Talk:Incense offering

Page move to incense (Hebrew Bible) or something

Any reason for this page title not being in English? This isn't a common foreign loanword in academic texts. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English):

The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources

In ictu oculi (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Done After looking at sources incense offering seemed broader. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Christianity section

There's a reference to Hebrews 9:34, but there is no verse 34 in Hebrews chapter 9 - what is the correct reference? BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Tabernacle page references Exodus "25-31 and 35-40." i don't have the book on hand so i would assume this refers to Chapter-Verse, but is improperly formatted. hope this helps. Passename666 (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

seeming bias/lack of coinciding perspective?

it is curious to me that the article focuses specifically on the Abrahamic faiths' perceptions and uses of incense, namely the phrase "during the time of the tabernacle and first and second temple," yet does not consider the fact it predated these times, directly referencing the book of Exodus, and not the place from which the exodus was taken. i understand this is a "wikiproject bible" thing and the connotations thereof, but would it not be prudent to merge with a section on ancient religions as a whole? Passename666 (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Correct Identification

It seems that the people who were supposed to be able to identify these spices all failed.

There should be a section with the correct identification for these referenced spices:

Stacte = Myrrh (water solubles removed)

Onycha = Cassia Buds

Galbanum = Aloes

Pure Frankincense = Pure Olive Oil

Exodus 30 explained

Exodus 30 Proper Spice Identification:

-> "Sweet Cinnamon" in line 23 refers to Aloeswood from the inner bark.

-> "Fragrant Cane" in line 23, sometimes mistranslated as "Calamus," refers to Aloeswood heartwood

-> "Stacte" in line 34 likely refers to a liquid Myrrh with the water soluble parts removed.

-> "Onycha" in line 34 refers to Cassia Buds.

-> "Galbanum" in line 34 refers to a liquid extract from Aloeswood.

These are called "Loanwords." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.204.192.196 (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Greetings! It seems that your edits are being reverted because you are not providing secondary sources to support your claims. Wikipedia does not allow the publication of original thoughts and so in order for your additions to be added to the article, you must provide references for the claims that you are inserting into the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:25, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I will improve the section with loads of secondary/tertiary sources before reposting. Thank you for treating me like a human being and explaining this to me. 209.204.192.196 (talk) 20:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Shawnee15 and Anupam: If you reply, please reply here to keep things in one place.

• Shawnee15, I know you did not write the Bible. However, your additions consisted of more than quotations from the Bible and included your own interpretations, deductions, inferences, and commentary on the subject. That still constitutes original research. (Even if you had only posted quotations, that would still be a problem since Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia, not a collection of quotes.)
• If your commentary was based are published works you were reading (besides the Bible), then you should reference them to make your sources clear. However, if the commentary was the synthesis of published material then it still counts as a original research. For things that are are arguably implied but not explicitly stated the Bible on its own is not an appropriate source.
• "Local witches" aren't a verifiable source because your conversation with them isn't published and can't be reviewed by other editors. Even if you transcribed it and published it yourself, it wouldn't be an independent or reliable source on the subject.

If someone reverts your additions, you should start a topic on the talk page and use the {{reply}} template to notify the user to discuss the problem rather than immediately reverting the revert. Otherwise it could turn into an edit war, which is just a pointless waste of everyone's time. (It is especially awkward when one of the users doesn't have an account. Many people have dynamic IP addresses; IPs can change, which means even if you to try to contact the anonymous editor to resolve the issue there's no guarantee they'll even see your message.) – Scyrme (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

>Local Witches have stores where they sell books, and I met a Witch once who had a library with hundreds. The Bible itself calls the Orthodox Chrism witchcraft... It says explicitly not to do what Solomon did. I will need to do a better job writing though, in order to demonstrate this.

>I understand now that the commentary needs citations, and when it is reposted it will be cited. It may also be thoroughly re-written in a form more suitable for the encyclopedia as you said.

>Is it acceptable to have anything on the pages that might lead to a person self-harming by accident through poisoning? There are some suggestions here that God would have people use a poison. It directly led to me using the poisonous substance in question, therefore a Wikipedia page is currently encouraging self-poisoning and has led to someone becoming ill at least once. (Calamus)

Thank you for your explanation, and sorry for any stress I may have caused you. I won't be reposting it quickly, and it might be better on a new page. Shawnee15 (talk) 22:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Lustiger & Taubes the answer to all cn tags?

Lustiger & Taubes (2006) (and maybe "Incense" from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia?), listed under "References" w/o inline refs, might be the answer to all the cn tags. L&T was the initial base for this art. The JE is accessible online, but Lustiger & Taubes is not. Shirahadasha, who wrote the art. and referenced L&T, stopped editing in 2019. Davidbena, sorry for my repeated pings, tell me if to stop, but you're the only one I know who might have easy access to this book or might be able to replace it with another title which is accessible online. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 09:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

If Lustiger is Jean-Marie Lustiger, he died in 2007. There was also a certain Gila Lustiger. There are a few references to this name, as well as that of Jacob Taubes, on JSTOR (the data base for entries in academic journals), but most are in German and French. I do not have access to their books. Sorry. I checked the Hebrew University library online catalogue of books, and there they list two editors for a Siddur (Mahzor) for Yom Kippur, in the Ashkenazi rite, edited by Arnold Lustiger and Michael Taubes. This book was also published in 2006. (See link). Perhaps the book mentions something about incense.{{|Davidbena]] (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

​Hi David, and thank you for your quick response. I'm sure it has nothing to to with the cardinal :))

You found the book, that's it, it's most certainly this. Only the editor's name is spelled slightly different by the NLI - Kasirer instead of Kashirer. I had doubts about "Kashirer" in the first place, but names are names and we know about the clerks on Ellis Island - or how Jewish immigrants themselves tried to Anglicise their names. 07:40, 31 August 2022 (UTC)Arminden (talk)