<font face="Verdana"><table><TR><TD><FONT SIZE="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
Pile o' Bones
Posts: 17</TD><TD></TD></TR></TABLE>
Re: Bye Bye Balrogs
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> If you mean that looking at Tolkien's works in a scholarly way, and trying to draw conclusions about them based on the available facts, is 'biased', you may not like this project very much.<hr></blockquote>
Isn't that exactly what I suggested be done?
Go back and actually do the research yourself, rather than build upon incorrect information.
I once read in a respected location that some chemical-imbalanced conclusion by someone that Balrogs were machines shows some of the scholarly approaches you suggest. On that point, you are correct, I would not like the project then under those circumstances.
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> In the post-LotR writings, the idea that Balrogs were ever created by Melkor is definitively abandoned.<hr></blockquote>
You're fixing again.
Quenta Silmarillion still holds that the were the first made of his creations. It even goes on to specify that they are Ealar-- not Maiar. Note the difference! Then there is a later term--Umaiar. Note the difference here also. Umaiar is not simply 'bad' Maiar. Christopher points to a reference point which shows the difference.
When you backtrack through the origins--this will begin to make more sense. If you want to start in the middle or the end of the origins you will not unlearn what you have learned.
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Again, a reference would be most appreciated.<hr></blockquote>
The bible. You've heard of that one before right?
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> Could you please make specific references rather than leaving us in the dark? What text in particular, did you examine to come to this conclusion?<hr></blockquote>
What point wasn't made clear. I examined them ALL. I don't pick and choose by what I think fits best.
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr> It sounds like you have some interesting ideas on this topic; that's why I'd like to see your specific proposal, and your sources.<hr></blockquote>
I suggest to HerenIstarion, since enough time has now gone by, to submit his conclusion. What he has read from me is either correct or the biggest load of garbage ever. Let him decide which extreme, or if necessary somewhere in the middle, is applied. Decide from that.
This still doesn't release you from the scholarly obligation of doing the research yourself on Balrogs instead of building on other perceptions.
<blockquote>
Quote:<hr>
re: A.K.
I think he probably would still maintain his position (which has some valid (if, IMO, unsupportable (in fuller context)) points).<hr></blockquote>
Valid?
This guy didn't even realize that you were talking of Elven Years. Did he even bother with the math there? 40 E.Y. = 5,760 Sun years, with his contention that elves didn't procreate until at least 3,500 years had passed shows that his figure is more strict than the 'average' OR that the unbegotten don't need 40-50 years, even though that's exactly what they got before Orome took away the volunteers. And the incredible logic of elves popping out kids every 40-50 sun years until the end of the world is laughable. 300 generations? That was utterly--well it was just--utterly. I could state more absurdities, but you already know them I think.
Of course he will maintain his position. Anything else is unacceptable to his perceptions and therefore preposterous.
</p>