Talk:Burning bush

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

Sorry, I don't know where to put this, but I have a much better photo of the bush in St. Catherine's Monastery if you'd like it for the article. You can reach me at dawood82@gmail.com.


Untitled[edit]

Ha ha! I honestly thought this was a hate speech political slogan when I saw it at first! Mark Richards 00:01, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

do it!! But it was rather interesting to know the botanical details after only having only seen the strange plant on a holiday tour. --Yak 00:03, Feb 20, 2004 (UTC)

Is the monastery actually claimed to have been built on the site, or is it just that the bush has been transplanted from wherever it was? I seem to recall that Rebecca's well is also there, just a few yards away from the bush. Deb 19:19, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Bush Picture[edit]

Could someone clarify which of the two bushes is claimed to be the bush in the picture??? 24.97.230.243 (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two bushes... which one is it??? 24.97.230.243 (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the bush in the upper right-hand corner of the photo. I have a better photo of it if you would like it for the article. You can reach me at dawood82@gmail.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.138.212.25 (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Euonymus[edit]

"Shrubs in the genus Euonymus, mostly known as spindles, in the family Celastraceae, are also called burning bush in North America, because of their bright red foliage in fall."

As far as I know, the only species of Euonymus refered to as 'burning bush' is E. alatus. Not all species/cultivars bear red fall colour. In fact, some are evergreens.

Angel of the Lord[edit]

In Exodus 3 it says that "The Angel of the Lord appeared to him in flames of fire from within a bush. Moses saw that though the bush was on fire it did not burn up. So Moses thought, "I will go over and see this strange sight - why the bush does not burn up." When The Lord saw that he had gone over to look, God called to him from within the bush, "Moses! Moses!" And Moses said, "Here I am." "Do not come any closer," God said. "Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground." Then He said, "I Am The God of your father, The God of Abraham, The God of Isaac and the God of Jacob." At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God." Yet there is no reference to "the Angel of the Lord in this article.Elatanatari 04:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of century-old sources[edit]

I have reverted recent edits justified with the summaries "3 sources cited, all of them over a century old - not very confidence-inspiring" and "Find a better source than a century-old encyclopedia". This is because:

  • I don't know the real truth behind the burning bush story. Nor does anyone else. All we can do is record scholarly opinion.
  • There is nothing in WP policy that stipulates a maximum age for reliable sources. There are dozens if not hundreds of articles using sources a century old or more. Old sources are often used because they are out of copyright and available on the net.
  • In the case of the burning bush, no new evidence has emerged; scholars are still interpreting or re-intepreting the same data. There is no reason to suppose that older ideas have lost their validity.
  • If modern scholarship contradicts or dismisses an old opinion, that fact, duly sourced, can be added.
  • I'd like to know to whom the imperative in "Find a better source ..." is addressed. Editors can edit, but they cannot set tasks for other editors.

SamuelTheGhost (talk) 15:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two things[edit]

  • I understand there's going to be some information in here from the POV of "this is just a story that didn't actually happen and here's our interpretation of why people made it up, or where they got it from", but does it have to outnumber the actual ostensibly-true information four to one? Wouldn't about a 50/50 mix make more sense?
  • What about that bush that, they say, grows in the area, and can burn for long periods without being consumed, for some reason... that's the most popular non-supernatural miracle-explanation I remember from articles on this phenomenon, but it's not in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 00:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use of 'YHWH' vs. 'Yahweh'/'Jehovah'/'Yehowah', etc.[edit]

"In the narrative, an angel of YHWH is described as appearing in the bush,[6] and God is subsequently described as calling out from it to Moses, who had been grazing Jethro's flocks there." I replaced the first use of 'Yahweh' with 'YHWH': the tetragrammaton. Whether 'Yahweh'(6 letters,70=Y25+A1+H8+W23+E5+H8), 'Jehovah'(7,54/69), or 'Yehowah'(7,70/85) is correct is up for debate. Right now, the rest of the paragraph is full of 'Yahweh' and no use of 'God'. Is this because the editors of this article are Jewish and want the 'One God' to belong to the ancient Israelites? Christian editors would not only use YHWH & Yahweh. I realize that everyone has an agenda. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 14:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the billionth and second time, gematria is not a reliable source, Wikipedia regards it as insane bullshit. YHWH redirects to Tetragrammaton, a description of how the name has been treated. The Yahweh article discusses the deity that the Tetragrammaton refers to. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hallucinogenics in lead[edit]

My edit summary was too long and got cut off, but it's a good idea to post here anyway. I agree with the removal of the sentence concerning hallucinogenics from the lead. There is only one scholar mentioned in the article (not "some scholars" as the lead sentence claimed) and there are several alternative theories mentioned - we shouldn't single out one of those for inclusion in the lead. StAnselm (talk) 10:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but since I know that some scholars have suggested that I still think it needs more emphasis. We even have a source for 'some scholars' - Maggi Dawn, who studied theology and literature at the University of Cambridge, UK and is now Associate Professor of Theology and Literature at Yale University (Institute of Sacred Music) says "some scholars"[1]. I don't have time to but there are other sources I'm sure since I remember reading some. This seems to be the most significant alternative theory. Dougweller (talk) 12:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in that case I would support restoring it to the lead with the Dawn reference. StAnselm (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we say 'some scholars', it should be possible for the reader to find out who those scholars are. Right now, all we readers can find out is 'Maggi Dawn says there are some scholars'. It is sufficient to include Benny Shanon's theory in the article body. We don't need to allude to unidentifiable other scholars in the lead. - Crosbie 07:16, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are the more phenomena described like this, as we have seen it too[edit]

I wonder this, because me and another eye witnesses have seen not a burning bush but a burning tree. I cannot explain it, a normal tree, but we did not hear voices, and like the bible the tree was not harmed by the fire. First it looked like a huge light inside the tree (like 10 car headlights). Then later when that cooled down the fire seamed electric, like a lot of electric discharges; but not tiny electric sparks, more wider and slow moving sparks (not hectic, slow as a movie slowdown). Later it ended more like a laser light effect; like these thin laser walls. With a pattern like oil drips in water, but instead of oil this was light emitting. (and very beautiful to see, although one gets worried to about unknown things). Are there books other then the bible describing such phenomena too ? (ps we dont use drugs medication or alcohol) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.107.183.36 (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burning bush. 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, 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deuteronomy 33[edit]

There is an excerpt in Moses' Blessing of the Tribes (I noticed only Exodus citations were at the bottom).Twillisjr (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Burning bush. 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) 19:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical entheogen hypothesis[edit]

I think this section does not belongs here. IMO, it violates rule WP:NOR and even if didn't violate, I'd think it would fit better in a "See also" link redirecting to Benny Shanon page, where this speculation is already written about. Saung Tadashi (talk) 02:22, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Qur’an[edit]

According to the Qur’án, Moses (Musa) departed for Egypt along with his family after completing the time period.

Can "completing the time period" be clarified? Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) 09:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "myth"[edit]

The word "myth" is used by academics in at least three different ways. For a popular level encyclopedia such as Wikipedia, it is wise not to use a word which is likely to be misunderstood in the popular sense of "story that is not true". My thanks to editor Desert Tortoise42 for replacing the word "myth". 15:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC) Pete unseth (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The burning bush[edit]

Why the bush did not burn 2A00:23C7:CD92:3A01:B06E:299D:9BF5:BEB0 (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Surah 28:30 containing God talking as a tree to Moses....[edit]

the islamic version of the burning bush story in the Bible? 62.226.80.22 (talk) 01:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burning_bush&oldid=1206485234"