The Tree of Life

FAN

New member
They probably do have alot to do with the jewish and cristian influnces in plots and backgrounds of the movies.
Harrison Ford is actualy half jewish, I think his mom is half jewish.
 

FAN

New member
Sorry, I dont remeber my password so I cant edit my statement, I meant to say I think his mom is Jewish and his dad is cristian. I may have got that wrong, I dont rember wich.
 

lornconner

New member
Sorry I haven't posted for a few days, apparently I missed the email saying that folks were still discussing the thread.

As to "how in the world do you expect Indy to get past two angels put there to guard the entrance to the Garden when God specifically put them there to prevent entrance", I think that's actually pretty easy.

The relevent passage doesn't say that the way to the garden is impassable. Quite the opposite, in fact.

God doesn't want to deny man enternal life...he wants to make sure that man receives eternal life by coming through the Word of God, and the only way to do that is through Christ. Those who accept Christ as their savior have lived the Word of God, and passed by the way of the Sword of Fire.

Those who have not come by way of the sword of fire (or word of God) have not accepted Gods word and will not pass by the Cherubim.

I see this in movie terms as meaning that in THIS movie, (if this is the plot presented) Indy will come to accept that each past adventure HAS been the way that he remembered it. Lingering doubts about God himself would be swept away before he would be able to enter the garden.



Lorn
 

bob

New member
I think that by studying the Bible you are not going to get a good Indy film as dwelling too much on theology in the movie would alienate the audience just wanting some fun.

You have got to give GL artistic liscence
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
I agree, bob. I think that by tying in the fairly common place aspects of a "tree" that spawned civilization, with the Judeo-Christian elements of the garden, the "angry angry angels" [sorry =)] the flaming sword as a guide, and the fact that indy may be reluctant to challenge such elements unless he is compeled by outside elements, we have the makings of a good "eden" story. I guess the question now is to the three in charge feel think as profoundly as those of us who contributed to this thread...
 

FAN

New member
Artistic license is fine for fiction and novel's but people take artistic license way out of perportion with the bible. You wouldent portray George Washington as a tyrannical slave master who was bent on allout meaness would you? Or Susan B. Anthony as hardened femin-nazi,or Martin Luther King as a anti-white racist? Of course not, these people deserve proper respect for there part in history, wo why should George Lucas or any one be able to do anything they want with an artistic license that might mock or defame the Bible, just so people can have a little fun? Get real, I am against theology in the movie, strongly agianst it theology usaly kill's every movie, but am equaly opposed to George Lucas or anyone else taking something out of the bible and then twisting to fit there purpose.
 

bob

New member
FAN said:
Artistic license is fine for fiction and novel's but people take artistic license way out of perportion with the bible. You wouldent portray George Washington as a tyrannical slave master who was bent on allout meaness would you? Or Susan B. Anthony as hardened femin-nazi,or Martin Luther King as a anti-white racist? Of course not, these people deserve proper respect for there part in history, wo why should George Lucas or any one be able to do anything they want with an artistic license that might mock or defame the Bible, just so people can have a little fun? Get real, I am against theology in the movie, strongly agianst it theology usaly kill's every movie, but am equaly opposed to George Lucas or anyone else taking something out of the bible and then twisting to fit there purpose.

The Indy films are B Movies they are not meant to be taken entirely seriously, the Bible is part of our cultural consciousness whether we believe or no. Therefore the reason that it is used is becuase it it something that we can all relate to in the west.

I have my respect for faith but that is why Indy IV should not be about Eden as it puts too many constraints with the film maker, almost everything in LC was made up vast majority of Ark was made up. If i were GL i would not want to be constrained in making Indy IV by the demands of theology...
 

FAN

New member
I said I am against theology, but you wouldent want Lucas to make a movie that might offend cristians and jews worldwide would you? I like Raiders of the Lost Ark and the Last Crusade, they were humerous,plot filled,meanigful, and biblical. The jewish and cristian acspect's in these films were not taken out of perportion,nor to my knowledge violate the Bible. I think the Ark would be interesting except for the fact that there wouldent be enough booby trap,s or thing's like that.
What they could do is have a list historical thing's like the Ark, Arther's toom, ext. . . and all these places would give them a clue to the place were to find the object there ultimatly after. And since it's the 1950's he will be fighting the Communist's instead of the Nazi's.
 
Fan, I understand where you are coming from. I must offer however, that in the Indiana Jones series, the items that are being pursued be infused with the power of God. This creates the mystery of the films that I find so appealing. Insulting any group would not benefit anyone. But to have Indiana Jones go after some mediocre artifact with no cinematic climax would be boring. We are all here because of our fondness of the character, so I'm sure you agree that it is our INTERPRETATION of the bible which we are basing our own speculations on. I believe that we have the freedom to do so, and so we are. It is not for the intention of obscuring any specific element or meaning in the bible, rather it is to extract an artifact which played a powerful role in the bible and to see what would happen if that item surface today.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
I would hate to see a great thread die because there are differences in Biblical translation. One of the things lorn and bob have argued back and forth (as well as many other raveners) is the aspect of believeability for the garden of eden. I went back to page two and saw the babylon inscription which was described in Halle's Bible Handbook. I wanted to know if that was another description of Eden. I was under the impression that Eden was only described in the Bible. All other stories of "creation" if you will were far more "mystical" and never detailed the location.

Then I went to some sights using google search and found one that purports Eden to be the Nile River Delta. That really makes for some interesting plots and sub plots for the story.

Egypt is the geographical center of the earth. It would be the center of the land mass before pangea was broken up by the flood. It was the land of Isreal's enslavement (which according to many theologians serves as a metaphor of enslavement before salvation) AND, there could be astronomical connections to the heavens...see Jacobs Ladder..DNA, Aliens.

For me, the correlations are there. I wanted to get something on the board, but I will be doing research on Eden into the night to bring more ideas to this thread, and the Tree of Life artifact...
 

FAN

New member
Applehorse, This may help you with your research into Eden.
There is a theory going around in ( not connected to the Raven or Indy IV, but compiled by researchers and theologians ) that the four river's mentioned in Genesis is today's Euphrates,Tigris,Nile,Red Sea, and that the main river is the mediteranian, and that Eden is some where in Isreal.This is realy just a theory, but you might wan't to check into it, Oh and be careful about reading any apochraful or lost book's that claim to have immformation about Eden,almost all are fakes and were written durring the middle ages and then people claimed they were written before Christ's time,ext...
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
As the son of a baptist minister, I am very familiar with Bible History, if you will. My speculations concerning this post have to do with the fact that much of the Bible is allegorical. But, the amzing thing is that the allegories are also very literal. With that in mind, what does the TREE OF LIFE mean, is it a true tree as some have mocked, or is it something more. Lorn has examined what the FLAMING SWORD could be. It is my contention that THE GARDEN OF EDEN is both a literal place that exists [existed] and can be found through archeology, and it is a allegorical representation of that which is most basic to our existance: "Where do we come from"

Last Crusade attempted to solve the problem of eternal life, through the Grail. It also hinted at the attainment of elightenment with the aspect of Illumination. From a philosophical aspect, it failed to reveal the truths, yet succeded in the fact that it still allows for the rest of us to continue the "quest".

I believe George and Steven want to inspire their audience to reexamine this age old arguement of existance. If they tie it in to the pyramids, atlantis, aliens, or any of a number theroies, it will make for a good movie; as long as the connections between any of the myths don't become to much of a stretch for anyone to reasonably accept.

I also contend that if this premise of the garden is in fact what is being developed, Indy should find the answer, but not be able to convey it to anyone.
 

FAN

New member
The fruit of the Tree of life is un-atanable to everyone,including Indy. Only in the last chapters of Revelation is it written about those who may eat of the tree of Life.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Again, many people have addressed the literal translation of the tree. I am not wanting to get into a debate about theology within THIS thread. That's what I have a posted e-mail for. But seeing as many feel it appropriate to quote Biblical passages to support their arguement, take into consideration the following sentences also found in the Bible:

...true wisdom is a tree of life to them that lay hold upon her,

the fruit of the righteous is a tree of life,

when the desire cometh, it is a tree of life,

a wholesome tongue is a tree of life...

Considering this, I think it is worth examining the fact that the TREE of LIFE is attainable. The above sentences (while very Last Crusade-ish) give mertit to both a broad view of an acceptable tree, as well as possible traps for seekers with less then desireable motives. Let us not get hung up on the THEOLOGY of the tree and FOCUS more on how the big three could represent it in a believable, unique manner.
 

FAN

New member
You seem to be very fond of taking scriptures out of text and ignore my statemant's Applehorse. I have stated several time's that I am against theology,and the verse's you qouted sound as though they were taken from Proverb's or another of Solomon's book's. First of all the verse's were not refering to the tree of Life in Genesis and Revelation,they were refering to wisdom just as in the last chapter of proverb's it say's that a good wife is more of value then rubies,secondly the tree of Life that we have been descussing is the actual one mentioned in Genesis and Revelation, God said that he put cherubium and a flaming sword to gaurd the tree and to prevent man from eating from it,this include's Indiana Jones ( HE IS NO EXCEPTION ) the only way to eat of the tree of Life is mentioned in Revelation, so it seem's that you and everyone else's disagrement is not with me but God,so I there is no reason for me to post here again, if you wish to argue your point further I suggest you take it up with Him. Good day.
 

Aaron H

Moderator Emeritus
I would argue that Apalehorse has a point, is the Tree of Life a physical tree? Or is it Wisdom? You can all the Knowledge of the World (Good and Evil) and still loose your soul...a paraphrase of a verse in Proverbs & a Letter from Paul.
If the Tree of Life is Wisdom, then that is the starting point for Indy.
My idea of what the IV plot line could be using the Tree of Life idea:
Indiana Jones is called to the beside of his very old, but dying, father. Henry, Sr. tells him of his first "love affair", it was not with the Grail as Indy had believed, but with finding the Garden of Eden, the birthplace of mankind. Indy, who believes this all to be the ramblings of a dying man, brushes the idea aside. At Henry's funeral, Indy meets up with Marion and Willie who have heard about Indy's loss. Later on that evening, Marion asks Indy to keep an eye on a daughter of a close friend of hers, since Marion is busy on an expedition. Indy reluctantly agrees and promises that he will watch the girl. After falling asleep on the couch, Indy awakes in the middle of the night only to find a burglar inside. Indy knocks him out cold, but when he pulls the mask off he finds out the he is a she, the girl he is supposed to be watching. Indy then finds out that she was hired by an unknown person to get several of Henry's journals and find anything related to the Garden. Indy now knows that something is up, so after a quick stop to Marcus' son Indy and the girl travel to Greece where the research suggests that Atlantis may be the Garden of Eden...or at least the first place to start.

Okay so this is just the kick off, but I think that you see where I am going with this. The girl is Indy's daughter, Indy is not searching for a physical tree, and Indy hooks up with some old friends for help. Will Indy and Co. survive? Will they find the Garden before the Soviets? Will there be another movie? Only time will tell, tune in next week...errr...I mean stay tuned!
 

jefferies

New member
Well, I'm new here and this is a great way to get to know everyone-by coming on and disagreeing with everyone. Personally I don't want to see the Garden of Eden in the film. Mainly for my own religious beliefs-yes I believe that the garden is real place, but the location shifted from where in has been commonly placed (at least on this thread). I know that the script deals with something to do with Adam & Eve, but who said it had to do with the Garden? Perhaps it could do with an artifact from after they were kick out. Maybe the secret as to how Adam's generations could live so long. (just an idea) If they show the Garden that's fine, I'll survive. I just hope it's not centered around it.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
I think a FAN misunderstood me, and if so I want to make every effort for a mutual discussion... zas4freedom@yahoo.com

with that in mind...

Thank you Aaron for seeing a broader aspect of this thread: how ultimately can the Tree of Life be represented. You touched on some cinematic and dramatic elements that may be too obvious to all of us celluloid raveners, but does such simplicity mean a movie is bad?

It is my belief that Indy wouldn't actively pursue the garden, just as he never thought of pursuing the Ark, Sankara, or Grail. In every cinematic instance, he was thrust into action. With respect to his age, he would never actually go after anything that wasn't FACT, without some impending impetus. Lorn had the right idea with Indy being cpompelled by a student or rival, when it comes to Eden.

The only other way he would pursue such an endeavor personally, is if he felt the pains of mortality, and not having any legacy of his own, would seek to rectify himself with Marion, and gain an eternal goal.
 
"Well..?"
"They want you to go after it!"
"Oh Marcus... and the museum gets the Ark when we're done, right?"
"Of Course."

I object to the reluctant hero idea, at least for Raiders. While I agree that in Temple of Doom and Last Crusade the items were secondary to Indy's true goal, in Raiders it was specifically the Ark of the Covenant Indy was after. It was an item that bridged a gap between mythology and reality and I believe this was why Indy was fueled to get it, although he did not believe it had any power to it.

The idea that the new movie would have to be written with a super goal, making the garden itself secondary, isn't necessary. Although the reluctant hero is a key theme with adventurers, Indy sort of plays the role of "protector of ancient artifacts" and dons that guise when religious artifacts are threatened by evil-doers.

Basing the idea on Raiders, the only motivator Indy would need is that the (Germans?) Russians would be one step ahead in locating the true resting place of the Garden of Eden. Indy would be compelled to beat them, I'm sure.

However, since the story takes place in the fifties, I'm sure some cold war activity will play a key role in Indy's motivations. So, what if a top Russian scientist plans to defect to the States with plans for a new bomb. He gets pursued and/or shot down and a radio S.O.S. is picked up by American intelligence. The scientist claims he found Eden. Indy is hired by the government and the race is on to find the missing russian defector who just may have discovered the Garden of Eden.

[Edited by thegreatimposter on 06-17-2003 at 01:55 pm]
 

lornconner

New member
Hmmmm....

Been awhile since I've been in here, but apalehorse told me there were a few interesting developments in the thread, so I decided to jump in.

First of all, I'm glad to see that the debate is still raging. Nothing is more fun than a great debate!

Secondly, I think I'd better clarify my position on a couple of issues.

I *don't* necessarily see Indy as reluctantly going after Eden. The idea of chasing after a student or following somebody elses dream was somebody elses idea (I don't recall who.)

That's not to say that I expect Indy to go chasing after Eden. As apalehorse stated, Indy searches for Fact, not truth.

Other great points have been made:

"This is what we got into archeaology for in the first place" is a quote that stands out in my head.

I think having Indy go after Eden for the immortality angle is a bit too cliched. As I've stated before, Indy to me always questions what has happened to him before. "Naah...things COULDN'T have happened the way I remember them."

In the course of each movie, he decides to take a leap of faith, and believe in the mystical nature of whatever artifact that he finds. This is where Indys truth comes from.

But the one thing that Indy is consistent about is his Fortune and Glory. (Last Crusade is a bit of an exception to this rule, but we all know Indy was really seeking his Father, right?)

apalehorse was absolutely right to point out that in the case of the Sankara Stones and the Holy Grail, that Indy ended up searching for the artifacts almost as a byproduct of the situation that he's in.

In those situations, he's initially reluctant to go after the artifacts, but grows more and more excited as the chase goes on. Before long, he's an enthusiastic participant in the search.

I dont' think Indy will believe in the mystical powers of the Tree of Life, or even that it necessarily exists.

Here's how I see things playing out:

Remember, this movie takes place in the 50's. Archaeological methods will have changed quite a bit in the last 20 years. While Indys adventurous/graverobbing ways may've gotten the job done in the past, the museum would probably be much less willing to turn a blind eye to Indys methods.

International Agreements for the treatments of antiquities will probably be taken MUCH more seriously.

While Indy has brought back relics for the museums, he always brings back small pieces - never the historical pieces that he seeks. I figure that by the 50's, he'll probably be a director of his department at the college, and one of the senior fellows at the museum. He'll probably have taken over Marcus' position after his death.

However, he probably hasn't returned with any significant finds in some time. He's well respected, but also perhaps a bit of a joke at this point in time. His methods no longer apply, and he may be something of an embarassment to the museum at this point. How funny would it be to have Indy lecturing his students about taking unncessary risks? Remember "X Never, ever marks the spot?"

I figure that at this point in his life, what Indy wants is not so much fortune...but he would want a little glory to be attached to his name. Something that will let him be rememberd as something more than "That professor at the college, who tells the great stories." He wants to be somebody who BRINGS A SIGNIFICANT ARTIFACT HOME.

This is where I think the plaque at Babylon comes in. The plaque itself is a real artifact, that supposedly talks of the Garden and Tree located in Iraq.

This alone is a very interesting artifact...and finding such an artifact could spur Indy into trying to locate the place referenced.

He's not after mysticism...he's after artifacts and knowledge of the Cradle of Civilization, in the hopes of having a legacy that will live after him, and give him a kind of immortality. Of course, if he finds the Tree of Life itself, he could gain the literal kind.

Thoughts?



Lorn
 
Top