rationalskepticism.org

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

IgnorantiaNescia wrote:

John P. M. wrote:Not sure I disagree with you or not(!) IgnorantiaNescia, but I take it they are referring to what it says in Mark: "he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet."
Could you spell it out for me (what your perception of all this is)?

Sure, in early April (that's around 15 Nisan) figs are generally not ripe yet, but you would definitely expect more than only leaves, namely taqsh. These taqsh can be eaten (but it was the poor man's food and not tasty) and they indicate that the fig tree is fertile. The lack of them (there was nothing but leaves) means that there would be no figs. My source on figs didn't mention that these were taqsh (not the real figs Mark refers to) so it needed a little more delving.

proudfootz wrote:

Apparently this Ignorantia has never read this bit of the bible but feels comfortable telling people what's in it...

Interesting that you can know what people you know nothing about have or have not done.

I only say you 'apparently' didn't read the source since the source says it wasn't the season for figs full stop.

If it's not the season for figs, only someone ignorant of figs would expect to find figs on it - as Jesus is made to do in the story.

First, my translation doesn't read "it wasn't the season", so how do you expect me to read that if the translation doesn't even use "season"? The reason I made that mistake is simple, my source on figs referred to the fruits before the figs (taqsh) simply as figs. But you would expect taqsh around that time so I misread "it wasn't the time" as the source said that early April is the time for figs (while it should read taqsh or precursors). Is that clear enough?

Then, as I said, it was exactly the right season for those taqsh. Those were not out of season. And the story (if it is historical, which I doubt and you do even more) notes there was nothing but leaves. But taqsh indicate that the tree will grow figs; no taqsh, no figs. So (in the story) the tree was infertile and while you would not expect to find figs, you would expect the fig tree to have taqsh. So your "ignoramus" argument falls flat on its face.