Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:37, 25 December 2013

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Kabbalah (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kabbalah, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.KabbalahWikipedia:WikiProject KabbalahTemplate:WikiProject KabbalahKabbalah Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Bible / Theology / Latter Day Saints This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Bible. This article is supported by theology work group. This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Mid-importance).

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.

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.

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

• Green Plant Phylogeny, Research Coordination Group, "DEEP GREEN", Understanding the Diversity of Plants. A five-year effort to reconstruct the evolutionary relationships among all green plants has resulted in the most complete "tree of life" of any group of living things on the planet, including animals.

lunaverse 01:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC) I belive the above comment belongs under Evolutionary tree or tolweb.org?

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 Misplaced Pages 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".

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 01:12, 22 Sep 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 01:15, 22 Sep 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.

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...

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 20:45, 28 Jan 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)

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.

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.

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)

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)

"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

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)

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)

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.

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)

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 15:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

http://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)

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 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)

Move

It has been proposed in this section that Tree of life (biblical) be renamed and moved to Tree of life (Abrahamic). A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

Tree of life (biblical) → Tree of life (Abrahamic) – Per User:Sherurcij. Pass a Method talk 08:12, 25 December 2013 (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)

Hi

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

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Religion articles
• Unknown-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• Start-Class Judaism articles
• High-importance Judaism articles
• Start-Class Christianity articles
• Unknown-importance Christianity articles
• Start-Class Bible articles
• Unknown-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• Start-Class Christian theology articles
• Unknown-importance Christian theology articles
• Christian theology work group articles
• Start-Class Latter Day Saint movement articles
• Mid-importance Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• Requested moves