Eldest?

[Kuruharan]

And they were living things. They were created, and they themselves created. How, in every possible sense, could they not be living?

I think people are using it in the sense of biological life.

Here's a question. Were the bodies of the Valar, when they inhabited them, biologically alive?

Obviously the Istari were...

[ninja91]

In my opinion, yes, because they could think and have emotions. They moved and functioned, just like living things (besides plants) do.

[The Saucepan Man]

Is there perhaps a distinction to be made here between those beings who are "born" in Arda and those who reside or come from without?

[narfforc]

Maybe this is just one of those contradictions we will have to live with, for Tolkien has Bombadil calling himself Eldest, yet in a letter to Milton Waldman in 1951 he again says that the Ents are the oldest rational creatures. Now is there a distinction between creatures and peoples? Creature to me means something created/living being. So where does that leave Bombadil, has he not been created, or is he part of something else, like the Flame imperishable or Eru. Iluvatar placed the Flame Imperishable in the heart of Ea at the creation of the world, what else was there from the beginning, who came first and alone?

[Farael]

Originally Posted by Kuruharan

Here's a question. Were the bodies of the Valar, when they inhabited them, biologically alive?

Obviously the Istari were...

Don't quote me on this, but I believe the bodies of the Valar were not biologically alive when they 'inhabited' them. Unless we are talking about different things, I recall reading in The Sil or UT that the Valar could adopt a visible shape for the children of Eru to see, yet that was not like a real body (with the needs we all have) but rather a physical expression of a being that was beyond that.

That's why we have the distinction about the Istari, who were trully inhabiting human(oid) bodies and thus felt the same needs and feelings we do.

[Raynor]

I think Farael has a point; in the Annals of Aman, it is stated that:

Note that 'spouse' meant only an 'association'. The Valar had no bodies, but could assume shapes. After the coming of the Eldar they most often used shapes of 'human' form, though taller (not gigantic) and more magnificent.

while in letter #200, the bodies of the valar are stated to be analoguous to our clothes.

[A_Brandybuck]

It may be another case, because Melkor lost much power or rather gave it away. His body was biological at all thinking on the wounds, which he received from Fingolfin.

[Kuruharan]

I believe the bodies of the Valar were not biologically alive when they 'inhabited' them.

At one point I also held this opinion. However, I was eventually talked out of it. Unfortunately, it was a number of years ago and I don't remember exactly what made me change my mind (in fact I don't remember for sure who it was who changed my mind ). I just have a vague recollection of an altered conviction.

I think the argument ran something along the lines of, "If the bodies the Valar inhabited were capable of engaging in humanoid activity, then they had to have been biologically alive throughout. Even the Valar could engage in these activities without becoming permanently tied to their bodies." At least, I think that was how the argument ran.

[davem]

For the 'Tom is Tolkien' crew, a correspondent in the latest Amon Hen points out that two of his names, Forn & Orald are an anagram of 'For Ronald'.

For what's its worth....

[narfforc]

Well spotted Davem, got my Amon Hen this morning.