Talk:Manna

Part of this talk page has been archived here on May 8 2006 (UTC).

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)

---Hey, I'm not sure how to open a new 'thread' on the discussion page. My point about Accuracy is that it says in the beginning that Manna is mentioned in the Quran Surah "the Flattening"; No Such Surah exist and it should be changed to "Surah Ta-ha" is the hyperlink suggested and I've checked myslef. I cannot edit the intro to this article, so it would be nice if someone corrects this fact. MindSpirit (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)MindSpirit

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)-

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?

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) —Preceding unsigned comment 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)

How many mushrooms would grow in the Sinai in any case? Mushrooms, not fungus, that is. They require more humidity than the circumstances of the Exodus story seem to imply. Dew will not suufice. Dysmorodrepanis 03:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

IT SAYS DEW: THAT MEANS THE CLIMATE WAS DIFFERENT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.42.61 (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was - 5,000 years before the events of Exodus at least. Probably more like 10,000. I suggest you yourself haul your ass down to the Sinai and try gathering shrooms. Good luck. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

If I look to the left and you look to the right will we both see the same thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.157.198 (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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 · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

216.190.22.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

208.47.99.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

208.47.98.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

208.47.96.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

136.245.4.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

64.113.110.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

It's nice to know that here at wikipedia we can expect to be censored according to the kings cubit, and not by the merits of logic or deduction. If you had read the discription in exodus 16 you would see the opposite is true: manna is a mushroom and the other hypothes do not fit the definition is the bible. The bible is the authority on the issue, not any church or group of people. It says it's a mushroom and that makes the alleged religion of this country illegal, as well as my own. This is not to convince people to do these things, but to show that the core of their beliefs were derived from these states, and that the ancient architects designed accordingly. If moses or jesus was alive today he would be pissed that people so radically mistranslated and misinterpreted their words. They would deny almost all of them, and wish not to be associated with these liars and profiteers we call our religious institutions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.42.61 (talk) 06:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

1. RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION 2. MORONS 3. I HAVE INFINITE ACCESS POINTS, I REPEAT MORONS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.157.198 (talk) 10:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

{{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)

Hey tin foil hats are all the rage, you should get one too. (I bet if I had a multimillion dollar advertizing budget you'd believe everything sold is truth.) Doesn't anyone wonder about these arbitrary "rules" you people have established? Or taken into consideration that people so persecuted as this person sounds, are probably writing in a fit of rage and frustration? It may not be so much a mental condition as frustration in using a human language to share God's revelation?

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

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)

INFIDELS!! Hah, so I make some bad edits in earnest and get suspended and this guy equates me with a terrorist who kills people and you thank him? It's a good thing I can hide behind all these IP addresses or you idiots would have called me a duck and burned me for heresy a long time ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.157.198 (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Idiots don't know the difference between life and death —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.42.61 (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Religion is a veil. Truth is diety. I suggest you digest some of the writings of Descartes, to whom we can thank for the scientific method. His only unquestionable point and entire purpose for his design was to prove the existence of God. Atheist ideals were founded by a devout catholic. I suggest you read a book.

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.

do you not understand?

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. (milk is for babes, meat is for men)

I'll nerf it in 24 hours because it makes the article seem like a pseudoscience on anachronistic 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)

How can anyone provide a citation for something which the study of has become illegal? Can you not understand my frustration? The manna would deteriorate rapidly (melts in the sun) identically to liberty cap psilocybes, to preserve the alkaloid constituents they were stored and prepared with a honey admixture. I don't see how that is so difficult to comprehend. This is a well established fact and citation is something I am pursuing.

Sounds good. ---J.S (t|c) 19:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

"I don't see how that is so difficult to comprehend. This is a well established fact and citation is something I am pursuing."

Well here is another well-known fact: the Near and Middle East are chock full of psychoactives. Harmal. Ephedra. Brugmansia was traded from India millennia ago. Cannabis, etc. There is a documented history of entheogen use in the regions. There are however no (AFAIK) indications of shroom-worship, fungal cults or the likes. Who needs shrooms when you can get all the "telepathine" you want?

Ney McKenna and all blah bla, Argument from authority, but wrong authority. We need an authority on Near/Middle Eastern history and ethnobotany here, not American ethnobotany. FWIW, there might still be some pre-tzabra Israeli professors around and in any case the Israeli academic scene would probably be the #1 place to start looking (via PubMed). For one thing, whether the issue is critical to Jews or not, you'll find a higher diversity per number of researchers in IL than in most other places. For another, it's got the local advantage. And last, Syrian or Egyptian scientists may just as well have worked the mycology of the Sinai, but most of the codex is in Arabic and not online (not even cited usually). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If you had read Leviticus you would know that what we are discussing is THE SECRET, they don't just go around letting that kind of thing out. That is why the third party with no vested interested in maintaining an ancient secret is the best source. Also as I have said before the climate was different 3,000-5,000 years ago. The desert was caused by the unintelligent use of the land (God's right hand smiting them) by non-renewable farming techniques (hint). It used to have lions roaming around (read Judges 14:5, 1 Samuel 17:34) which means there was antelope which means there was poop and grass and dew and psilocybes. Like a lion of the tribe of Judah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.157.198 (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Mana/Manna

Mana != Manna

far eastern mystical tradition relates that mana is the seventh state of consciousness (Three Pillars of Zen). The seventh character in the hebrew alphabet is ZEN. Manna is the mushroom and your atheist methodology is proved by multidimensional mathematics entirely illogical. Basing our reality on these mere three dimensions is a serious flaw, but unfortunately one that we have to deal with until we are more capable at grasping the true nature of reality. Facts change, get over it.

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)

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 (DMT A SCHEDULED SUBSTANCE PRODUCED IN THIS GLAND) 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).

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.

To whoever the unsigned above commenter was with the stuck caps lock, please use normal casing whilst conversing with others, all capitals is considered to be 'shouting' and thus rude. There is no reason that something of a 'mystic' background cannot have a scientific explination. In fact, everything has a scientific explination, period. Perhaps this 'we' in 'our country' could extrapolate? Perhaps you can give us some insight as to what you believe it to be, or better still, produce some documentation or links? Jachin 05:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Isn't it possible that manna, seaing as it came from god, the people who believe it magically appeard must belive in god, so why dosnt anyone think Manna, is just that? a food that only exist in heaven?

I mean if it was a big or a plant I think the bible would call it that, you can't assume everything is from earth.

Thats why its a HEAVENLY food.

The hebrew reads "picked the manna" and not "gathered" of your shitty translation which you have based your theology on. IT IS A LIVING ORGANISM, of which the only possible explanation is a mushroom.

Rebuttal: Why would the explaination of its characteristics survive over 4,000 years if it was not something that was supposed to be discovered and consumed? The Aramaic word for heaven is actually dveshmaya which means honey water as in nectar like the Greek Food of the Gods Ambrosia. It seems that people are very scared that this stigmatized fungus could actually be a uniting force of all religious beliefs as a means to reconcile different means to the same end: religious ecstacy. Few Christians in todays age are fortunate enough to have the time to study the scriptures at such great lengths that they would discover the true meaning of the initiation to the mystery (Sacrament).

There are a few questions septics of the traditional entheogenic beliefs have. The biggest one is that today Israel is a desert and obviously mushrooms cannot grow in that type of climate (naturally); however this is easy put into context when we see that manna appeared with the dew apparently on the grass, meaning the climate was not a desert at that time. Recent evidence indicates it was much more tropical. Could this be how The Lord departed from Israel? I believe it has something to do with it.

Furthermore in proving the existence of manna as a literal entheogen we only have the one chapter in the bible where it is described. It is a pearl hidden in a field so to speak. What looks like beryllium ore (bruised blue stem) coriander (brown shiny cap) and hoarfrost (mycellium)? Why does it exhibit the same growth requirements of a psilocybe? IT IS MANNA. MANNA IS MANNA. PERIOD.

One last note: The Hebrew indicates the vessels which Christ used to make the powerful wine (brew) were used for the boiling of water, instead of regular water storage. If the boiling of the manna creates the chmesh (most valued of wines) as exodus 16 indicates then Christianity is an entheogen based religion in addition to Judaism, Hinduism (soma), NAC (peyote), UDV (ayahuasca), and others. Quite frankly that is enough of a list for me to say with conviction that the basic human right to freedom of religion is greatly compromised by the Nixonian law. Can you truthfully say any religions ARE legal with this constitutional violation that has been going on just over 40 years?

Seek and tho shalt find. (gr: eis soteria = unto salvation) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.126.42.61 (talk) 07:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Manna to Mushroom connection

It's horribly written, and reads like somebody wrote it after testing the connection by munching some shrooms. Is there any WP-based rationale to not completely re-write it into something worthy of inclusion in a GA-status page? Alternator 23:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

For your information I wrote it on equally dangerous drugs called serotonin and dopamine which are precursors of sheduled substances and potentially illegal through the Analog Act. The issues discussed here are very serious: it has been added these violations of the constitution. How can there be free press and free speech if there is no free thought? THERE CANNOT BE. Step outside for a minute and see how small this box is that's being formed around us. God help us all. Yes the author was impassioned and upset when he contributed that horribly edited text, as you can see these external factors forced by society have damaging consequences at the very least on writing ability. Ultimately though it comes down to the fact that we need to be working on creating a world that will not enslave our children as it has enslaved us and in some cases our parents and grand parents. Is this really all there is to reality? We need a team to rebuild reality and counter those who are doing so well at destroying it.

FULLACK.

Now what? I feel that there are issues to tackle more important than an edit war about whether mana was shrooms or not. The Scripture is pretty clear here, it was THA 1337 from the BIG KAHUNA Himself and I guess that's the main thing that matters.

Or, if we NEED to discuz this, can we at least use good standards and try to get a pinpoint on the biology (as in the science) thing? ATMD among the most serious lacks of understanding shown by ppl in all walks of life is a gross underestimation of biodiversity.

So it was a 'shroom? What kind of? The discuz spins around the usual 2-3 suspects, but as any mycologist can attest, theres 100s-1000s of candidates. (if it was lichen it was "shrooms" by default. Perhaps a psychedelic lichen? Stranger things have been seen in the skies.)

The taxonomy of the lifeforms herein could also do with some updating. Try redlinking and then opening redlink and searching (near the top).

As another thing: The local conditions were as wet as today but a tiny bit colder on average. But the variation within a week - within day and night - would have been much larger than the difference from today. In any case, it appears that the region was fairly dry (Moses' staff on rock etc). There could be cap fungi under such conditions, but only in caves, shelter etc, and not enough for 2 people to survive upon at any one time (Or they would have encountered a gigantic cave system or a vast oasis, totally stinning things, of which there is no mention). Any Psilocybe or Stropharia caught in the open under such conditions would not "melt". It would dry up and wither to a straw in maybe 3 hours. Have you never seen these things in the wild? Sheesh. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

WHOAMI

It says "Manna". WTF?

"... and cloaked merchantesses, selling dry phallic tubes of manna in open stalls for 1.49 bucks a hit ..."
I.V.

Seriously: What is this? Cassia, Senna or at least some Caesalpinioideae. The genera are totally fsck'ed up but the treeish ones seem to be Cassia mostly. Does anyone have good solid sourceable info on what species this is from? here too, which says its a pod with edible interior (think tamarind). Ordinarily I would think Cassia fistula which has the fistul- tube/pipe thingy. But its seed seem to be poisonous, and its from South Asia. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Semolina

Just wanted to point out that manna in Swedish means semolina, and I always assumed this is what they refer to. Makes sense to me. 80.229.163.182 (talk) 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Help

What do you make of this article: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,723060,00.html ? It seems to me to assert that manna is the excretion of bugs. Is that kosher ? Is there a way to include this reputable source in the wikipedia article ? Thanks rkmlai (talk) 04:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Manna = mushrooms

Manna is mushrooms.

See Poor_Man's_Bible

and especially http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Canterbury_Cathedral_020_Poor_Mans_Bbible_Window_01.jpg

Mushrooms are a carrying theme. Find the mushrooms from the picture!

Moses was in drugs when he and his crew invaded Canaan. He got the 10 commandments from his dad. But isn't it ironic at the same time he allegedly carried these stones written like "do not kill" "do not take whats not yours" ... and at the same time they made a war trip to Canaan. The war and preparation of it is described in the bible.

Take a deeper look to the Canterbury poor man's bible window, you see three men taking mushrooms and on the next night they hallucinate of seeing an "angel".

In early christianity mushrooms were a common theme in their art.

UnionWorker (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)