Indy is not immortal. The knight in Last Crusade was immortal because he stayed within the temple. He never crossed the seal. And even if the grail were to make him immortal, it wouldn't effect the situation on the tank since that happened BEFORE he drank from the grail. He survived the tank because he was able to leap off at the last second and grab hold of some vines (you can actually see this if you look very closely when the tank goes over the edge.) Then he just climbed up those vines.
Am I the only one who has read the Bible?
How on earth do you exspect even Indy to get past two angelic beings specifically sent there by God to prevent any man from eating of the tree of Life, and after the flood no mention of the tree or Garden is made, in fact for all we know it could have been destroyed or taken to heaven. The only way you could do this would be if they found secret document hidden in a cave or something recording that a man acctualy found the Garden of Eden. Then perhaps the U.S. government send's Indy to find it before agents sent by Khrushchev do. Both the communist and the U.S. government top officials are after the tree of Life. And in the end even though they get rid of the enemy agents and find the Garden of Eden and get to the tree of life, it vanish's before they can do anything as well as the Garden of Eden and like the Holy Grail they naver attain the goal. This is just an idea and it needs alot of work as far as it goes. Mabye the Tree could work.
What do the rest of you think?
You may desmiss logic but you cant desmiss God. In fact if you ever read your Bible then you would know what happen to the many people who desmissed God. In fact you had better read throughout your hole Bible because according to George Lucas it will have a lot of Biblical stuff in there, which could be any were. You will also find numerous of things beside the Garden of Eden that they could use.
That reminds me, George Lucas' father is/was a Methodist pastor (I don't know if he still alive). Steven's father was the Jewish equvilant to a Decon/Elder. Just a bit of insight into each of the men, since that is what influences the movies.
Sorry I haven't posted for a few days, apparently I missed the email saying that folks were still discussing the thread.
As to "how in the world do you expect Indy to get past two angels put there to guard the entrance to the Garden when God specifically put them there to prevent entrance", I think that's actually pretty easy.
The relevent passage doesn't say that the way to the garden is impassable. Quite the opposite, in fact.
God doesn't want to deny man enternal life...he wants to make sure that man receives eternal life by coming through the Word of God, and the only way to do that is through Christ. Those who accept Christ as their savior have lived the Word of God, and passed by the way of the Sword of Fire.
Those who have not come by way of the sword of fire (or word of God) have not accepted Gods word and will not pass by the Cherubim.
I see this in movie terms as meaning that in THIS movie, (if this is the plot presented) Indy will come to accept that each past adventure HAS been the way that he remembered it. Lingering doubts about God himself would be swept away before he would be able to enter the garden.
I agree, bob. I think that by tying in the fairly common place aspects of a "tree" that spawned civilization, with the Judeo-Christian elements of the garden, the "angry angry angels" [sorry =)] the flaming sword as a guide, and the fact that indy may be reluctant to challenge such elements unless he is compeled by outside elements, we have the makings of a good "eden" story. I guess the question now is to the three in charge feel think as profoundly as those of us who contributed to this thread...
Artistic license is fine for fiction and novel's but people take artistic license way out of perportion with the bible. You wouldent portray George Washington as a tyrannical slave master who was bent on allout meaness would you? Or Susan B. Anthony as hardened femin-nazi,or Martin Luther King as a anti-white racist? Of course not, these people deserve proper respect for there part in history, wo why should George Lucas or any one be able to do anything they want with an artistic license that might mock or defame the Bible, just so people can have a little fun? Get real, I am against theology in the movie, strongly agianst it theology usaly kill's every movie, but am equaly opposed to George Lucas or anyone else taking something out of the bible and then twisting to fit there purpose.
Originally posted by FAN Artistic license is fine for fiction and novel's but people take artistic license way out of perportion with the bible. You wouldent portray George Washington as a tyrannical slave master who was bent on allout meaness would you? Or Susan B. Anthony as hardened femin-nazi,or Martin Luther King as a anti-white racist? Of course not, these people deserve proper respect for there part in history, wo why should George Lucas or any one be able to do anything they want with an artistic license that might mock or defame the Bible, just so people can have a little fun? Get real, I am against theology in the movie, strongly agianst it theology usaly kill's every movie, but am equaly opposed to George Lucas or anyone else taking something out of the bible and then twisting to fit there purpose.
The Indy films are B Movies they are not meant to be taken entirely seriously, the Bible is part of our cultural consciousness whether we believe or no. Therefore the reason that it is used is becuase it it something that we can all relate to in the west.
I have my respect for faith but that is why Indy IV should not be about Eden as it puts too many constraints with the film maker, almost everything in LC was made up vast majority of Ark was made up. If i were GL i would not want to be constrained in making Indy IV by the demands of theology...
I said I am against theology, but you wouldent want Lucas to make a movie that might offend cristians and jews worldwide would you? I like Raiders of the Lost Ark and the Last Crusade, they were humerous,plot filled,meanigful, and biblical. The jewish and cristian acspect's in these films were not taken out of perportion,nor to my knowledge violate the Bible. I think the Ark would be interesting except for the fact that there wouldent be enough booby trap,s or thing's like that.
What they could do is have a list historical thing's like the Ark, Arther's toom, ext. . . and all these places would give them a clue to the place were to find the object there ultimatly after. And since it's the 1950's he will be fighting the Communist's instead of the Nazi's.
Fan, I understand where you are coming from. I must offer however, that in the Indiana Jones series, the items that are being pursued be infused with the power of God. This creates the mystery of the films that I find so appealing. Insulting any group would not benefit anyone. But to have Indiana Jones go after some mediocre artifact with no cinematic climax would be boring. We are all here because of our fondness of the character, so I'm sure you agree that it is our INTERPRETATION of the bible which we are basing our own speculations on. I believe that we have the freedom to do so, and so we are. It is not for the intention of obscuring any specific element or meaning in the bible, rather it is to extract an artifact which played a powerful role in the bible and to see what would happen if that item surface today.
I would hate to see a great thread die because there are differences in Biblical translation. One of the things lorn and bob have argued back and forth (as well as many other raveners) is the aspect of believeability for the garden of eden. I went back to page two and saw the babylon inscription which was described in Halle's Bible Handbook. I wanted to know if that was another description of Eden. I was under the impression that Eden was only described in the Bible. All other stories of "creation" if you will were far more "mystical" and never detailed the location.
Then I went to some sights using google search and found one that purports Eden to be the Nile River Delta. That really makes for some interesting plots and sub plots for the story.
Egypt is the geographical center of the earth. It would be the center of the land mass before pangea was broken up by the flood. It was the land of Isreal's enslavement (which according to many theologians serves as a metaphor of enslavement before salvation) AND, there could be astronomical connections to the heavens...see Jacobs Ladder..DNA, Aliens.
For me, the correlations are there. I wanted to get something on the board, but I will be doing research on Eden into the night to bring more ideas to this thread, and the Tree of Life artifact...
Applehorse, This may help you with your research into Eden.
There is a theory going around in ( not connected to the Raven or Indy IV, but compiled by researchers and theologians ) that the four river's mentioned in Genesis is today's Euphrates,Tigris,Nile,Red Sea, and that the main river is the mediteranian, and that Eden is some where in Isreal.This is realy just a theory, but you might wan't to check into it, Oh and be careful about reading any apochraful or lost book's that claim to have immformation about Eden,almost all are fakes and were written durring the middle ages and then people claimed they were written before Christ's time,ext...
As the son of a baptist minister, I am very familiar with Bible History, if you will. My speculations concerning this post have to do with the fact that much of the Bible is allegorical. But, the amzing thing is that the allegories are also very literal. With that in mind, what does the TREE OF LIFE mean, is it a true tree as some have mocked, or is it something more. Lorn has examined what the FLAMING SWORD could be. It is my contention that THE GARDEN OF EDEN is both a literal place that exists [existed] and can be found through archeology, and it is a allegorical representation of that which is most basic to our existance: "Where do we come from"
Last Crusade attempted to solve the problem of eternal life, through the Grail. It also hinted at the attainment of elightenment with the aspect of Illumination. From a philosophical aspect, it failed to reveal the truths, yet succeded in the fact that it still allows for the rest of us to continue the "quest".
I believe George and Steven want to inspire their audience to reexamine this age old arguement of existance. If they tie it in to the pyramids, atlantis, aliens, or any of a number theroies, it will make for a good movie; as long as the connections between any of the myths don't become to much of a stretch for anyone to reasonably accept.
I also contend that if this premise of the garden is in fact what is being developed, Indy should find the answer, but not be able to convey it to anyone.
Again, many people have addressed the literal translation of the tree. I am not wanting to get into a debate about theology within THIS thread. That's what I have a posted e-mail for. But seeing as many feel it appropriate to quote Biblical passages to support their arguement, take into consideration the following sentences also found in the Bible:
...true wisdom is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her,
the fruit of the righteous is a tree of life,
when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life,
a wholesome tongue is a tree of life...
Considering this, I think it is worth examining the fact that the TREE of LIFE is attainable. The above sentences (while very Last Crusade-ish) give mertit to both a broad view of an acceptable tree, as well as possible traps for seekers with less then desireable motives. Let us not get hung up on the THEOLOGY of the tree and FOCUS more on how the big three could represent it in a believable, unique manner.
You seem to be very fond of taking scriptures out of text and ignore my statemant's Applehorse. I have stated several time's that I am against theology,and the verse's you qouted sound as though they were taken from Proverb's or another of Solomon's book's. First of all the verse's were not refering to the tree of Life in Genesis and Revelation,they were refering to wisdom just as in the last chapter of proverb's it say's that a good wife is more of value then rubies,secondly the tree of Life that we have been descussing is the actual one mentioned in Genesis and Revelation, God said that he put cherubium and a flaming sword to gaurd the tree and to prevent man from eating from it,this include's Indiana Jones ( HE IS NO EXCEPTION ) the only way to eat of the tree of Life is mentioned in Revelation, so it seem's that you and everyone else's disagrement is not with me but God,so I there is no reason for me to post here again, if you wish to argue your point further I suggest you take it up with Him. Good day.