LOTR Debate: Identity of Tom Bombadil

[Brickjectivity]

There are a couple of problems that Nerd of the Rings points out with saying he's a valar or a maiar. 1. Tom claims to be older than the world and the eldest, but the maiar enter the world after it exists. The first being sent to enter the world (by Eru) is Melchor. I can resolve these issues by identifying Bombadil as an avatar of Melchor.

I believe that Tolkien is in his Silmarillion addressing the problem of the existence of evil in Eru's creation. Why must evil exist? Eru tells Melchor that Melchor must descend into the creation to see the effects of the disharmony that he has made, but this seems paradoxical since Melchor goes into the world and begins to wreak havoc according to his own desires and not as someone watching them.

I think Tom Bombadil is an avatar of Melchor, but a part of Melchor which must watch the effects of the disharmony. Eru has told Melchor that he must observe the impact of his disharmony. Bombadil has said he is Eldest, thus identifying with Melchor who is the eldest. Bombadil is stronger than anyone yet unable to challenge Melchor nor Melchor to challenge him. They have a strange dissociation. They are like twins, but one is a watcher and the other a doer.

In addition it is said in the books that one day Melchor will be reunited with Eru. Bombadil as an avatar of Melchor is a good picture of this working. Bombadil is there to observer the effects of disharmony.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Yes, but i was determined, that made all the difference. Started at the beginning and read on to the end. (I have done it with 2 other versions of the bible too to compare, its quite surprising how different they are). I doubt many christians have read ever page of the bible

Yes, not many have.

Even less read each book like an ordinary book so that they understand the context. What they tend to do is randomly pick verses and take them out of context to create their own narrative.

This is why I end up getting into debates with Christians who refer to the Immanuel verse in Isaiah because I question the context and they end up jumping around all over the chapters, making random connections.

I have read certain books of the Bible multiple times, such as Genesis, Ecclesiastes, Revelations, and Romans. I can't stand reading the begats so I skip that.

The books do tend to be quite different probably because different translators want to adapt it to their own theology or understanding of the book. Dunno why there are so many english translations apart from this though. Probably to make money.

But damn, that is some determination you have there.

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, not many have.

Even less read each book like an ordinary book so that they understand the context. What they tend to do is randomly pick verses and take them out of context to create their own narrative.

This is why I end up getting into debates with Christians who refer to the Immanuel verse in Isaiah because I question the context and they end up jumping around all over the chapters, making random connections.

I have read certain books of the Bible multiple times, such as Genesis, Ecclesiastes, Revelations, and Romans. I can't stand reading the begats so I skip that.

The books do tend to be quite different probably because different translators want to adapt it to their own theology or understanding of the book. Dunno why there are so many english translations apart from this though. Probably to make money.

But damn, that is some determination you have there.

The jumping around is a good description, i have spoken to Christians who would need a time machine to make their beliefs fit the bible

 

[Samael_Khan]

The jumping around is a good description, i have spoken to Christians who would need a time machine to make their beliefs fit the bible

I have a nagging feeling that belief comes first and the book itself is an afterthought, only serving as a validation to believers that their beliefs are entrenched in history to some extent. Believers are either raised in a certain Christian tribe which their faith is based on or they have an emotional attachment to a specific message from a certain group or a specific cult of personality, all of which are their true basis of belief. That is why most cherry-pick proof texts to validate their specific set of beliefs. Reading the bible might then be too intimidating, because the possibility of realizing that ones beliefs are not present in the holy book will render their faith futile. Nobody wants to know that they have dedicated their life to a lie.

So the jumping around and cherry-picking is to save their faith. I know people who love reading the bible, but when I say that they are contradicting the bible when they want to be female pastors, be homosexual and have a liberal view towards sex, they no longer like talking to me. Ironically the people who like to talk to me about the bible are the not easily offended fundamentalists who actually enjoy studying the bible.