Talk:Figs in the Bible

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Moving the page 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Luke 13 study 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Re-categorisation of irrelevant subjects 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "presently" and the KJV 

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Taqsh"