Talk:Figs in the Bible

Moving the page

I suggest moving this page to Parable of the fig tree and changing The Fig Tree to a redirect. The title "the Fig Tree" is not informative as to the contents of the article: it also breaks Wikipedia policies on capitalization of titles. A normal Wikipedia reader would expect to see an article about ficus here. Grover cleveland 16:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There are really three separate biblical stories relating to Jesus and the fig tree:

• The cursing of the barren fig tree by Jesus (Matthew 21:18-22), (Mark 11)
• The parable of the barren fig tree (Luke 13:6-9)
• The parable of the budding fig tree (Mar 13:28-29), (Mat 24:32-33), (Luke 21:29-31)

These really ought to be separated into their own articles. Right now the article is a conflation of all three. Grover cleveland 22:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, three articles, Parable of the barren fig tree, Parable of the budding fig tree, and Jesus and the fig tree. Jonathan Tweet 05:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think F. F. Bruce explanation about the cursing of the fig three should be considered:
quote (from "Are the New Testament Documents Reliable?"):
The other miracle is the cursing of the barren fig tree (Mk. xi. '2 ff.), a stumblingblock to many. They feel that it is unlike Jesus, and so someone must have misunderstood what actually happened, or turned a spoken parable into an acted miracle, or something like that. Some, on the other hand, welcome the story because it shows that Jesus was human enough to get unreasonably annoyed on occasion. It appears, however, that a closer acquaintance with fig trees would have prevented such misunderstandings. 'The time of figs was not yet,' says Mark, for it was just before Passover, about six weeks before the fully formed fig appears. The fact that Mark adds these words shows that he knew what he was talking about. When the fig leaves appear about the end of March they are accompanied by a crop of small knobs, called taqsh by the Arabs, a sort of forerunner of the real figs. These taqsh are eaten by peasants and others when hungry. They drop off before the real fig is formed. But if the leaves appear unaccompanied by taqsh, there will be no figs that year. So it was evident to our Lord, when He turned aside to see if there were any of these taqsh on the fig tree to assuage His hunger for the time being, that the absence of the taqsh meant that there would be no figs when the time for figs came. For all its fair show of foliage, it was a fruitless and hopeless tree.'
unquote
eab 28.08.08

This article had been headed with the 'unverified claims' or 'original research' sticker-

please give information as to which 'claims' are 'original' or 'unverifiable' that someone may clear this up. There is nothing on the discussion page about this- therefore I felt this stamp should be removed. If information is added to the discussion about which 'claims' are 'original' or 'unverifiable' then that will be addressed.

Luke 13 study

What do you think about a bible study group adding their thoughts about the fig tree parable in Luke 13 to the page? I went ahead and added some of their interpretations to the page to give an example. We will focus our contribution on interpretation, but we could also add application. Do you think the application of the story is in keeping with the purpose of the page? David 14:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)revdrdave

Yep Dave I do think it is the purpose to show application, but make it a quote- ie from someone like Spurgeon, or whoever you read. I know what you have written is general Christian teaching but try to get a couple of references or sources in- so that you can't be accused of being original. I wrote the first two Christian parts and someone even gave it the original research stamp (shown above). Good job it's encouraging to see an addition expressing Christian opinion, I'll try do more work on this page- BTW do you belong to a Christian portal on wikipedia or anything- I don't but was looking for a good one to join, so we can be more organised. --Paul McFarland 13:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-categorisation of irrelevant subjects

This article concerns Jesus's parable of the fig tree. Gnostic reference in The Matrix film should be recategorized. Same goes for the usage of LoTR film metaphor. I understand both are employed with the intention to help the reader understand the interpretations better, but I think that this too much of deviation from the original topic and it may mislead the reader instead.

A noticeable lack of citations of the last two contents. No comments on it. Other than urging editors to try find them.

P.s. I support Grover cleveland's notion of moving this page and redirecting The Fig Tree, for the article is the parable, not the tree and lest confusion arise.

220.255.67.66 13:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

The article can be renamed but all fig tree references/verses need to stay in one article since Christians themselves conflate them as one central message that the fig tree is Israel, figs are Jews/works of Jews, withering is destruction of Israel, budding is restoration and a sign of the Second Coming, fertilizing is evangelizing, etc. Outside of that central conclusion there's not much else to say to justify making an article for each. -Bikinibomb (talk) 19:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Christian teaching.....

This whole section needs to be cut as pov, ( "to understand <this> it is important to"... according to whom?.."Mainstream christians ... many christians...." "Paul correctin those who believe..." (rather than Paul showing he didn't understand a word Jesus had to say.)

This reads like a sunday sermon with the insulting use of the collective "we." We read that...  ? You may read that, others read the same word and have a different view. Still others read a different translation and are going to interepret it differently still Mwen se pye rezen tout bon an. My Haitisn creole is rusty but is I am the all good vine the same as I am the true vine or the people who read that not really chrisitans?

I'm not saying there is not some good in this section, just that it should be pared down to what is essential with out the sunday school propaganda, collapsed in to the "Interpretations" section, and remembered hereafter as a reason for politly ignoreing the guy who wrote it as one who want to tell you who to think rather than giving you information and letting you analyze it.75.191.157.40 (talk) 06:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"presently" and the KJV

I have removed the following, because when the King James Version was written, "presently" did mean immediately:

It should be noted that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible differs with other versions at this point. The KJV maintains that the fig tree withered "presently" which does not necessarily mean immediately but means "in a little while or soon". This interpretation harmonizes perfectly with the account in Mark 11. KBry (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Taqsh"

The "Figs in the Bible" wikipage quotes Christian apologist F. F. Bruce, who cites minister W. M. Christie, that "Towards the end of March the leaves begin to appear, and in about a week the foliage coating is complete. Coincident with [this], and sometimes even before, there appears quite a crop of small knobs, not the real figs, but a kind of early forerunner. They grow to the size of green almonds, in which condition they are eaten by peasants and others when hungry. When they come to their own indefinite maturity they drop off." These precursors of the true fig are called taqsh in Palestinian Arabic. Their appearance is a harbinger of the fully formed appearance of the true fig some six weeks later." And, Here is a more information on "early figs" from Net Bible. But can someone provide a citation on taqsh/taksh in a reliable source, for example a botany book? I have read that fig trees can produce two or three crops, however, apparently no early crop does not mean that there will be no late crop. Likiva (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)