, subcreatively introduced, evil, rebellions, discordant elements of its own nature already when the Let it Be was spoken. The Fall, or corruption, therefore, of all things in it and all inhabitants of it, was a possibility if not inevitable. (Letters 286-87)

What I find interesting here is the idea that the angels had free will in Christian theology. I suppose one must reach this conclusion to account for the fallen angels, but the general gist of the "Angels" article in the CE is that the angels were emissary's of God's will. One can say that they had free will to accept this role or not, but by and large it would appear that they were merely instruments.

The angels of the Bible generally appear in the role of God's messengers to mankind. They are His instruments by whom He communicates His will to men....

I think this means they would not be capable of Tolkien's "sub-creation." Would this be another instance where Tolkien's 'theology' in fact deviates from his Christian beliefs?

As for my thoughts on time, which is intriguing most of you here on this thread, well, it is woefully little available to me to engage in a timely fashion.

[Roa_Aoife]

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

And I think a great number of Jews would disagree about having to take both Testaments or nothing . . .

We aren't discussing Judeism, we're discusing Catholicism, and how well Tolkien's world meshes with it.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

Even the online Catholic Encyclopedia says

Quote:

The account of the fall of our First Parents (Genesis 3) is couched in such terms that it is impossible to see in it anything more than the acknowledgment of the existence of a principle of evil who was jealous of the human race.

The only principle evil ever mentioned in Scripture is Satan, unless you know of another. And, as that is a Catholic Encyclopedia, and they hold all of scripture to be true, I doubt they would deny the relevance of latter passages declaring that Satan is indeed the serpent. If we look at it through the scope of Christianity, then when a piece of scripture was added means very little- it's the point being made that matters.

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

One can say that they had free will to accept this role or not, but by and large it would appear that they were merely instruments.

The free will of angels is a largely debated subject, and their role in Creation is unclear. One can point to passages that seem to discourage the idea:

19 The LORD has established his throne in heaven,
and his kingdom rules over all.
20 Praise the LORD, you his angels,
you mighty ones who do his bidding,
who obey his word.
21 Praise the LORD, all his heavenly hosts,
you his servants who do his will.
Psalm 103:19-21

16 When the angel stretched out his hand to destroy Jerusalem, the LORD was grieved because of the calamity and said to the angel who was afflicting the people, "Enough! Withdraw your hand." The angel of the LORD was then at the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite.
2 Samuel 24:16

9 I asked, "What are these, my lord?"
The angel who was talking with me answered, "I will show you what they are." 10 Then the man standing among the myrtle trees explained, "They are the ones the LORD has sent to go throughout the earth." 11 And they reported to the angel of the LORD, who was standing among the myrtle trees, "We have gone throughout the earth and found the whole world at rest and in peace."
Zechariah 1:9-11

However, one can also find passages that support the free will of angels:

17 'Can a mortal be more righteous than God?
Can a man be more pure than his Maker?
18 If God places no trust in his servants,
if he charges his angels with error,
19 how much more those who live in houses of clay,
whose foundations are in the dust,
who are crushed more readily than a moth!
Job 4:17-19
(God finds error with the angels- could they make a mistake if they had no free will?)

12 Then the angel of the LORD said, "LORD Almighty, how long will you withhold mercy from Jerusalem and from the towns of Judah, which you have been angry with these seventy years?"
Zechariah 1:12
(The angel questions God- not possible with out free will)

12It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven. Even angels long to look into these things.
1 Peter 1:12
(Angels had thought they served themselves, and express desire- hardly characteristic of tools)

4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
Genesis 6:4
(The Nephilim are a type of angel, along with the Cherubim and Seraphim, and are capable of acting on their own and entering into marriages, and fathering children. This clearly demonstrates a free will.)

Also, the rebellion of Satan is documented in the Old Testament.

12 How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!
13 You said in your heart,
"I will ascend to heaven;
I will raise my throne
above the stars of God;
I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly,
on the utmost heights of the sacred mountain. [a]
14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds;
I will make myself like the Most High."
Isaiah 14:12-15

So, the angels may not be able to refuse the will of their Creator, not even Satan, but that doesn't mean they have no free will. Satan is a minion of God only in that God uses him to create greater works, as Eru used the discord of Melkor to create even more beautiful Music.

We must nnot forget that Eru imparted the melody to the Ainur, so even the seemingly creative powers of the Valar are not really theirs, as a priest has no power of their own, and angels have no power of their own. It is all allowed by Eru/God (respectively). Melkor tries to create outside of Eru's design, and he can't. He is reduced to distorting the already present beings, which were in Eru's Music. In the creation of the dwarves, a fully living being cannot be made, and it is Eru who must give life.

Originally Posted by Aiwendil

I think this means they would not be capable of Tolkien's "sub-creation." Would this be another instance where Tolkien's 'theology' in fact deviates from his Christian beliefs?

In Orthodox theology there is a term 'teogumen' (if I remember it correctly). It seems to me that Host of Angels (as Valar) who may have 'worked' in Creation (even if after it was accomplished), since we do not have direct indication that they did not take any part in 'working' in it, may be a 'teogumen' as well.

Originally Posted by alatar

Isn't time the unit of eternity?

e·ter·nal
adj.
1. Being without beginning or end; existing outside of time.

And also

Originally Posted by alatar

Though this may seem trivial, if angels have such powers then what would stop Satan from mascarading as a prophet or messianic figure?

Nothing.

14And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.
2 Corinthians 11:14

[HerenIstarion]

1. Eru

Letter269

I don't feel under any obligation to make my story fit with formalised Christian theology, though I actually intended it to be consonant with Christian thought and belief

Letter 211

Theologically (if the term is not too grandiose) I imagine the picture to be less dissonant from what some (including myself) believe to be the truth. But since I have deliberately written a tale, which is built on or out of certain "religious" ideas, but is not an allegory of them (or anything else) and does not mention them overtly, still less preach them, I will not now depart from that more, and venture on theological disquisition for which I am not fitted

Letter 153

Inside this mythical history Creation, the act of Will of Eru the One that gives Reality to conceptions, is distinguished from Making, which is permissive

Letter 181

They [Valar] shared in its 'making' - but only on the same terms as we make a work of art or story. The realization of it, the gift to it of a created reality of the same grade as their own, was the act of the One God"

"...they [Valar] are only created spirits - of high angelic order we should say, with their attendant lesser angels - reverended, therefore, but not worshipful..."

Letter 212

The Ainur took part in the making of the world as 'sub-creators': in various degrees, after this fashion. They interpreted according to their powers, and completed in detail, the Design propounded to them by the One."

Letter 153

So in this myth, it is 'feigned' (legitimately whether that is a feature of the real world or not) that He gave special 'sub-creative' powers to certain of His highest created beings: that is a guarantee that what they devised and made should be given the reality of Creation. Of course within limits and of course subject to certain commands or prohibitions".

Letter 181

The Eldar and the Numenoreans believed in The One, the true God, and held worship of any other person an abomination

Atrabeth Finrod Ah Andreth

The Voice said: 'Ye are my children. I have sent you to dwell here. In time you will inherit all this Earth, but first ye must be children and learn. Call on me and I shall hear; for I am watching over you'

Osanwe

No mind can, however, be closed against Eru, either against His inspection or against His message. The latter it may not heed, but it cannot say it did not receive it

Letter 156

"...one of those strange exceptions to all rules and ordinances which seem to crop up in the history of the Universe, and show the Finger of God, as the one wholly free Will and Agent. The story of Beren and Luthien is the one great exception, as it is the way by which 'Elvishness' becomes wound in as a thread in human history

Myths Transformed

It [Hope] cometh not only from the earning for the Will of Iluvatar the Begetter (which by itself may lead those within Time to no more than regret), but also from trust in Eru the Lord everlasting, that he is good, and that his works shall all end in good. This the Marrer hath denied, and in this denial is the root of evil, and its end is in despair

2. Melkor (Evil, Satan)

Myths Transformed

Melkor is the supreme spirit of Pride and Revolt, not just the chief Vala of the Earth, who has turned to evil

Silmarillion

"...(Manwe) was the chief instrument of the second theme that Iluvatar had raised up against the discord of Melkor

(parallel - Micheal as chief opponent of Satan)

Myths Transformed

Morgoth had no 'plan': unless destruction and reduction to nil of a world in which he had only a share, can be called a 'plan'

Myths Transformed

It does however seem best to view Melkor's corrupting power as always starting, at least, in the moral or theological level. Any creature that took him for Lord (and especially those who blasphemously called him Father or Creator) became soon corrupted in all parts of its being, the fea dragging down the hroa in its descent into Morgothism: hate and destruction

3. Evil as instrument of Good in the long run

Silmarillion

And thou, Melkor, shalt see that no theme may be played that hath not its uttermost source in me, nor can any alter the music in my despite. For he that attempteth this shall prove but mine instrument in the devising of things more wonderful, which he himself hath not imagined

4. Strife of Good vs Evil

Osanwe Kenta

How otherwise would you have it? Should Manwe and the Valar meet secrecy with subterfuge, treachery with falsehood, lies with more lies? If Melkor would usurp their rights, should they deny his? Can hate overcome hate? Nay, Manwe was wiser; or being ever open to Eru he did His will, which is more than wisdom".

5. Humankind

AFaA

The Voice said: 'Ye are my children. I have sent you to dwell here. In time you will inherit all this Earth, but first ye must be children and learn. Call on me and I shall hear; for I am watching over you'".

Silmarillion, Of Aule and Yavanna

That shall also be true of the Children of Iluvatar; for they will eat and they will build. And though the things of thy realm have worth in themselves, and would have worth if no Children were to come, yet Eru will give them dominion, and they shall use all that they find in Arda: though not, by the purpose of Eru, without respect or without gratitude

Silmarillion, QS, Of the Beginning of Days

Behold I love the Earth, which shall be a mansion for the Quendi and the Atani!"

Myths Transformed

For which reason it is said that whereas there is now great evil in Arda and many things therein are at discord... nonetheless the foundations of this world are good, and it turns by nature to good, healing itself from within by the power that was set there in its making; and evil in Arda would fail and pass away if it were not renewed from without: that is: that comes from wills and being [sic] that are other than Arda itself

AFaA

'Matter' is not regarded as evil or opposed to 'Spirit'. Matter was wholly good in origin. It remained a 'creature of Eru' and still largely good, and indeed self-healing, when not interfered with: that is, when the latent evil intruded by Melkor was not deliberately roused and used by evil minds.

6. Freedom of Children of Eru

Silmarillion

For the Children of Iluvatar were conceived by him alone; and they came with the third theme, and were not in the theme which Iluvatar propounded at the beginning, and none of the Ainur had part in their making. Therefore when they beheld them, the more did they love them, being things other than themselves, strange and free, wherein they saw the mind of Iluvatar reflected anew, and learned yet a little more of his wisdom, which otherwise had been hidden even from the Ainur"

7. Death

Letter 153

Since 'mortality' is thus represented as a special gift of God to the Second Race of the Children (the Eruhini, the Children of the One God) and not a punishment for a Fall, you may call that 'bad theology'. So it may be, in the primary world, but it is an imagination capable of elucidating truth, and a legitimate basis of legends".

Yet

Letter 212

In this mythical 'prehistory' immortality, strictly longevity co-extensive with the life of Arda, was pan of the given nature of the Elves; beyond the End nothing was revealed. Mortality, that is a short life-span having no relation to the life of Arda, is spoken of as the given nature of Men: the Elves called it the Gift of Iluvatar (God). But it must be remembered that mythically these tales are Elf-centred, not anthropo-centric, and Men only appear in them, at what must be a point long after their Coming. This is therefore an 'Elvish' view, and does not necessarily have anything to say for or against such beliefs as the Christian that 'death' is not part of human nature, but a punishment for sin (rebellion), a result of the 'Fall'. It should be regarded as an Elvish perception of what death - not being tied to the 'circles of the world' - should now become for Men, however it arose. A divine 'punishment' is also a divine 'gift', if accepted, since its object is ultimate blessing, and the supreme inventiveness of the Creator will make 'punishments' (that is changes of design) produce a good not otherwise to be attained: a 'mortal' Man has probably (an Elf would say) a higher if unrevealed destiny than a longeval one. To attempt by device or 'magic' to recover longevity is thus a supreme folly and wickedness of 'mortals'. Longevity or counterfeit 'immortality' (true immortality is beyond Ea) is the chief bait of Sauron - it leads the small to a Gollum, and the great to a Ringwraith

But still, from human perspective

AFaA

Not so" I say indeed,' answered Andreth. 'We may have been mortal when first we met the Elves far away, or maybe we were not: our lore does not say, or at least none that I have learned. But already we had our lore, and needed none from the Elves: we knew that in our beginning we had been born never to die. And by that, my lord, we meant: born to life everlasting, without any shadow of any end.'

=====================

The selection of quotes I derive from dispute that ocurred some years back between people who would accuse Tolkien of being gnostic and those who defended Christianity of his writing. More quotes can be dug if need and will and time be, but these suffice for the purposes of comparison.

It seems to me (yet again) that it would be hard to find much deviation between Tolkien and Christian Theology. At the most - Valar, but than again, it is explicitly stated they are not 'creating' per se, but rather 'creating as form of art', 'sub-creating' (Hence 'working' of my previous posts). Besides, there is even a division between Ainur corresponding with division of Angelic Order - why not assume that Auinur that stayed back in Halls of Eru, correspond with first two choirs (Supernals, Celestials, Illuminations, Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones), since they are with God always, Valar correspond with Third Choir - Dominations - Virtues - Powers (mark words) and Maiar with Fourth Choir - Principalities - Archangels - Angels. (It is even easier when comparing with Orthodox teaching, where there are Three Choirs only, First choir being Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones). But I digress. What I was pointing at:

Therefore, I assume, Eru is God, seen through prism of sub-creative work. That Tolkien's 'sub-created' world should not concur with Bible word to word is obvious - would not it than be a parody rather than independent work of Art? But in principle, the one is image of Another.

[davem]

What I still see is a conflict in Tolkien between 'Imagination' & 'Orthodoxy', & that this 'conflict' is what produces his Art (the conflicting 'forces' of thesis & antithesis producing synthesis, if you like). Without that 'conflict' he would have produced nothing (or nothing worth having). The fact that he could not leave the Legendarium alone, & had constantly to return to it, to 'make it right', to 'find out what really happened' speaks to this inner conflict as plainly as can be.

[davem]

This is a radio interview with Tolkien (hope the link works) where he discusses some of the religious aspects of LotR.

http://www.daisy.freeserve.co.uk/jrrt_int.htm

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Roa_Aoife

So, the angels may not be able to refuse the will of their Creator, not even Satan, but that doesn't mean they have no free will. Satan is a minion of God only in that God uses him to create greater works, as Eru used the discord of Melkor to create even more beautiful Music.

We must nnot forget that Eru imparted the melody to the Ainur, so even the seemingly creative powers of the Valar are not really theirs, as a priest has no power of their own, and angels have no power of their own. It is all allowed by Eru/God (respectively). Melkor tries to create outside of Eru's design, and he can't. He is reduced to distorting the already present beings, which were in Eru's Music. In the creation of the dwarves, a fully living being cannot be made, and it is Eru who must give life.

Nice work collating all of the text. I would read it otherwise. Tolkien's angels, the Ainur, do not breed with men, nor do the 'lesser set,' the Maia. This group was able to breed with elves, though kin, are not men. And even that was a rare event, as were the elf/human and half-elf/half-maia/human marriages. However, it did take place.

I do not see any credible interpretation of any passage of the Christian Bible where angelic beings crossbreed with humans. The Nephilim citation is the most oft presented, but there is much evidence that angel/human mixing is an incorrect reading of the passage.

Noncorporal beings do not breed with corporal beings in either world. Elves, therefore, must be somewhere in between corporal and spirit.

The Ainur and Maia appear to humans seemingly without prior consulting with the One. There are even examples where not all of the Ainur are on the same page (Ulmo talking to Tuor). Angels, however, are on a short leash and do the exact bidding of the Lord. Text that sounds like the angels disagreeing with God etc is just the way the writer anthropomorphizes the event, makes the story more readable and/or attempts to express the point that 'even the Angels did such and such' to demonstrate something of God (His mercy, restraint, etc).

And consider, exactly who documents conversations between angels and the Christian God?

[littlemanpoet]

Originally Posted by alatar

I do not see any credible interpretation of any passage of the Christian Bible where angelic beings crossbreed with humans. The Nephilim citation is the most oft presented, but there is much evidence that angel/human mixing is an incorrect reading of the passage.

However, Tolkien provided the answer by writing that the Valar who chose to enter Arda clothed themselves in forms befitting the Children of Ilúvatar. I think Tolkien got it right. The term "Nephilim" means 'Children of the Giants'. If you look elsewhere in the historic books of the OT, you discover many references to giants, such as the 'sons of Rafa'; Goliath; and many people living in Palestine (sorry for that anachronism but people understand that term better than Canaan) when the people of Israel spent 40 years tramping through the desert. So the angelic crossbreeding with humans is not so farfetched, and may in fact be closer to the truth (... and may explain to a large extent why Yahweh wanted Israel to kill off the people who lived there; that is, they were set in their ways evildoers who had placed themselves beyond redemption. But anyway....).

I think the angels had, and have, free will. Those who did not fall away earlier have no blinders on and can see the whole picture quite clearly, and know it would be abominably stupid to rebel against God.

The Ainur and Maia appear to humans seemingly without prior consulting with the One. There are even examples where not all of the Ainur are on the same page (Ulmo talking to Tuor). Angels, however, are on a short leash and do the exact bidding of the Lord. Text that sounds like the angels disagreeing with God etc is just the way the writer anthropomorphizes the event, makes the story more readable and/or attempts to express the point that 'even the Angels did such and such' to demonstrate something of God (His mercy, restraint, etc).

I find it interesting that Tolkien "cleaned up" some of these less savory (to moderns) aspects of the OT story.

And consider, exactly who documents conversations between angels and the Christian God?

Well, God. But now you're getting into the nature of divine revelation. Suffice it to say that God revealed to the prophets what He wanted them to write down.

[alatar]

Originally Posted by littlemanpoet

However, Tolkien provided the answer by writing that the Valar who chose to enter Arda clothed themselves in forms befitting the Children of Ilúvatar. I think Tolkien got it right. The term "Nephilim" means 'Children of the Giants'. If you look elsewhere in the historic books of the OT, you discover many references to giants, such as the 'sons of Rafa'; Goliath; and many people living in Palestine (sorry for that anachronism but people understand that term better than Canaan) when the people of Israel spent 40 years tramping through the desert. So the angelic crossbreeding with humans is not so farfetched, and may in fact be closer to the truth (... and may explain to a large extent why Yahweh wanted Israel to kill off the people who lived there; that is, they were set in their ways evildoers who had placed themselves beyond redemption. But anyway....).

I will continue to respectfully disagree.

• At a time when the average height may have been five feet (1.5 meter), seven feet (2.1), which we see even today, may have seemed to be gigantic. When I meet 'Merican football and basketball players, I feel dwarfed though I am over 2 meters in height. Anyway, I would have to see the bones to believe that actual giants existed. My point is that 'giants' can exist without the intervention of angels.

• Exactly how do angels mate with humans? As stated previously, one has physicality whereas the other does not. To tread more lightly, biologically speaking, do angels therefore have DNA? Or is some other mechanism available? Surely God is not limited by anything, by definition, but I would assume that either angels can natively mate with humans or can only do so at the behest of and with the aid of God. Again, if they can whenever they can, what stops the evil set from doing so? Can we detect those people who carry this bloodline? And, hopefully with much respect, why then is the birth of the Christ so special? My assumption is that taking a physical body is a rare event in Christian theology, as is angels mating with humans.

• Do we know if angels can 'cloak themselves in flesh?' I remember that there was an angel that wrestles with a human, and so I guess that it is possible, but yet again, why then is the Christ's physical resurrection so different? He asks his disciples to touch him, and He eats fish, all (I assume) to demonstrate evidence that He is not some wispy spirit but a physical object. There are examples where fallen angels inhabit a human, possessing the person as it where, but one of the same examples show the same demons asking permission to take up residence in a pig, which to me means that even the evil sort were not permitted to whatever they chose.

Again, I am no theologian and I do not intend any disrespect.

Anyway, I see no reason nor mechanism by which angels mate with humans. Tolkien explains how it works in ME, as stated, by having elves be the intermediary and, as you have stated, showing that these nonphysical beings take a physical form of their choosing in order to interact with the physical environment and beings therein. But does Tolkien have the equivalent, as you posit for the Christian world, spawn of the evil ones running around at any time? Melkor perverts the elves to beget orcs, yet I don't remember reading where Melkor or any on his side (like Sauron) mate with elves, men, dwarves etc.

Well, God. But now you're getting into the nature of divine revelation. Suffice it to say that God revealed to the prophets what He wanted them to write down.

Understood. My point is that these 'conversations' may not be what they appear, and that God is making some point by showing a 'discussion' is taking place. At times they are utilized as a literary device to have (I assume) a 'question and answer' theme, if that makes sense. And surely an omniscient omnipresent etc God has no 'need' for angels.