Did Galadriel originally have black hair?
Terry
Feanor's hair is referred to as raven-dark in the Silmarillion
"He was tall, and fair of face, and masterful, his eyes piercingly
bright and his hair raven-dark;..."
This is sort of a movie inspired question from a casual fan, sorry.
The question about Saruman's hair color reminded me that I wondered
about the choice of hair color for the elves of different lineage.
Specifically, Legolas and Galadreil are represented as angelic blondes
but Elrond and his family have dark hair, either black or very dark
brown.
It makes sense to me that Galadreil's folk would be of angelic
appearance since they had lived in the lights of the undying lands,
with angels, so to speak. Elrond, OTOH, while being partly divine and
descendent of a nominal member of the elves of light, was not of the
elves that lived in Valinor and was not touched by the lights of that
place. So it makes sense to me that his appearance is less angelic.
If my supposing is even close to right it raises for me the question
of Legolas' angelic appearance in the recent movies and also in the
Ralph Baski film. But Legolas does not have the same background as
Galadriel and her people, but by appearance he could be a member of
that crowd. Why? As best I understand his family never traveled to
Valinor and in fact did an about face to live with the elves in
Mirkwood (elves of darkness?), who apparently were not involved with
the journey to Valinor and had nothing to do with the Silmarils. So
no connection to the lights of the undying lands.
With respect to the quote, it seems to me that Feanor would have an
appearance more angelic even than Galadriel, as would be appropriate
for one who would fall from the greatest height and who was so deeply
influenced by the light of the undying lands.
Ok, enough of my idle speculation. Please, someone enlighten me on
this matter. Am I completely out to lunch here?
Thanks,
--Terry
Bill O'Meally
"Terry" <NTuse...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:55ea4867.03072...@posting.google.com...
> We have a quote:
>
> Feanor's hair is referred to as raven-dark in the Silmarillion
> "He was tall, and fair of face, and masterful, his eyes piercingly
> bright and his hair raven-dark;..."
>
> This is sort of a movie inspired question from a casual fan, sorry.
> The question about Saruman's hair color reminded me that I wondered
> about the choice of hair color for the elves of different lineage.
> Specifically, Legolas and Galadreil are represented as angelic blondes
> but Elrond and his family have dark hair, either black or very dark
> brown.
<snip>
Angelic nature (ie., of the race of the Ainur, *not* Elves or
Half-elven) has nothing to do with hair color. Galadriel was of the line
of Finarfin, who have golden hair as a family trait.
--
Bill
"Wise fool"
Gandalf, THE TWO TOWERS
ste...@nomail.com
: In article <9oyVa.58321$6a3.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
: Bill O'Meally <OMea...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
:>
:>Angelic nature (ie., of the race of the Ainur, *not* Elves or
:>Half-elven) has nothing to do with hair color. Galadriel was of the line
:>of Finarfin, who have golden hair as a family trait.
: And her husband's hair was silver. Legolas, in the movie, has "peroxide
: blonde" hair, not quite colorless; what was his hair color in the book?
: The movie also had a red-haired elf in the leave-taking scene at Rivendell
: (extended edition only, I think); is there any basis in Tolkien for
: Elvish redheads?
Yes. Feanor's wife, his wife's husband, and two of his children
were redheads.
Stephen
Chocoholic
"Paul Ciszek" <pci...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:bg6fsg$h8c$1...@pcls4.std.com...
> In article <9oyVa.58321$6a3.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>,
> Bill O'Meally <OMea...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> >Half-elven) has nothing to do with hair color. Galadriel was of the line
> >of Finarfin, who have golden hair as a family trait.
>
> blonde" hair, not quite colorless; what was his hair color in the book?
> The movie also had a red-haired elf in the leave-taking scene at Rivendell
> (extended edition only, I think); is there any basis in Tolkien for
> Elvish redheads?
>
Oddly enough for such a major character, Legolas' hair color is never
explicitly given in LotR. We are forced to guess, although Thranduil's hair
is said to be blond in the Hobbit so that gives a good chance for Leglas to
also be blond.
I don't recall if any Elves were said to be red-haired in Tolkien's own
writings.
Terry
>
> Angelic nature (ie., of the race of the Ainur, *not* Elves or
> Half-elven) has nothing to do with hair color. Galadriel was of the line
> of Finarfin, who have golden hair as a family trait.
OK, thanks.
So, aside from the halo how did the elves of light appear differently
than the grey elves or the elves of darkness? Was it just a matter of
dress, mannerisms, and language, or were there some other changes that
marked the elves returning from Valinor from those who remained?
--Terry
Luminaria
"Paul Ciszek" <pci...@TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:bg6fsg$h8c$1...@pcls4.std.com...
> >
> >Angelic nature (ie., of the race of the Ainur, *not* Elves or
> >Half-elven) has nothing to do with hair color. Galadriel was of the line
> >of Finarfin, who have golden hair as a family trait.
>
A couple months back re-read the Unfinished Tales, which seem to place
Gandalf as an angel - wait! Hear me out! I vaguely remember something about
the 5 wizards being sent out "in human form" - Christopher Tolkein's notes
indicate that his father noted that their powers would be lessened because
they had to take on human form. They were sent out by Manwë, and the way
it's described, they do sound like conceptualizatoins of angels...
anyway.... ummm... back to hair color - should Gandalf have dyed his, to
match his angelic nature? [d&r]
Lis
Conrad Dunkerson
> Yes. Feanor's wife, his wife's husband, and two of his children
> were redheads.
Err... his wife's FATHER had red hair (and beard). Feanor's wife's
husband was... Feanor. :]
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net (Conrad Dunkerson) wrote:
this week on oprah
Conrad Dunkerson
> Specifically, Legolas and Galadreil are represented as angelic blondes
> but Elrond and his family have dark hair, either black or very dark
> brown.
Group Hair Color
Noldor Black / Dark brown
Vanyar Golden
Teler Brown to Black
Teleri Royal House Silver
These are 'general rules'. The exceptions indicated in the texts are;
Luthien: A Telerin royal with black hair - presumably from her mother
Melian the Maia.
Mahtan, Nerdanel, Amrod, Amras and Maedhros: Noldor with red hair
(though Amrod's darkened with age). Mahtan was the original anomally
and the others all inherited it from him.
Thranduil & Legolas (debated): Teleri with blond hair... though the
references to Legolas's hair color are unclear. It could be anything
from blond to black depending on interpretation.
Miriel: Noldo? with silver hair. It is possible that Miriel was not
always accounted a Noldo.
Idril, Glorfindel, Celegorm, Finarfin, Galadriel, Finrod, Finduilas,
Aegnor: Noldor with golden hair. Idril and Finarfin each inherited
this trait from a Vanyar mother. Celegorm is only said to have golden
hair in some passages and there is no apparent source for it. We
don't know anything about Glorfindel's parentage with which to
determine where he got it. The others all inherited the trait from
Finarfin.
Bill O'Meally
"coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges"
<mair_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:mair_fheal-30...@c112.ppp.tsoft.com...
More like Jerry Springer.
Robert J. Kolker
Terry wrote:
> With respect to the quote, it seems to me that Feanor would have an
> appearance more angelic even than Galadriel, as would be appropriate
> for one who would fall from the greatest height and who was so deeply
> influenced by the light of the undying lands.
What is with you people and blonde angels. There are bald angels too.
Bob Kolker
AC
They are angels. The Istari were Maiar, the people of the Valar (you might
call the Valar gods, though properly they are Powers, who are the governors
of the world). The Istari and Valar are Ainur, angelic beings made by Eru
before the creation of the world. The Balrog in Moria and Sauron are also
Maiar.
--
Aaron Clausen
ste...@nomail.com
: ste...@nomail.com wrote in message news:<bg6jnr$2fsf$1...@msunews.cl.msu.edu>...
oops. :) You know what I meant.
Stephen
Stan Brown
>A couple months back re-read the Unfinished Tales, which seem to place
>Gandalf as an angel - wait! Hear me out!
Do you actually think anyone is going to disagree? Tolkien
repeatedly refers to Gandalf and the other Istari in this way.
Natively the Istari (Eng. "Wizards") were Maiar, angelic spirits
that existed before the Solar System was created. They were of the
same order as the Valar, but of lower degree.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Terry
Big help in answering my question.
conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net (Conrad Dunkerson) wrote in message news:<1178b6d1.03073...@posting.google.com>...
Terry
remarked that they should be called "angels" because of their golden
hair. That as got to be true ... I read it somewhere. The angels in
my Christmas ornaments seem to bear out this description.
However I also heard that cherubs used to be fearsome creatures, part
lion and part eagle with a human head, rather than the cubby children
we see on Valentine's day. Perhaps some of them were bald?
-Terry
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<n_QVa.19852$o%2.10359@sccrnsc02>...
Conrad Dunkerson
> A couple months back re-read the Unfinished Tales, which seem to place
> Gandalf as an angel - wait! Hear me out!
Heh... it isn't as radical a suggestion as you seem to think;
"I wd. venture to say that he [Gandalf] was an incarnate 'angel' -
strictly an <'messenger' in Greek>: that is, with the other Istari,
wizards, 'those who know', an emissary from the Lords of the West,
sent to Middle-earth as the great crisis of Sauron loomed on the
horizon. ...
Why they should take such a form is bound up with the 'mythology'
of the 'angelic' Powers of the world in this fable. ...
He [Gandalf] is still under the obligation of concealing his power
and of teaching rather than forcing or dominating wills, but where the
physical powers of the Enemy are too great for the good will of the
opposers to be effective he can act in emergency as an 'angel' - no
more violently than the release of St Peter from prison."
JRRT, Letters #156
Gorbag
> I seem to remember that on viewing some Angles Saint Augustine
> remarked that they should be called "angels" because of their golden
> hair. That as got to be true ... I read it somewhere. The angels in
> my Christmas ornaments seem to bear out this description.
>
> However I also heard that cherubs used to be fearsome creatures, part
> lion and part eagle with a human head, rather than the cubby children
> we see on Valentine's day. Perhaps some of them were bald?
More than you want to know:
http://www.sarahsarchangels.com/archangels/9orders.html
Note the parallels to the Tolkien order of characters; AIR he was Roman
Catholic...
Terry
> On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 04:42:38 -0400,
> Luminaria <lan...@rcn.DOTcom> wrote:
> >
> > it's described, they do sound like conceptualizatoins of angels...
> > anyway.... ummm... back to hair color - should Gandalf have dyed his, to
> > match his angelic nature? [d&r]
>
> They are angels. The Istari were Maiar, the people of the Valar (you might
> call the Valar gods, though properly they are Powers, who are the governors
> of the world). The Istari and Valar are Ainur, angelic beings made by Eru
> before the creation of the world. The Balrog in Moria and Sauron are also
> Maiar.
If they actually are angels is it redundant to describe them as
angelic, being like an angel? If the Maiar actually are angels then
they cannot come to have some angel like qualities say, by living
among angels and being affected by the properties of the undying
lands.
--Terry
AC
This sounds a lot like nit-picking. We call them Ainur, and the best
approximation to Judeao-Christian tradition is "angel". Thus, the Ainur are
"angelic beings".
As to Undying Lands effect on them, as the Numenoreans were told, it is
those that dwell in the Undying Lands that make it deathless, and not the
other way around.
--
Aaron Clausen
Robert J. Kolker
AC wrote:
>
> This sounds a lot like nit-picking. We call them Ainur, and the best
> approximation to Judeao-Christian tradition is "angel". Thus, the Ainur are
> "angelic beings".
In Judeo Christian usage angels are messengers and errand boys. They
have no will of their own and only carry out tasks. Like robots.
Bob Kolker
AC
I don't suppose you could quote the Biblical passages where angels are
described in this fashion. They do serve as messengers, but I don't recall
any verse that describes them as having no will of their own. Perhaps you
would be so kind as to help me out.
--
Aaron Clausen
ste...@nomail.com
: On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:13:49 GMT,
: I don't suppose you could quote the Biblical passages where angels are
: described in this fashion. They do serve as messengers, but I don't recall
: any verse that describes them as having no will of their own. Perhaps you
: would be so kind as to help me out.
: --
: Aaron Clausen
They clearly do have a will of their own as some chose to rebel.
Stephen
Robert J. Kolker
AC wrote:
> I don't suppose you could quote the Biblical passages where angels are
> described in this fashion. They do serve as messengers, but I don't recall
> any verse that describes them as having no will of their own. Perhaps you
> would be so kind as to help me out.
Rabbinical midrash (commentary).
See (for example)
http://www.torah.org/learning/iyov/iyov24.html
Or Google on angels free will malachim
Malach is the hebrew word for angel and it means messenger or errand boy
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
ste...@nomail.com wrote:
> They clearly do have a will of their own as some chose to rebel.
Nowhere in scripture is this the case. This is part of the Christian
angelology and has no scrptural basis whatsoever. For genuine poop on
angels see the rabbinic midrashim.
The only time Satan is mentioned is in the book of Ayob (Job) and he is
more of an advisor to G-D in that he suggests tests and procedures.
Bob Kolker
ste...@nomail.com
: ste...@nomail.com wrote:
: Bob Kolker
You said Judeo Christian, not Judaic. Christian beliefs, and Tolkien's,
hold that angels had free will and were capable of rebelling.
Stephen
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>
>
What about Zechariah and Revelation?
--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: haye...@yahoo.com
Web: http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
> AC <maureen-t...@alberni.net> wrote:
> : On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:13:49 GMT,
> : Robert J. Kolker <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote:
> :> In Judeo Christian usage angels are messengers and errand boys. They
> :> have no will of their own and only carry out tasks. Like robots.
>
> : I don't suppose you could quote the Biblical passages where angels are
> : described in this fashion. They do serve as messengers, but I don't recall
> : any verse that describes them as having no will of their own. Perhaps you
> : would be so kind as to help me out.
its not clear one way or another
in the canon angels show up regularly
and on specific errands
its not clear if they have independent wills like humans
or if they are just the will of god made visible
much of the angellore comes from outside the bible
> They clearly do have a will of their own as some chose to rebel.
did they?
thats not part of universal canon
Tar-Elenion
> In article <1178b6d1.03073...@posting.google.com>,
> Feanor's father-in-law have been old enough at the time (noontime of
> Valinor) to have a beard?
According to JRRT he (Feanor's father-in-law) had a beard, though it was
unusual, as he was only in his 'second cycle of life', and Elves
generally did not grow beards until their third cycle.
There is no (published) information on 'Elvish 'cycles of life'.
--
Tar-Elenion
Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.
Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.
ste...@nomail.com
:> They clearly do have a will of their own as some chose to rebel.
: did they?
: thats not part of universal canon
What universal canon are you referring to? It is part of
most Christian canon. The fallen angels are all the angels
who rebelled against God.
Stephen
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
probably the same canon every other christian books
the canonical bible not including the apocrypha
Conrad Dunkerson
> The only time Satan is mentioned is in the book of Ayob (Job) and he is
> more of an advisor to G-D in that he suggests tests and procedures.
And he did so as a robot without any free will of his own?
Interesting.
Donald Shepherd
<conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> alleged...
Now I've got a weird image of Asimov as God and R. Daneel as Jesus.
ObTolkien: What would Tolkien's stance on human-like robots be? :)
--
Donald Shepherd
<donald_shepherd @ hotmail . com>
"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open
sewer and die." - Mel Brooks
Terry
>
> As to Undying Lands effect on them, as the Numenoreans were told, it is
> those that dwell in the Undying Lands that make it deathless, and not the
> other way around.
Yet the high elves, those who had lived in the undying lands, had a
sort of a halo:
　　"The hobbits sat in shadow by the wayside. Before long
the Elves came down the lane towards the valley. They passed slowly,
and the hobbits could see the starlight glimmering on their hair and
in their eyes. They bore no lights, yet as they walked a shimmer, like
the light of the moon above the rim of the hills before it rises,
seemed to fall about their feet. They were now silent, and as the last
Elf passed he turned and looked towards the hobbits and laughed. "
- J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring, Chapter III
Where did this shimmer come from? I thought it was an effect of
living in proximity of the two trees.
Was it rather the result of eye makeup and hair products?
--Terry
treebe...@baggins.com
<bobk...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>In Judeo Christian usage angels are messengers and errand boys. They
>have no will of their own and only carry out tasks. Like robots.
>
>Bob Kolker
>
Sombody obviously forgot to forward that memo to Lucifer.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Jim Deutch
>"Bill O'Meally" <OMea...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message news:<9oyVa.58321$6a3.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com>...
>>
>> Angelic nature (ie., of the race of the Ainur, *not* Elves or
>> Half-elven) has nothing to do with hair color. Galadriel was of the line
>> of Finarfin, who have golden hair as a family trait.
>
>OK, thanks.
>So, aside from the halo how did the elves of light appear differently
>than the grey elves or the elves of darkness? Was it just a matter of
>dress, mannerisms, and language, or were there some other changes that
>marked the elves returning from Valinor from those who remained?
Uh, no halo. Where'd you get the idea of a halo? Just a subtle
"light" in their eyes, for those to see who could. (Not a
glow-in-the-dark kind of thing like Gollum.)
The main differences were that Elves who returned from Valinor had
greater understanding, power, and nobility than those who never saw
the light of the trees. Exactly the nature of that power is never
made explicit.
Jim Deutch
--
I used to be an agnostic, but now I'm not so sure.
Conrad Dunkerson
> ObTolkien: What would Tolkien's stance on human-like robots be? :)
Well, some of his theories on the nature of the Orcs were along
similar lines... as were the Dwarves before Eru gave them true life.
From those examples we might deduce that he would consider 'androids'
to be pale soulless imitations, but that relies on a number of
perceptual parallels and assumptions which could well be incorrect.
Terry
"The hobbits sat in shadow by the wayside. Before long the Elves came
down the lane towards the valley. They passed slowly, and the hobbits
could see the starlight glimmering on their hair and in their eyes.
They bore no lights, yet as they walked a shimmer, like the light of
the moon above the rim of the hills before it rises, seemed to fall
about their feet. They were now silent, and as the last Elf passed he
turned and looked towards the hobbits and laughed. "
- The Fellowship of the Ring, Chapter III
A "starlight glimmering on their hair" and "shimmer like the light of
the moon" surrounding the Elves sounds a little like the sub-lime
light representing the influence of the holy spirit on saints in
religious icons. The sub-lime light is also represented as a halo
when there thought to be a need for a source for the light.
The thought of the high elves (and not other elves) being blonde comes
from mis remembering the "starlight glimmering on their hair" as a
golden glimmering. In a movie how would you represent hair with a
golden glimmering? Possibly by presenting the elves of light as
platinum blondes and others as not so blonde ... so I found myself
wondering how did Legolas come by the same golden glimmering as
Galadriel.
We have a reference from another thread to the influence of living in
the West, or of being indirectly affected through an artifact from the
West:
"Important note: But Elwing, Earendil, and both of their sons were all
exposed to the LIGHT of the Two Trees captured in the Silmaril. So
they were all 'Caliquendi' (At least Elros was until he chose
mortality). A fair number of mortal Men must have also been exposed to
it at this time, and it must have left it's mark on the Numenoreans.
Just a thought on something that few people seem to notice..."
How would you go about representing "understanding, power, and
nobility" in a visual medium? Well, we know that "understanding,
power, and nobility" need have no visual representation ("mark") but
sometimes artists try to express these qualities of their subjects
visually. Some attempts in this direction are presenting the subject
in sub-lime light (halos) or by making the subject beautiful. To
portray the reverse of these qualities the subject is presented in
darkness or as ugly.
Tolkien used such devices constantly, with the notable exception of
Frodo's backhanded evaluation of Strider's looks (Strider did not
"look the fairer and feel the fouler"). Thus my thinking that the
Elves who returned from Valinor must have had the "mark" (represented
visually) of having lived in the undying lands, a mark not shared by
Legolas.
Anyhow, once again, I'm presenting a movie inspired question from a
casual fan, so sorry for my lack of a scholarly approach to the
matter. So many posters here enjoy explaining Tolkien to the very
least detail so I reasoned that no one would be really put out by a
question from a casual fan. I don't think it is one of those dreaded
frequently asked questions.
--Terry
Öjevind Lång
news:1178b6d1.03073...@posting.google.com...
That didn't keep him from enjoying Isaac Asimov's stories, though.
Öjevind
Luminaria
"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>
> Do you actually think anyone is going to disagree?
Sorry - everyone seems to yell about everything these days. Some days I
would hesitate to mention that the sky is blue...
Lis
Luminaria
>
> did they?
> thats not part of universal canon
As another writer asked, whose "universal canon"? In the Christian canon,
angels rebelled. Who was St. Michael the Archangel fighting then?
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<lan...@rcn.DOTcom> wrote:
universal canon is the canon that is universal among all christian
some sects include additional books like apocrypha or lds
but what they do agree on is the old and new testament
Robert J. Kolker
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges wrote:
> universal canon is the canon that is universal among all christian
> some sects include additional books like apocrypha or lds
> but what they do agree on is the old and new testament
The Hebrew Scriptures are common to all the Judeo-Christian sects. The
angelology therein is sparse. Most angels (malakhim or messengers) are
seen in visions or dreams e.g. jacob and the ladder, bilam the angel and
bilam's ass, and of course jacob's wrestling partner. Abraham and Lot
saw their malakhim awake. In these cases the malakhim were just
messenger boys and errand runners. They did not exhibit any initiative.
The seraphim mentioned in Isahiah are elements of a vision and not
players. Even in the Passover, the death angel is carrying out an
errand, and not acting on his own initiative. He was programmed to look
for houses without a blood mark on the lintel. If found, go in, slay
first born male if any. Very programatic.
There is nothing in the Hebrew scriptures that suggests a "palace
revolt" lead by Uriel (Lucifer). Even in the Book of Job the Satan
(adversary) does his task by giving poor Job a hard time. He does what
he was hired to do. Again, no free will, no initiative.
On the other hand, the very Evil Angel in Tolkien is none other than
Melkor/Morgoth. A case of ego run amok, and determined to rule or ruin
Middle Earth. It is interesting to note that Eru does nothing to stop
him. Eru could have, but He does not. Eru has another agenda altogether.
My conjecture is that Eru is doing creative destruction, with the end
being more perfect by virtue of all the destruction in the beginning.
God works in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform.
The model of evil angel in LOTR and the Sil is closer to Christian
angelology than that implied in the Hebrew scriptures. In the Sil Melkor
is the numero uno Bad Guy. In LOTR, is is Melkor's flunky Sauron who
does the dishonors.
Bob Kolker
Marie-Lan Nguyen
<mair_fheal-31...@c114.ppp.tsoft.com> scripsit:
>
> universal canon is the canon that is universal among all christian
> some sects include additional books like apocrypha or lds but what
> they do agree on is the old and new testament
There is no universal canon among all Christians that I know
of. Catholics and Orthodoxs use the Septuagint canon, whereas
Protestants use the Massoretic canon (which is the Jewish canon,
Tanakh) plus the New Testament. The Septuagint Bible is the the
Massoretic canon plus NT, plus apocryphal/deuterocanonic books, such
as the books of Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Maccabees 1 and 2, etc.
--
Marie-Lan Nguyen
+++ Divide By Cucumber Error. Please Reinstall Universe And Reboot +++
(Terry Pratchett, Hogfather)
<http://www.pip-pip.org/>
Conrad Dunkerson
> How would you go about representing "understanding, power, and
> nobility" in a visual medium?
Well, Jackson did it by putting a special effects 'glow' about them...
as seen when Arwen first shows up, a couple of times with Galadriel,
and (on the extended version) with the elves the hobbits saw in the
Shire.
Conrad Dunkerson
> That didn't keep him from enjoying Isaac Asimov's stories, though.
True, though I don't think we know exactly which 'Azimov' books
Tolkien read. Were there any that DIDN'T include robots? :)
Conrad Dunkerson
> Sorry - everyone seems to yell about everything these days. Some days I
> would hesitate to mention that the sky is blue...
What!?
Don't be ridiculous. I'm looking outside this very moment and I can
tell you that the sky is most certainly black... with little bits of
light here and there.
Blue! Ha! What nonsense.
:]
Conrad Dunkerson
> There is nothing in the Hebrew scriptures that suggests a "palace
> revolt" lead by Uriel (Lucifer).
There is nothing in the Hebrew scriptures to suggest a connection
between Uriel and Lucifer (who, in point of fact... doesn't exist in
Hebrew scriptures). That said, it was my understanding that the ideas
of a 'war in heaven' and 'an underworld where the wicked suffer for
eternity' go back to pre-Christian times and indeed were part of the
genesis of Christian thought.
> Even in the Book of Job the Satan (adversary) does his task by giving poor
> Job a hard time. He does what he was hired to do. Again, no free will, no
> initiative.
This seems an excessively 'forced' interpretation to me. Job shows
Satan asking questions of God. Even going so far as to contradict God
about Job's 'perfect faithfulness';
"And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job,
that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright
man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?
Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?
Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about
all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his
hands, and his substance is increased in the land.
But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will
curse thee to thy face."
Job 1.8-11
That's a robot with no free will or initiative? If so, then the same
can be said for any of us.
> It is interesting to note that Eru does nothing to stop him. Eru could
> have, but He does not.
Sort of. I'd say rather that Eru did no more than he HAD to in order
to stop Melkor. He allowed the Valar and Eruhini to deal with things
up to the level of their ability, and only stepped in when their
ability to solve a problem did not equal their will to do so.
> The model of evil angel in LOTR and the Sil is closer to Christian
> angelology than that implied in the Hebrew scriptures.
Certainly true... since that is precisely what they were intended to
'parallel'.
Donald Shepherd
<conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> alleged...
I can't remember too many, if any, in the initial Foundation books,
though I'm prepared to be proven wrong.
Öjevind Lång
Heh. I don't recall them being mentioned in the Foundation trilogy. And he
might have enjoyed short stories like the masterly "Gentle Vultures" or "The
Ugly Little Boy".
Hmm... I feel like posting another "quotes from other fantasy and sf"
quiz. How do you feel about that?
Öjevind
Jussi Jaatinen
Paul Ciszek wrote:
> This is usually interpreted as Angels f*cking human women, as an elective,
> extra-curricular activity and not under orders from God. What is your
> take on it?
There's an often-quoted passage in the Bible according to which angels
don't have sex, in either of the meanings of the word. It goes along the
lines of "They are not men and women, but are as angels in heaven".
-JJ
coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges
<donald_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 1 Aug 2003 02:04:07 -0700, Conrad Dunkerson
> <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> alleged...
> > "Öjevind Lång" <ojevin...@swipnet.se> wrote in message
news:<KfhWa.2285$Y5....@nntpserver.swip.net>...
> >
> > > That didn't keep him from enjoying Isaac Asimov's stories, though.
> >
> > True, though I don't think we know exactly which 'Azimov' books
> > Tolkien read. Were there any that DIDN'T include robots? :)
>
> I can't remember too many, if any, in the initial Foundation books,
> though I'm prepared to be proven wrong.
the foundation and robots were originally separate stories
it was later in his life that he crossed them over
the softrat
(Conrad Dunkerson) wrote:
Yes. Many. (cf "Nightfall and other stories")
the softrat ==> Careful!
I have a hug and I know how to use it!
mailto:sof...@pobox.com
--
Mind Like A Steel Trap - Rusty And Illegal In 37 States.
Eirene
have.
Chapter VII, paragraph 10 in Fellowship of the Rings (Mirror of
Galadriel) says:
"...the hair of the Lady (Galadriel) was of deep gold, and the hair of
the Lord Celeborn was of silver..."
Chaper XII (FotR), Flight to the Ford, (p.204 in Collins Modern
Classics edition 2001) says of Glorfindel:
"...his golden hair flowed shimmering in the wind of his speed."
No mention is made of Legolas' hair at all, only reference to Frodo
looking up at him, but it was during the night-time (chaper IX FotR-
The Great River (p.378):
"His head was dark, crowned with sharp white stars that glittered in
the black pools of the sky behind."
I have heard that Thranduil was golden haired - so maybe Legolas was
too.
I wonder though, no real strong reference is made of Legolas' hair
colour throughout all the three books - yet reference is made to
Glorfindel and Galadriel as golden haired on our very first meeting
with them. Maybe Legolas' hair is "dark" as seen in the night-time
scene with Frodo. If his hair was golden, perhaps the stars would not
glitter so behind his head.
I thought he was a Sindaran elf, as Thranduil is - isn't he? - altho I
do seem to remember he did say he was Silvan at some stage (as someone
said in an earlier post) Legolas goes on and on about how the elves
of Northern Mirkwood originally came from Lothlorien.
It is amusing to think, that Legolas may well have been dark haired,
and they had a dark haired actor play him - yet they transformed him
into a golden-haired blue-eyed, pale faced elf (mind you - he is very
beautiful as such)
Alex
Taemon
> Hmm... I feel like posting another "quotes from other fantasy and sf"
> quiz. How do you feel about that?
Yes!
Greetings, T.
Paul S. Person
<snippo>
>Well, my english translation (supposedly directly from the oldest available
>Hebrew texts to contemporary American english) of Genesis chapter 6 begins:
>
>When men began to multiply on earth and daughters were born to them,
>the sons of heaven saw how beautiful the daughters of man were, and so
>they took for their wives as many of them as they chose.
>Then the LORD said: "My spirit shall not remain in man forever, since he
>is but flesh. His days shall comprise one hundred and twenty years."
>At that time the Nephilim appeared on earth (as well as later), after
>the sons of heaven had intercourse with the daughters of man, who bore
>them sons. They were the heroes of old, the men of renown.
>
>This is usually interpreted as Angels f*cking human women, as an elective,
>extra-curricular activity and not under orders from God. What is your
>take on it?
Revving up the Bible Library CD-ROM, the Gray Home Bible Commentary
reports that
"Some think the Sethites are meant by 'the sons of God,' but others
regard it as a reference to fallen angels ..."
It also cites works purporting to give /scientific/ evidence for the
view that they were "fallen angels", which seems unlikely. Since the
Nephilim were "giants", perhaps archaeological evidence of really tall
people is meant. Of course, in ancient Palestine, six feet might be
considered "really tall", for all I know.
The /Interpreter's Bible/ commentary appears to be above such issues,
apparently being written on the theory that a commentary need not
concern itself with the meaning of the passage concerned, but the
exposition asks
"Were the sons of God rebellious and fallen agels, as Milton conceived
them in /Paradise Lost/?"
an indication of the age of this belief.
The /Britannica 2002/ reminds us that this is an area where Judaism
and Christianity were heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism. There are,
of course, no Zoroastrian holy books (as opposed to books influenced
by Zoroastrianism) in the Bible, thus explaining the difficulty in
finding a Biblical basis for the Zoroastrian viewpoint.
The issue of "angels" was (when I subscribed, some years ago)
discussed a lot on other usenet groups (alt.bible being the most
obvious). An enormous amount of Biblical material was stretched,
twisted and deformed to meet whatever version of angelology /
demonology is being defended. The "sons of God are angels" theory is
one example. The "Lucifer" passage in one of the prophets is another
often applied to Satan yet also said to be, in context, referring to a
human monarch. Another example is the Cherub set to guard the Garden
of Eden: some count it as an angel (a specific "order" of angel) --
and yet "cherub" and "gryphon" are one and the same thing, what Graves
called a "calendar beast", symbolizing the seasons of the sacred year.
The passage in Paul which scholars think actually /is/ a list of
angelic orders (thrones, dominions, etc) does not usually appear in
these discussions because these amateur angelologists (as it were)
tend to interpret it as referring to ordinary human power structures.
However, I have to agree that reducing angels, who if nothing else are
God's messengers, to the status of robot is ... bizarre. And unlikely
to be correct. Even the film /Dogma/ (which may be considered the very
definition of blasphemy) only gives one choice that angels are unable
to make -- the choice of ignoring God.
--
You are not being ignored! With rare exceptions:
I download on Saturdays. I upload on Sundays. Patience is a virtue
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>The issue of "angels" was (when I subscribed, some years ago)
>discussed a lot on other usenet groups (alt.bible being the most
>obvious). An enormous amount of Biblical material was stretched,
>twisted and deformed to meet whatever version of angelology /
>demonology is being defended. The "sons of God are angels" theory is
>one example. The "Lucifer" passage in one of the prophets is another
>often applied to Satan yet also said to be, in context, referring to a
>human monarch. Another example is the Cherub set to guard the Garden
>of Eden: some count it as an angel (a specific "order" of angel) --
>and yet "cherub" and "gryphon" are one and the same thing, what Graves
>called a "calendar beast", symbolizing the seasons of the sacred year.
>The passage in Paul which scholars think actually /is/ a list of
>angelic orders (thrones, dominions, etc) does not usually appear in
>these discussions because these amateur angelologists (as it were)
>tend to interpret it as referring to ordinary human power structures.
>
>However, I have to agree that reducing angels, who if nothing else are
>God's messengers, to the status of robot is ... bizarre. And unlikely
>to be correct. Even the film /Dogma/ (which may be considered the very
>definition of blasphemy) only gives one choice that angels are unable
>to make -- the choice of ignoring God.
Going back to the beginning of the thread, it seems that confusion entered
when someone used the term "Judaeo-Christian". The confusion arises from
differing conceptions of angels in Judaism and Christianity. I believe the
term Judaeo-Christian was coined by American sociologists (I could be wrong
about that), and it can be misleading when applied to theology.
Tolkien (and C.S. Lewis, with his "eldila") both developed imaginary creatures
in their fiction that were based on the Christian, rather than the Jewish
conception of angels, though they did not use the word "angel" to describe
them. Their fellow Inkling, Charles Williams, was more explicit in mentioning
the "Dionysian Nine".
In Christian theology "angel" is used in two senses - to refer to the lowest
order of the nine, and also, more loosely, to refer to all nine orders.
The thrones, dominions rulers and authorities surely refer to *both* human
power structures and their angelic counterparts, which are closely linked (see
G.B. Caird, "Principalities and powers", and the works of people like Walter
wink). This lay behind the Roman civil religion of emperor worship and the
institution of divine kingship, and is reflected in Old Testament passages
like Psalm 81/82, and Deuteronomy 32:8-9.
I don't know whether one could find exact weuivalents between the Valar,
Maiar, Istari etc and the Dionysian Nine (even Williams shuffled them around),
but for Tolkien they are clearly divided into different orders.
--
Steve Hayes
E-mail: haye...@yahoo.com
Web: http://www.geocities.com/hayesstw/stevesig.htm
Nystulc
>I don't know whether one could find exact weuivalents between the Valar,
>Maiar, Istari etc and the Dionysian Nine (even Williams shuffled them
>around),
>but for Tolkien they are clearly divided into different orders.
If Tolkien's Valar and Maiar are to be compared to any of the Nine Orders of
the Celestial Heirarchy in Christian angelology, these would clearly be the
bottom two, the archangels and angels respectively. These are the ones
Illuvatar sent into the world. One presumes that the other seven orders mainly
hang out with God and sing his praises, etc..
AC
It's not a perfect fit, either, since it was among the mightiest and noblest
of the Ainur that entered Ea.
--
Aaron Clausen
AC
It's not a perfect fit, either, since it was among the mightiest and noblest
AC
It's not a perfect fit, either, since it was among the mightiest and noblest
Graham Lockwood
> Nystulc <nys...@cs.com> wrote:
{snip}
>> If Tolkien's Valar and Maiar are to be compared to any of the Nine Orders of
>> the Celestial Heirarchy in Christian angelology, these would clearly be the
>> bottom two, the archangels and angels respectively. These are the ones
>> Illuvatar sent into the world. One presumes that the other seven orders
>> mainly
>> hang out with God and sing his praises, etc..
>
> It's not a perfect fit, either, since it was among the mightiest and noblest
> of the Ainur that entered Ea.
Yeah, well, that's what the Valar wanted the Elves to think anyways. ;)
||// // "The narrative ends here. || //
|// // There is no reason to think ||//
(/ // that any more was ever written. |//
||// The manuscript, which becomes //
|// increasingly rapid towards the end, //|
(/ peters out in a scrawl." //||
|| -Christopher Tolkien, _The Lost Road_ // ||
Nystulc
This assumes that the term "Ainur" is defined to include the other 7 orders.
There is no reason to assume that it is. Particularly, there is no reason to
assume that there would be, in Elvish mythology, any awareness of the existence
of any "higher" orders.
In Chistian mythology, it is mainly the archangels (leading the angels) that
are credited with having waged war against Lucifer. Presumably, dealing with
scum like Satan was beneath the notice of any higher Orders.
Furthermore, the Dionysian Nine are ranked in groups of three in terms of
"closeness to God", not merely in terms of might or nobility. Those who
entered Ea may be thought of as become separated from God in some sense,
justifying a ranking near the bottom on the Dionysian scale whatever their
level of power.
The Nine are generally ranked in groups of three. Perhaps those who entered Ea
(ranked by power level) are the Principalities, Archangels, and Angels; whereas
those "closest to God" (ranked by power level) are the Seraphim, Cherubim, and
Thrones. A third group occupy an intermediate position.
Perhaps Morgoth was a "Seraph", who, upon entering Ea, assumed the status of a
"Principality". Perhaps Ulmo was a Cherub, until at the dawn of Time he
accepted an assignment placing him distant from Illuvatar and in direct contact
with mankind, and thus became an "Archangel" instead.
However, the Talmud classifies Satan as a former Archangel, not a former
Principality.
Nine Orders seems a bit much to me, and seems to me to be a late effort to give
an overly-specific meaning to scriptural references. Seems to me that
Christian angelology should need (at most) four categories: the Seraphs,
Cherubs, Archangels and Angels, with the latter two being sent into the World,
and the former two remaining with God. If the latter two are those who
entered Ea, they would correspond nicely to the Valar and Maiar.
- John Whelan
Walter
news:3f2dd036....@news.saix.net...<snip>
> Tolkien (and C.S. Lewis, with his "eldila") both developed imaginary
creatures
> in their fiction that were based on the Christian, rather than the Jewish
> conception of angels, though they did not use the word "angel" to describe
> them. Their fellow Inkling, Charles Williams, was more explicit in
mentioning
> the "Dionysian Nine".
I think what Tolkien mainly had in mind when he "invented" his Ainur, esp.
the Valar, were the Germanic/Nordic gods, the Aesir. Basically - in his
attempt to create a mythology for England - Tolkien used the Germanic
mythology - as originally described in the two Eddas - as the central
source. And as such it was a polytheistic pagan system, IMO only
superimposed by Tolkien with monotheism by introducing Eru and interpreting
the Ainur as "angelic" beings rather than gods...
--
email: walter (a) thetolkienwiki dot org
web: http://www.thetolkienwiki.org
Jussi Jaatinen
Walter wrote:
> I think what Tolkien mainly had in mind when he "invented" his Ainur, esp.
> the Valar, were the Germanic/Nordic gods, the Aesir. Basically - in his
> attempt to create a mythology for England - Tolkien used the Germanic
> mythology - as originally described in the two Eddas - as the central
> source.
And of course the concept of "god's vice-regent on Earth" is also found
in Catholic doctrine in the person of the pope.
-JJ
Nystulc
>I think what Tolkien mainly had in mind when he "invented" his Ainur, esp.
>the Valar, were the Germanic/Nordic gods, the Aesir. Basically - in his
>attempt to create a mythology for England - Tolkien used the Germanic
>mythology - as originally described in the two Eddas - as the central
>source. And as such it was a polytheistic pagan system, IMO only
>superimposed by Tolkien with monotheism by introducing Eru and interpreting
>the Ainur as "angelic" beings rather than gods...
There is no question that Tolkien had the Norse Aisir in mind from the
beginning. There is likewise no question that he had Christian mythology in
mind from the beginning. It does not have to be either/or.
Conrad Dunkerson
> Hmm... I feel like posting another "quotes from other fantasy and sf"
> quiz. How do you feel about that?
S'ok by me.
Conrad Dunkerson
> I thought he was a Sindaran elf, as Thranduil is - isn't he? - altho I
> do seem to remember he did say he was Silvan at some stage (as someone
> said in an earlier post) Legolas goes on and on about how the elves
> of Northern Mirkwood originally came from Lothlorien.
Thranduil was definitely Sindarin. However, most of his people were
Silvan. If Legolas's mother were Silvan he might well be accounted
more a member of that group than the Sindar.
Jereeza <to mail, remove spam>
+0200, "Öjevind Lång" <ojevin...@swipnet.se> decided to
release into cyberspace:
> Hmm... I feel like posting another "quotes from other fantasy and sf"
>quiz. How do you feel about that?
YES!
Hugs,
Mia
--
[iti te jnanam akhyatam guhyad guhyataram maya
vimrsyaitad asesena yatheccasi tatha kuru]
www.thereisnoy.com
www.theonering.net
Raven
meddelelse news:3f2e7e71...@news.tel.hr...
> YES!
> Hugs,
> Mia
Long time no read, Missing-In-Action.
Gavran.
Luminaria
"coyotes rand mair fheal greykitten tomys des anges" <mair_...@yahoo.com>
wrote in message news:mair_fheal-31...@c114.ppp.tsoft.com...
> In article <bgc90m$1o1$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Luminaria"
> <lan...@rcn.DOTcom> wrote:
>
> > "Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> > >
> > > Do you actually think anyone is going to disagree?
> >
> > Sorry - everyone seems to yell about everything these days. Some days I
> > would hesitate to mention that the sky is blue...
>
beats purple...
Lis
Luminaria
"Conrad Dunkerson" <conrad.d...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
>
> True, though I don't think we know exactly which 'Azimov' books
> Tolkien read. Were there any that DIDN'T include robots? :)
Nightfall had no robots...
Lis
Stan Brown
>And of course the concept of "god's vice-regent on Earth" is also found
>in Catholic doctrine in the person of the pope.
That's vicegerent, not vice-regent. A vice-regent would be a stand-
in for a regent, i.e. a stand-in for a stand-in.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com
Tolkien FAQs: http://Tolkien.slimy.com (Steuard Jensen's site)
Tolkien letters FAQ:
http://users.telerama.com/~taliesen/tolkien/lettersfaq.html
FAQ of the Rings: http://oakroadsystems.com/genl/ringfaq.htm
Encyclopedia of Arda: http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm
more FAQs: http://oakroadsystems.com/tech/faqget.htm
Ash Wyrd
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:NiYVa.21727$uu5.3073@sccrnsc04...
>
>
> AC wrote:
>
> >
> > This sounds a lot like nit-picking. We call them Ainur, and the best
> > approximation to Judeao-Christian tradition is "angel". Thus, the Ainur
are
> > "angelic beings".
>
> In Judeo Christian usage angels are messengers and errand boys. They
> have no will of their own and only carry out tasks. Like robots.
>
> Bob Kolker
>
Angels HAD free will, otherwise Lucifer could not have fallen from grace.
Robert J. Kolker
Ash Wyrd wrote:
>
> Angels HAD free will, otherwise Lucifer could not have fallen from grace.
That is not biblical. There is no mention in the Hebrew scriptures of a
"palace revolt" by Uriel [heb. for the Light of God] (aka Lucifer). The
Angelic Revolt is a purely christian construct and has no biblical basis
whatsoever.
Bob Kolker
Conrad Dunkerson
> That is not biblical. There is no mention in the Hebrew scriptures of a
> "palace revolt" by Uriel [heb. for the Light of God] (aka Lucifer).
True... unless you (as with most Christians) take the sole 'Lucifer'
reference as speaking of his 'Fall' rather than being a mistranslation
of a passage about a mortal king.
> The Angelic Revolt is a purely christian construct and has no biblical
> basis whatsoever.
However, this is NOT true. The idea of a 'war in heaven' pre-dated
Christianity and grew out of items in the bible (notably the
'elohim'). When that line of thinking became part of Christianity it
was largely excised from Judaic thought, but the fact remains that it
originated there... just as the concept of 'Hell' did.
Stabas Sumakhi
🔴ALL>Movies✅ 📺 📱 💻 ✅ALL>Movies🔴
✅▶️▶️ CLICK HERE Full HD✅720p✅1080p✅4K✅
WATCH ✅💻📺📱👉https://co.fastmovies.org
ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ ✅📺📱💻👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>HERE>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
✅WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>HERE>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
💚WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>HERE>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
💚WATCH>>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>>HERE>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴ALL>Movies>ALL>TIME>Save>LINK👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴ALL>Movies>ALL>TIME>Save>LINK👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴📱ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴📺ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴📺ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org
🔴✅📺📱💻ALL>Movies>WATCH>ᗪOᗯᑎᒪOᗩᗪ>LINK>👉https://co.fastmovies.org