Talk:Manna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Part of this talk page has been archived here on May 8 2006 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Cleanup and Accuracy tags added

This is article is pretty embarrasing. It has included this for almost 2 months, not as a attributed quote, but as part of the article.

"Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law or no. Exodus(16:4). And when the dew that lay was gone up, behold, upon the face of the wilderness there lay a small round thing, as small as the hoar frost on the ground. Exodus(16: 14). And when the children of Israel saw it, they said one to another It is manna: for they wist not what it was. And Moses said unto them, This is the bread which the Lord hath given you to eat. And the house of Israel called the name there of manna: and it was like coriander seed, white; and the taste of it was like wafers made with honey. Exodus(l6: 31). And Moses said, This is the thing which the LORD commandeth. Fill an omer of it to be kept for your generations: that they may see the bread where with I have fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you forth from the land of Egypt. Exodus(16: 32). And after the second vail, the tabernacle which is called the Holiest of all: Which had the golden censer and the Ark of the Covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna. Hebrews 9:3&4 But now our soul is dried away: there is nothing at all, beside this manna, before our eyes. And the manna was as coriander seed, and the colour thereof as the colour of bdelliaum. And the people went about and gathered it, and ground it in mills, or beat it in a mortar and baked it in pans: and made cakes of it: and the taste of it was as the taste of fresh oil. And when the dew fell upon the camp in the night, the manna fell upon it."

Much of the content throughout is from a Jewish or Christian point of view. The real need is cleanup, but I put on the accuracy tag also because there were substantive content changes made from an IP (82.35.86.253) that also made some of the offending edits, so that needs to get parsed out. -Bubamara 01:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

  • OK, I made some crude edits to make it less . . . bad. But it needs some work still. -Bubamara 01:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
    • oh my. User 136.245.4.252 has made more bad edits to the page (and to this talk page, above). -Bubamara 08:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
      • I gave it my best shot. And indeed, this is the first time I've ever done such intensive referencing on Wikipedia, so I may have done an awful job. -User:68.81.98.222 1 Aug 2006
Good job with the citation! ---J.S (t|c) 23:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Well.... I'm new to all this jazz....

This is one of the few good articles on manna that I've seen:

http://www.bibleorigins.net/MannaSinaiBodenheimer.html

Hope it helps...

I ask the observant to notice how the candidates for manna in the above link do not even match the description given in Exodus 16, If you would like to think that it's something other than the sacred mushroom you have two options: Go ahead to the detriment of mankind and the disapointment of God, or go find some manna. I am sorry that you have to deal with the organized crime to recieve your sacrament, you should vote against idiots next time. REPEAL NIXONIAN LAW. I mean really wasn't JFK nice? --Mannaseejah 06:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)-

[edit] Constant Vandal

Does anyone want to back me up on this constant reverting? I mean, the person who keeps putting irrelevent, weird bible rants shouldn't be doing that, right? I'm cool with reverting them, right? Why is it always me doing it? Does anyone else read this article? Sparsefarce 21:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're doing the right thing. I just stumbled across this page but it's now on my watchlist and I'll keep an eye on it, too. It certainly needs a lot of work but I'm afraid I don't care enough or know enough about this subject to clean it up. But I can certainly keep if from getting any worse. :) --ElKevbo 22:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
that's kind of where i am. i'm just trying to keep it from getting worse too. Sparsefarce 23:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
This isn't vandalism, it is a content dispute. Please treat it as such and we weary of the 3RR. ---J.S (t|c) 21:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm I take that back... this is somewhere between content dispute and vandalism. ---J.S (t|c) 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, it's hard to separate those two (content dispute and vandalism) in this article. No offense to anyone, but I find some edits to this article downright weird. It's hard to separate the well-intended but poorly-written additions from vandalism. --ElKevbo 22:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

sorry just got bored with all the lies. WHO IS EFFECTED BY THIS? If you aren't then why are you so worried if it's over your head?

[edit] Manna as a mushroom

I was prepaired to quit, but you know what? Somebody has to point to the light switch before we can all be out of the dark.

Wow... Mannaseejah, you need to calm down a bit. I think you have something with the Manna as a Mushroom, but we need to approach it in an academic way. Help me find some reliable sources so we can present verification that the theory exists. (I know I've heard the theory before... so I know that this isn't just OR) ---J.S (t|c) 21:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

TRUTH IS NOT ACADEMIC.

Yes it is. ---J.S (t|c) 20:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
i agree. i mean, if there's some serious evidence out there that talks about manna being psychedelic mushrooms, then that definitely needs to be in there, but form is incredibly important. the strange edits that the user keeps putting into this article are not encyclopedic. i mean, just look at the top of the talk page here. (personally i think that the top of the talk page needs to be cleared off. wikipedia is not a soapbox, and that goes for talk pages, too) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sparsefarce (talk • contribs).

How can color be described to the blind? It is a "form" that you simply cannot understand.

I'll do some research and see what I can find. ---J.S (t|c) 22:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Friday Experiment

What happened to the Good Friday Experiment? The ONLY scientific study ever allowed that shows the connection between mysticsm and psilocin? Is that not convincing evidence? Its scientific and academic and everything you people claim to be truth... Or is the problem that it's a little too convincing? Is the problem here that there are people unworthy muddling in things that do not even concern them?

Or dare I say there is an attachment to a secret that's over?

Do you not understand that the problem isn't your information, but it is how you present it? I happen to agree with most everything you have said. But just because YOU know someting to be true dosn't mean we can just put it up. can you immagine the chaos that would ensue? This place MUST have standards or it will never have creditbility.

Agreed and noted my appologies --Mannaseejah 18:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to find out more about the Good Friday Experiment. Do you have a link to a website I can look at? ---J.S (t|c) 20:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
...a credible website, please. Sparsefarce 21:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The following is a fairly skeptical and conservative analysis of the good friday project that nonetheless recognizes that the nature of psilocin is similar or parellel to mystical religion: CSP.org on "Good Friday Experiment" It may be noted as well that this site has the conservative and skeptical perspective that should be assumed until sufficient evidence is gathered to justify clasification as FACTUAL evidence. Enjoy, lets play?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this article. I've just blocked an anon for 24 hours for putting drug-related gibberish into the article, and I will do the same to anyone who does anything similar. --ajn (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To my fellow wikipedians:

Well this is interesting guys, I was thinking about it and everything... I KNOW what it is, and I know that there is far more evidence than I could ever even assemble, never mind try to explain in a crappy language like english (Except shakespeare) but God knows I tryed and will continue to try. The problem really is that english itself is a veil of the truth unlike hebrew and aramaic. (That is not to say that english doesn't have something good about it; can't really think of what it is but... I think in this other language and when it comes out in english it only makes sense if you understand the word varience and multiple meanings and symbols and parody and comedy and all these things related to an ancient language that nobody speaks and many unfortunate minds simply cannot handle it.

I realized that not everyone is supposed to know this information... yet. Some people are too young or don't have nearly the amount of faith in God to deal with the implications of HIS knowledge. So I came to the page today, not to make sure that all my stuff was still there, but to delete it myself.

This knowledge is such a beautiful burden to bear, but to the unexpecting it is potentially damaging. As a frustrated and confused child of a very big and sometimes scary God (Or the biggest and scariest God as most are well aware of), I do not have any right to place burdens on the shoulders of babes.

So I have decided to create a site with a disclaimer and more organized navigation to reveal the secret. Some say there are few that are worthy, however that is not my call to make. It is God's will and it is God's plan. Knowledge will increase in this age, and there is a very big shift underway. Behind closed doors there are people making things happen: My frustration is in my unworthiness.

It would be nice to think that I had the freedom and liberty to propegate my beliefs however in this day I DO NOT. Once again I am faced with ignorance and it was my face and not the pope's. And so by putting this knowledge which I willingly sought, forcably into people's heads I realized just tonight (with help from the unseen) a few things:

1.) I was doing injustice to seekers of knowledge 2.) I was doinging injustice to the knowledge itself

3.) I was not in accordance to HIS WILL (This is the hardest thing for me)

4.) And God forbid I was proposing to strap a yoke the size of jupiter on unwilling little lambs.

I concede to my human limitations, I am no better than a greedy president or yeast munching Roman

(However I am still working on forgiving the vatican for mass genocide and other crimes that it has committed ever since stealing the religion of the most beautiful man to ever live, and ruining it for most everyone. I have faith God will judge them on an individual basis in 100% truth, and I have faith that Rome's days are numbered. God's will be done.)

This is getting long but I am really trying to get something accross here... Please bear with me, this one last time.

Part II of my final wikipedia rant:

Freedom of Religion is my main frustration in life. One thing I do know, is that what I don't see and what I don't know is much greater than what little I do know and what little I am (quite litterally and even by my own standards) capable of visualizing. I cry and beg for mercy from my lord constantly and I know his mercy is great...

Please forgive me if I seemed fanatical. I am A harmless fanatic of God, peace, liberty and all kinds of other stuff I'm not probably not worthy; however this is my calling.

God bless you all, and thank you for not banning me. Unfortunately any information I have to add to this site is not designed for this site and visa versa. I retire as a failed wikipedian. Knowledge is unfortunately still controlled by rome. As controlled as my sacrament unfortunately.

Possibly wikipedia is just not the place (or time) for the information that lies beyond the veil. No not here, definately for another spot. I'm just glad that I realized this myself before I did anything worse in my ignorance. I commend you all for good work.

Sincerely the overly wize fool (Hebrew: Gershom Koheleth) --Mannaseejah 07:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Good luck with your future endevors. I think your heart is in the right place... but I think you hit the nail on the head there; wikipedia isn't the best place for alot of that. May your god be with you, ---J.S (t|c) 08:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
$50 says he followed that shrooms == manna deal a little too intently and decided to edit Wiki whilst astral projecting his psychotropic inner child. Insanity FTW! Jachin 08:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mannaseejah

Take these points into consideration.

  1. New comments go BELOW old comments.
  2. Editing other people's comments should RARELY ever be done.
  3. This is an Encyclopedia. This isn't your personal soapbox. This isn't your MySpace account. For as long as you treat it as such you will find contributing here very difficult.
  4. You need... and I repeat, NEED to go review the policies on WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOT. One thing you apparently have a problem with is the fact that the guiding light here is not truth, it is "verifiability." Please go read those policies. Now. Before you do anything else. Quickly...... What are you still doing here? Why aren't you reading? GO!
  5. Ok, now that you're back.... Those are the rules here. If you understand them and are willing to abide by them then great! I'm happy to have you here. But, if you don't like them and you don't feel like abiding by them... then your best bet is to go to some other wiki where you can do whatever you want. ---J.S (t|c)
I agree entirely with the above, and I'll add that if there are any more additions of religious ramblings to this talk page, rather than serious discussion about how to improve the article in line with Wikipedia policy, certain people are going to find themselves blocked from Wikipedia for long periods. --ajn (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


I just wanted to add that this same user also has a history of destructive/ranting edits to various articles on psychedelic drugs, such as "Psilocybe", "Psilocybe cubensis", "Entheogen", etc. I'm a major contributor to the "Psilocybe" article and I find this guy to be basically a pest. I've compiled a list of his various incarnations here:
Mannaseejah (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
216.190.22.190 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
208.47.99.199 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
208.47.98.133 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
208.47.96.106 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
136.245.4.252 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
64.113.110.111 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
I don't know if there's much that can be done about either convincing this person to contribute something other than ramblings. I'd like to see the above user/IPs blocked, however, he seems to have access to a lot of different IP addresses, so I don't know how effectively he can stay blocked. Peter G Werner 16:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
good work on compiling this much! Sparsefarce 17:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd say 208 is his home dial-up account. 64.113.110.111 is returning pings of a cable modem, possibly work? Internet cafe? The 216 isn't returning pings. The 136 isn't returning pings. Thus, if anything 208.47.*.* would have to be banned. Cuts off too many people, besides he seems to have settled down. Might be back on his medication.  :P Jachin 09:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mythology

Is there a Christian/Judaism mythology template? I know other religions have templates and I believe it would be beneficial in linking articles of this sort.--Lzygenius 11:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the hell...?

I tried to edit the main-page and it replaced the talk page with the mainpage. Wierd! Check out the history if you wanna see it. ---J.S (t|c) 16:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{fact}}, manna/mushroom, etc

Truth sure can be a bitch when you are brainwashed with lies... when will we be free?

I re-added the section on manna as a mushroom with 5 books that discuss this theory. I will add actual page-number citations as I can when I get the books. Right now the section passes WP:V. 3 biblical citations, 1 web citation and 1 book citation (yes, needs a page number). Also, the 5 books all directly discuss the topic at hand and I will expand the section and provide proper citations as I can.

If you want to be helpful, I'd suggest going to the library and helping me expand the section. Just because the tin-foil-hat people are involved doesn’t mean it's not encyclopedic. :) Thanks, ---J.S (t|c) 18:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)



Maybe you find this article "Magic mushrooms really cause 'spiritual' experiences" useful. --Probos76 12:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mannaseejah (continued)

I want to first applaud J.S (J.Smith?) for putting what I was about to say in a reply to you so so perfectly. I couldn't have put it better myself. To think you are so immensively wonderful and all knowing in YOUR faith is just... well, its fanatisism isn't it? Its zealousy. Now, if in YOUR faith it said somewhere that if you killed through a suicide attack a Christian or a Muslim "infidel" it would guarantee you entry into YOUR heaven then you would probably do it, wouldn't you? Your arrogance angers me so much. Im a British atheist. I live life from an objective view. People like you... well. Just quite killing Lebonese people, they were there before you. False messiah uk 14:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. But I must suggest that you read the policy on "No personal attacks." Also, it's a good idea that if your message is for one person you use thier talk page. Thanks for stopping in... ---J.S (t|c) 21:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shrooms

Re: The mushroom section. I removed the one line of quote out of context of the bible as given and replaced it with the full quote as cited, I further removed a very gramatically incorrect obiter dictum that was placed along side it about mushrooms resembling a hebrew character side on as I don't think that's relevant in any way to the argument being put forward. I saved the changes, looked at it again and it dawned on me ..

The mushroom section as a whole is POV drivel and makes -very- little sense. Rather than abitrarily removing it, could the author of that section please post here explaining the lack of references and what appears to be original research? We could possibly work over it together, because as it stands, it's just not too impressive. The part I bring into question is: -

The biblical description of manna describes it as tasting like honey. This is a direct link to the result of honey saturated with Psilocybe mushrooms, this process thereby reducing the bitter alkaline taste, making the sacrament palatable to those who are accustomed to milk as apposed to meat.

How is the description of manna tasting like honey a direct link to anything other than manna tasting like honey? Was psilocybe mushroom available to the ancient hebrews? As for their being accustomed to milk and not meat, citation? Just reads as though someone is inserting their view / theory based on original research.

I'll nerf it in 24 hours because it makes the article seem like a pseudoscience on anarchronistic eating habits. Jachin 08:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Left it a few days, nerfing it in the meantime, can always revert to psychobabble as required. [shrug] Jachin 22:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good. ---J.S (t|c) 19:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mana/Manna

Mana != Manna

two very different things, i think this article should clarify this by linking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mana

I disagree on two grounds. The first being that manna is also spelt mana (I'd say it's the more common nomenclature actually, except it appears theological history is less popular than RPG's.) and thus there -is-, by definition alone, that implied and accepted ambiguity of the subject matter. Secondly, I disagree on the grounds that they are not two very different things, one is a fictional derivative of the other. 211.30.80.121 22:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Spiritual Nutrition

According to Gabriel Cousens, "The most important mineral for spiritual life is the manna, or iridium, which is specifically geared to expanding consciousness and opening up the pituitary and pineal consciousness of the sixth chakra." (pg 473) "...minerals are frequencies of Light. Iridium is the frequency that connects us with the living field of the cosmos. Iridium is part of a special class of minerals known as monatomic minerals. (pg463)" "...history shows us that the ancient royalty fo many cultures used this white powder to nourish their light bodies." (466) Cousens talks about the different cultures and the different names that each one called manna. Check it out!


Spiritual Nutrition: Six Foundations for Spiritual Life and the Awakening of Kundalini; North Atlantic Books, Berkeley CA (2005).

[edit] Monatomic Minerals: The Philosophers Stone

There are many literary references to the philosophers stone being a white powder, there are also many references to monatomic elements such as monatomic gold being ingested baked into small wafers and cakes for alleged medicinal purposes. Of late there is a big movement behind this stuff spreading all over the internet, I figured it might be worthwhile if one of the authors or editors of this article were to look further into this MM:TPS == Manna theory and perhaps extrapolate on research on the subject for this--highly neglected--article. Jachin 14:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

It would require some sources... and I haven't head the comparison made by anyone inverviewd for MM on Coast to Coast. Might be interesting. ---J.S (t|c) 17:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

MANNA WE USED TO HAVE A MYSTIC BACKGROUND AND STILL PEOPLE TRY TO EASE HIS POINT OF VIEW TALKING ABOUT EVERY THING ACCORDING TO A VIEWS OF PEOPLE LIVED TRYING TO FIND A CLUE LIKE AN ELEPHANT YESTERDAY WE SAW TRYING TO DISCOVER ITSELF THROUGH THE MIRROR, THE MANNA IS A SIMPLE MATTER IT STIL EXIST, WE IN OUR COUNTRY ON THE MOUNTAIN DURING A CERTAIN SEASON COLLECT IT, IT IS A STRANGE THING MOSTLY PEOPLE COLLECT IT ON TREES LEAVES.. (MAJOR SON DESCRIBED IT IN HIS TRAVEL TO KURDISTAN) ACTUALLY THIS SIMPLE MATTER IS A SUGGER UNDER A CERTAIN TEMPRATURE AND PRESSURE AGGREGATE IN THE SKY AND UNDER THE CLOUDS NOT FAR MORE, FALLS ACCORDING TO GRAVITY.

[edit] ===Here comes the boyz from the South===

WHOS BEEN VANDALIZING THIS PAGE NOW THAT IM HERE THERES GONNA BA SOME CHANGES

[edit] The manna of Saint Nicholas?

That part sounds fishy, and the link provided is obviously POV and thus cannot serve as a reference. --Tail 22:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to get a secondary uninvolved source. ---J.S (T/C) 22:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/n/Talk%7EManna_fd8d.html"