Talk:The Tree and its Fruits

rename

I suggest rename to "The Parable of the Tree and the Fruit". --Mladifilozof (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This is strange. Dwight Pentecost considers Luke 43-49 as the Wise and Foolish parable and this one as part of that... But I think the move is a good idea. History2007 (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Despite the lack of reasons to support your proposal, I still think it necessary to respond. To me, the current title is the best, because the parable is principally about how to judge a good person (the tree), hence the fruits are secondary (they help in the judgement process, but the tree is the primary object of attention). The title '...the tree and the fruit' would misrepresent the very purpose of the parable as stated. Tjpob (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not a question of what we think, but of WP:COMMONNAME, ii.e. what people usually use. History2007 (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I've checked 10 of the 25 translation versions on biblegateway.com (+ my own NRSV) and the ones that provide a title (5 of the 10 didn't), 3 of the 5 gave the Matthew passage the 'True and False Prophets' title, the other 2 gave the Matthew passage the 'A Tree and its Fruit' title, and all of them gave the Luke passage the 'A Tree and its Fruit' title. 7/10 seems pretty good to me. Tjpob (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, my NRSV gave both the 'Tree and its Fruit' title. Tjpob (talk) 12:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

So does that mean that the current title is confirmed? History2007 (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Using more recent Translations

I suggest taking the passages from the more recent versions of the Bible, i.e. the NRSV, rather than the King James Version, because it is more easy to understand and more widely used than the KJV. Tjpob (talk) 12:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no indication that the NRSV is more widely used than the KJV. Worse, the NRSV is copyrighted, and we should use a public domain translation whenever possible without loss of clarity. Huon (talk) 12:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the page could have both the KJV and a newer version (like the NIV 2011)? Lots of people appreciate the beauty of the Jacobean English, others want a more modern version. This way the page could accommodate both. Tjpob (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The American Standard Version (1901) is public domain. Tjpob (talk) 13:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not mind, but I find KJ just hard to read. History2007 (talk) 13:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

And maybe all the tree parables and miracles should have links, e.g. fig tree, fruit tree, etc. That would be useful. History2007 (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

@History2007, that can easily be done. Also, the NRSV, NAB et cetera, have reasonable copyright policies whereby passages can be reproduced as long as the quoted passages are less than 5 000 words in length (in total), et cetera. Therefore, no need to receive copyright permission to publish 162 words. Tjpob (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I might as well check with the USCCB (for use of the NAB) either way. Tjpob (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I did not mean copyright. A template needs to be built and I was trying to hint, do you would do the freework... So how about a template? History2007 (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Image removal

I have just re-removed the landscape image. It was unrelated to the article's topic, and we should not add random images to articles just because they look beautiful. Huon (talk) 23:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Page looks dry without it, but not worth an argument... History2007 (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up here, Huon. The Dutch title of the picture is Landscape with vegetables and fruit in the foreground, while the parable is about trees and their fruits. I take your point about the article looking bare, but don't you agree that it is hardly encyclopaedic to be adding irrelevant illustrations simply for the look of things? Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2012 (UTC)