※ 引述《neohippie (米國聖光肥魯八嘎囧)》之銘言：
: Tolkien 在第二版魔戒的序是這樣寫的:
: As for any inner meaning or 'message', it has in the intention of the author
: none. It is neither allegorical nor topical. As the story grew it put down
: roots (into the past) and threw out unexpected branches: but its main theme
: was settled from the outset by the inevitable choice of the Ring as the link
: between it and The Hobbit.
: Other arrangements could be devised according to the tastes or views of those
: who like allegory or topical reference. But I cordially dislike allegory in
: all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary
: enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with
: its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers.
: 人家作者在序就是霸氣又大辣辣的說，不要腦補? OK? 偶沒有想要寫啥隱喻啥鬼的。
簡單回應一下你的閱障問題，板友們常常都有這毛病所以也不用太難過。
托爾金本身對於如何融入聖經元素於他的著作裡有這樣的承認：
The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic
work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why
I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything
like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the
religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism.
至於你引用的片段，我想對於托爾金作品有相當程度熱愛的人都會知道，
他是很不高興地在序裡說自己沒有拿來隱喻任何他「當代的人事物」，
像是二戰或是核彈等，但是講到聖經，講到他的信仰，他則是大方地承認。
當然也許又是我的描述因為中文辨識上的問題讓你產生了誤解，
你若是對上述這段依然狐疑，我幫你節省點時間，建議你去看精靈寶鑽。
: 同樣的，聖經的作者若是上帝，而寫作的目的是要顯現自己，那應該聖經所論述的
: 「善」，就是無法脫離上帝的。人家就是很霸氣的說，除祂以外別無拯救，不跪
: 你給我去火湖游泳啦。
: 當然偶這樣也是腦補啦，不過偶覺得偶的腦補好像還比較接近聖經作者的原意。
我也是這麼建議板友的，異教徒在聖經裡的下場是怎樣，直白的基督徒
不需要誤用保羅的話語來詮釋，而得到奇怪的效果，異教的歸異教，
猶太教的歸猶太教，兩者的下場固然接近，罪名卻是不同的。