Talk:Tree of life (biblical)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Tree of life (biology/evolution)

Moved from Organism

  • The Tree of Life. Its basic goals are:
    • to provide a uniform and linked framework in which to publish electronically information about the evolutionary history and characteristics of all groups of organisms
    • to present a modern scientific view of the evolutionary tree that units all organisms on Earth
    • to aid education about and appreciation of biological diversity
    • to provide (eventually) a life-wide database and searching system about characteristics of organisms
    • to provide a means to find taxon-specific information on the Internet, both taxonomic and otherwise
lunaverse (talk) 01:07, 22 September 2004 (UTC) I belive the above comment belongs under Evolutionary tree or tolweb.org?

Questions about this page...

I think the comparisons to other tree/serpent/creation-myths is useful to an extent, but NPOV is lost a few times. It's mostly bad when it creates confusion, i.e. seems to be speaking on a topic other than the Tree of Life. For instance, this paragraph below:

The first person to give an overview of world myths and to attempt to provide a unified theory of religions was James Frazer in "The Golden Bough" (1890). By then many people were prepared to accept the book of Genesis as mythology, not history. Since then feminists have re-analysed the stories and interpreted the temptation of Eve as a symbolic way of describing a change in society.

This seems to indicate the theme is "world myths" and "unified theory" of these myths. Which it is not. It also leans towards trying to convince the reader of this theory, rather than maintain an informational, neutral tone.

Don't get me wrong; I did find it very interesting, but if no one has any objections, in a few days I'd like to summarize quite a few of these paragraphs to keep this article on-theme, more clear, and neutral. Discussion?

lunaverse (talk) 01:12, 22 September 2004 (UTC)

Bahrain Tree of Life

I could be wrong, but Bahrain Tree of Life I believe belongs on the disambiguation page with an article of its own. Discussion is welcome, otherwise I'll just do it. :)

lunaverse (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

I wrote the second part of this article when I was still anonymous. The only part of "The Golden Bough" that is relevant is chapter one. It's just a diversion to ramble on about general theories of unified religion. The "Tree of Gnosis" book is interesting but doesn't explain anything about why the myths existed in the first place. I think that para should be removed altogether. I don't actually believe the feminist theories about patriarchal societies replacing matriarchal ones. Please tone it down. Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogg (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2004 (UTC)

A stone age matriarchal religion was replaced by a patriarchal one in the bronze age. Robert Graves suggests this in "The White Goddess" (1947) by literary analysis, and Baring and Cashford use extensive archaeological evidence to present the same case in "The Myth of the Goddess" (1991). A serious theologian Elaine Pagels says much the same in "Adam, Eve and the Serpent" (1988).

Um. This is not my field or anything, but I'm pretty sure that this theory of a stone age matriarchal religion being replaced by patriarchy is not widely accepted by scholars these days - but this articles gives the impression that it is... Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.229.128.110 (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2004 (UTC)

Finno-Ugaritic?

The reference to Finno-Ugaritic confuses me no end. Finno-Ugric is a language group, and Ugaritic a language, but they're not even in the same linguistic family, so if it's not simply a typo for the former, it's opaque to me what's meant. Alai (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2005 (UTC)

Tree Of Life

um, I think the depiction of the kabbalahistic tree of life is somewhat confusing for this article since it focus' on the biblical tree of life and the Kabbalahistic tree of life already has an article. Jaynus _Izanagi 11:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

A pic for the Neo-Assyrian Tree of Life

A pic of the Neo-Assyrian Empire, or Assyrian Tree of LIfe, with its Cuneiform inscribed upon it, as the running story, would be appropriate for this article. ... a cuneiform, Amarna letters, junkie-Michael in the Sonoran Desert, --Mmcannis 04:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"Four Rivers Flow from Lake Heatless" in the Avatamsaka Sutra

I wonder if anyone would care to comment on this: a parallel, or just a coincidence? "Lake Heatless" might well be taken for paradise in a hot climate.

"... with omniscience in all its aspects, as it gradually becomes manifest. It is like the water flowing from the lake Heatless; by four great river currents it suffices the continent. inexhaustible, ever increasing, benefiting infinite beings, and finally pours into the ..."

page 800, The Flower Ornament Scripture : A Translation of the Avatamsaka Sutra (Hardcover) by Thomas Cleary Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgem571 (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Darwin

The Darwin section seemed very out of place here , I have moved it to a new article on the Tree of life (Science) where the scientific use of this metaphor can be properly described. Lumos3 13:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed Pop Culture Reference

I removed the "Neon Genesis Evangelion" link. I don't think that a cartoon deserves inclusion on a topic about a religious item. If it is included, other ones should be included because there must be bigger pop culture things that reference the tree of life. Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.80.103 (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

As a fan of the series I find that pretty funny that someone put a link in, but I agree that it doesn't need to be here. I can't really think of anything much bigger, its kinda an icon, but thats not the point. Evangelion, although it made extensive use of christian terms and iconography, was not really a religous/cristian show. Its actuall story concepts more explored philosophy. Preceding unsigned comment added by UnknownSquid (talk) 02:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge/Title?

Should this article be merged with Tree of life? I'm failing to see why there are two articles with only a capitalization difference. Either better disambiguation is needed or they need to be merged. Or we could re-name this article Tree of Life (Biblical) and leave the other to discuss all religious views of the tree of life. -Visorstuff 00:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with seperating the Biblical Tree of Life from other religions (but not a merge). See also the 'case/ambiguity' para above. If no one objects, I may eventually get round to doing this. The Yeti 14:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
And now I have. The Yeti 16:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

New Jerusalem?

What is this "New Jerusalem" thing at the beginning of the article? Is it encyclopedic? I've never heard of it before and I studied the Creation story in depth. I think it calls for speculation beyond the Bible, whichever version you hold as true. Valley2city 03:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the tree of life is in the New Jerusalem according to Revelation 22:2, but that certainly doesn't need to be at the beginning of the article.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

baffling allegorical language?

What in heaven's name do we mean by "The Genesis narrative of the banishment from the Garden of Eden is balanced in the New Testament by the planting of the Tree of Life on mankind's side of the divide"? Is this a veiled allusion to Christ? If so, I think it should be removed, as being both vague and unencyclopedic in tone.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

None logic?

The second paragraph says: "Separated from the Tree of Life, Adam and Eve became mortal and died, as God had said" This is not logical. The bible says " He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever". This means that Adam and Eve has not yet eaten from the tree, but god is afraid they will. So saying that Adam and Eve died becuase they were SEPARATED from the tree is wrong - since it imply that they have been eating from the tree while in Eden (which they have not been doing ("and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever")). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.204.54.11 (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

65.213.77.129 (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Eve ate the fruit, in "rebellion" against God's command?

I find the phrase “in rebellion against God’s command” somewhat misleading. In this case, the term “rebellion” seems to suggest a willful opposition to “God’s command.” However, a reading Genesis 3:1-7 fails to show any of this willfulness on Eve’s part.

Prior to eating from this Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad, Adam and Eve presumably had no concept of right and wrong (this awareness only came to them after eating from the said tree, right?). So, when the serpent manipulated Eve, who had no concept of right or wrong, into eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil -- can Eve really be blamed for her action? Was her action really a "rebellion" against God's command?

The dialog between Eve and the serpent (verse 2) should not be taken as Eve understanding of right and wrong. It simply shows that Eve was able to recollect God’s command. It’s merely a testament to her ability to recall things.

In my opinion, this “disobedience” against God’s command should not be perceived maliciously; Eve simply did not know what she did was wrong. This narrative is poorly represented by the use of the term “rebellion.” It is too strong of a term to use on someone who had no understanding of right and wrong. Preceding unsigned comment added by SKIPper76 (talk) 16:17, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Why does this matter? Women have been blamed for the "fall of man" because of how this narrative has been interpreted. I think it is socially irresponsible to reinforce and perpetuate such an interpretation. Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.250.241 (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

One of us?

What is the meaning of this phrase as quoted in the article: "And the Lord God said, 'The man has now become like one of us'".

Were there were several Gods up there? I understand that the word "Us" would mean "Me" in this sense, but the phrase "ONE of Us" is hard to reconcile.

And one more thing, I thought the Tree of Life in Semitic religions was simply the date palm, PHOENIX DACTYLIFERA (i.e. 'bread dates' to be used as food to sustain life). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.151.66 (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

"Us" is an English translation of the original; many languages utilise the plural to denote a singular-with-respect - for example in French, if I am speaking to a friend I might say "s'il te plaît", literally "if you please", while referring to a parent, teacher or authority figure (in this case, God), I would say "s'il vous plaît", literally "if you (plural) please". Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 15:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

french.about.com/od/grammar/ss/subjectpronouns_3.htm

In the example given by Sherurcij the word tu, is the informal form of you and vous is the formal form, both singular. This same format exists in German, where du is the informal use of you and Sie is the formal use of you. euch would be the plural, used to speak to a group. Sie, however also means they when used in that context. sie (non capital s) is also used for she. The word for us is unser.

Old English has a similar structure. You is used in the informal sense, Thou in the formal sense and Ye (pronounced as thee) is the plural sense.

Even if the use of the formal singular is also the same as the plural, it doesn't mean the plural is intended (or vice-verse) when it is used. When God spoke using the word "us", he meant it it be plural, not singular with respect. The "us" refers to the different forms that God exists in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.147.142 (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Life / Knowledge of Good and Evil

The article's introduction states "According to some scholars, however, these are in fact two names for the same tree" but the analysis part is pretty sure that "...the tree of life and the tree of knowledge are not the same". --KaterBegemot (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Removed Analysis section filled with Original research that caused this confusion. Updated intro to show that there is a debate. Replaced the Analysis section with the Genesis debate section to clarify who thinks what. Hope these modifications to the page will help in an effort to see both sides.  — Jason Sosa 20:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Title

The tree is Judeo-Christian yet also accepted in Islam? Seems a bit Euro-centric for the title...how about Tree of Life (Abrahamic), that way it is more encompassing. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 15:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done by User Pass a method
I have reverted the move - please use WP:RM. StAnselm (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I'm not sure why you removed the passage i added. Pass a Method talk 08:37, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Mention of the Quran in the lead sentence?

Should the Quran be mentioned in the lead sentence? The article is primarily about the biblical tree of life, and in fact there is no exact equivalent in the Quran, since it only has one tree, as opposed to two in the Hebrew Bible. I propose that the reference to the Quran be removed from the lead. StAnselm (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have cut the Gordian Knot and created a new article, Tree of life (Quran). StAnselm (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Tree of life (biblical) → Tree of life (Abrahamic) – Per User:Sherurcij. --Relisted.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC) Pass a Method talk 08:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm frankly surprised this hasn't generated more discussion. I don't think anybody's going to move it without a more thorough explanation, though -- beyond the now 4-year-old suggestion (for whatever version of the article that was talking about). @Pass a Method: can you explain in other terms why it should be moved? I do see there are several "tree of life" pages per the disambig, and can presume the reason the Christian and Muslim versions are combined is because they tell the same story (of Adam and Eve)? If you rename it Tree of life (Abrahamic) wouldn't you also have to merge Tree of life (Kabbalah) into this one? (Although maybe it's not considered Abrahamic). I will say that as long as this article is the primary Wikipedia page for the tr of life in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, the "(biblical)" title seems inappropriate. --— Rhododendrites talk |  14:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Clarify support Why not name it "tree of life (quranic)" if we are going to be so specific? The fact is that all Abrahamic religions mention this so it should be more general. Pass a Method talk 15:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
    • While I'm not saying I disagree, they all mention lots of things. The questions are:
      1. Are they sufficiently similar to merit inclusion in the same article?
      2. Are they insufficient on their own such that separate articles for each would not be warranted?
      3. Is "Abrahamic" the best way to denote it?
    • PS: Your nomination presumes your support vote -- adding another one is generally frowned upon. --— Rhododendrites talk |  16:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I made a vote to clarify my position because you asked. They are as similar as Garden of Eden, yet we don't have a religion-specific title there. Pass a Method talk 16:24, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: "biblical" is the usual disambiguator for people and things in the Bible, even if they are in the Quran as well. I'm not aware of "Abrahamic" used as a disambiguator anywhere else. Pass a Method, is your hope to see all such pages moved? StAnselm (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - almost any biblical topic is also picked up in Islam, but the Tree of Life isn't - The first tree in the Quran (the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) is called the Tree of Eternity, the second tree, (the Tree of Life) isn't mentioned. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Cesiumfrog, your comment below noted, but I think that's merely a titling issue for the other article [Tree of Immortality (Quran)]. As far as this article goes given that Jewish/Christian sources have 2 trees, and the Quran has 1, I can't see how a merge can select which tree to merge with, hence St Anselm's solution is the most natural. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the main article is actually Tree of life. I have created a new article, Tree of life (Quran), to cover Quranic material and interpretations. StAnselm (talk) 20:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Merge without rename. The arguments of Ictu and Anselm are contradictory: if the Quran doesn't mention the tree of life, then Tree of life (Quran) doesn't warrant a separate article (which can never be much more than a stub), and instead any content on Islamic views of this topic should be located as a subsection of this article. (This seems to me sufficient to resolve the problems concerning the supporters above, whereas changing the adjective seems unhelpful: "biblical" isn't specific to "christianity", whereas if we instead used the awkward term "abrahamic" then the topic would become ambiguous as judaism also uses the same name for a different, non-biblical, topic.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 21:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
But why would Islamic views of this topic be a subsection of this article? Why not a subsection of Tree of life? StAnselm (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Really? You're asking why two different group's views, of the exact same topic, should not be presented in a unified article?
I think these esoteric religious topics have lent themselves to wp:povforking (as if every devotee wants an article where their own peculiar view of a topic is presented as the primary one). I think this leads to a mess of hard-to-maintain, poorly-sourced, largely-duplicate, biased and incomplete pages. This is further complicated by the fact that the name "tree of life" has been applied to a whole scatter of unrelated topics:
  1. A metaphor for evolution. We have the overlapping Phylogenetic tree, Tree of life (biology) and Tree_of_life#Science.
  2. The trees with magical fruit from the garden of Eden. I would go so far as to merging this article to Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, since there is likely to always be great overlap in the content and potential sourcing of each. Not to mention it is is possible both names were intended to refer to the exact same tree anyway. (At the very least, I suggest looking to the current tree-of-knowledge article as a model of how we do not need separate articles for Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Mormon, Ba'hai, etc views.)
  3. The diagram of the esoteric-mystical 10 emanations. I think we should merge Tree of life (Kabbalah)->Sephirot.
  4. There are various unrelated sacred trees, such as the Bodhi Tree/Ashvattha/Sacred Fig in Buddhism/Hinduism (shouldn't those three be merged together also?), or Moses' talking bush, or giant Yggdrasil connecting the Norse worlds, or the xmas-trees of post-industrial western culture, or that fan-worm-inspired infrastructure in JC's parable... It seems reasonable that there should also be one article which groups these together. Currently tree worship seems to accomplish this better, whereas tree of life seems to get too carried away (so I would merge the latter into the former).
  5. The idea of some thing or place being central for the world. The only thing worse than the axis mundi article, which persists as an atrocious asylum of hyper-imaginative original-synthesis, is having the same be all duplicated again e.g. as currently is occurring at tree of life. (So no, Anselm, I think that article is currently not specific to the tree from Genesis, so I wouldn't relegate the content on Islamic views of it to there.)
Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I really don't follow you. Are you saying Tree of life (biblical) should be merged into Tree of life? In any case, you mentioned "two different group's views, of the exact same topic", but it has been established that they are not the exact same topic. StAnselm (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Case sensitivity/ambiguity

Shouldn't this page be better named as Tree of life (christian)? The other meanings are disambiguated with parentheses, such as Tree of life (Kabbalah), and it seems inconsistant and confusing to have 2 pages distinguished only by a single capital. --Ricky 07:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, although other cultures are mentioned in the article in passing. Maybe these references would be better in Tree of life, to stop muddying the article, whose first paragraph concentrates solely on the Judaeo-Christian Tree of Life - Tree of life (Judaeo-Christian) might also be a better title? The Yeti 14:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I find this page to be awfully skewed towards Christianity. In Judaism the serpent is not Satan! I wish with all topics from the Hebrew Bible that Wikipedia stops with the "Judaeo-Christian" label and starts realizing that the two religions have little in common in interpretation of the story. Too often the Christian view is given and labeled as if it it is both religions view. Seeing as how the stories were written BY Jews, FOR Jews, how about the main articles deal with the Jewish interpretation with maybe a separate article on Chirstian views or a paragraph later in the article showing the differences with Muslims and Christians. 148.78.243.24 (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Also, sin is a Christian concept, especially the concept of original sin. Adam and Eve broke a law, they didnt commit a religious or moral "sin".
What is the ulterior difference between breaking a - real - law* and committing a sin?--2.236.198.248 (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC) *one that really exists, is meant seriously as a matter of conscience by the lawgiver (unlike "do not cross on red light" for pedestrians), is not in conflict with higher law, and is not a transgression of the legislator's scope.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tree of life (biblical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tree of life (biblical). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Relevance of images to "The Tree of Life"?

Two of the images don't seem to have clear relevance. The fourth image 'Mary Assumption parish church..' doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Tree of Life. If it does this should be mentioned in the caption. If it doesn't it should be removed or replaced.

The first image 'Stained glass window...' doesn't mention the Tree of Life in the caption. The long description of the image says "It shows birds and a lamb in and around a Tree of Life, speaking on Christmas Eve to announce the birth of Jesus Christ." This article is about the Tree of Life in Genesis. I don't think that's what's shown in this image. At any rate if the image is deemed to be relevant the caption should at least mention The Tree of Life. This image seems to only be used on this wikipedia page, and maybe was put there by the artist.

This image shown on the Tree of life (Kabbalah) page seems to be relevant.

A pattern inspired by the tree of life in a window in the Joods Historisch Museum in Amsterdam.

CurlyMoeLarry (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Biblical Reference other than Revelation

The Revelation references are in error. Reading Revelation 22, the verses that mention the Tree of Life are 2 and 14.

Also, I think there is a distinct of The Tree of Life mentioned in Genesis and Revelation, and a tree of life mentioned in the Proverb passages. The Genesis and Revelation passages refer to a literal tree. The Proverb passages are a figurative reference to what results when we follow the path of wisdom.

The Jedi Math Squirrel (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)The Jedi Math Squirrel

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tree_of_life_(biblical)/Archive_1&oldid=1146299100"