Talk:Tabernacle

message: User:Hertz1888, this paragraph seems to be worded in a way I doubt many readers will understand. The 'reflector' is usually called a lamp or candlestick. Although 'knop' is another spelling of 'knob', in this case it actually means 'bud', which is what most versions of this passage say. Why should we use a word few will understand? I don't know how the Mechon Mamre website seems to have taken over a lot of our articles, but it isn't helpful in this case. We should use the ordinary English word 'bud' and either lamp or candlestick. Doug Weller (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The same word appears in other biblical websites as well, per search under "knops exodus 25".  By all means edit the paragraph to use familiar English and avoid future confusion. Hertz1888 (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I did see it at other sites. But I should have checked the verses to see it meant bud. Doug Weller (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knops and reflector 

message: Should any of these be in the article? Except for the Timna Valley one, they are all created by Wikipedia editors, 3 of them by the same editor. It bothers me slightly that one was changed after "more insight" by its creator. Insight? Doug Weller talk 15:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sketches and models 

message: In the Subsequent History section, it is mentioned that according to Judges 20, the Ark and the Tabernacle were located in Bethel. Because the text only mentions the Ark, this interpretation assumes the Tabernacle is there as well. It may be the correct assumption but it is still an assumption. A possible alternative is that the Ark was taken to Bethel alone as a palladium, or protective "charm" in preparation for the battle, a practice with a precedent in Joshua 3 and Joshua 6. There is debate about this within the scholarly literature, and the wiki page ought to reflect this, at least in brief form. I propose the following as an edit: "According to Judges 20:26-28, the ark, and thus possibly the tabernacle, was at Bethel while Phinehas, grandson of Aaron, was still alive." Kaufman79 (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, do accept your suggested edit, because it is simply more accurate. There could be also a footnote added regarding the debate about it in the scholarly literature. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 23:03, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of Tabernacle in Bethel 

message: what do you think? 117.219.214.44 (talk) 11:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tabernacle 

message: Some time back this talk page had an entry titled
:::Support - I'm not 100% certain of what's been going on at Talk:Tachash aka "badger skins (?)," but does look like an article creation by a sockpuppet, and does look like like the best treatment is that the page has been closed down and redirected here. Good. Still, the section here might want to add that rabbinical and Christian interpretation has been divided, and that the Septuagint has δέρματα ὑακίνθινα, per source Natan Slifkin, Joel A. Linsider, Gila Weinberg Sacred Monsters: Mysterious and Mythical Creatures of Scripture 2007 Page 56 "Rabbi Yehudah said: [The tabernacle cover was made from] taynin, and it was named after its color. According to the Korban Ha-Edah commentary, this means that the cover was made from ordinary goat skins, but which were colored with a dye called taynin. This finds support in the twelfth-century Sefer Ha-Aruch, which relates the name ...... The Septuagint also follows this view, rendering “the skins of the tachash” as dermata hyacintha, hyacinth-blue dyed leather." Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sir, the word "tachash" in Biblical Hebrew means literally "dark" or "darkened". Traditional
 interpretations of the meaning of this word is what it is - traditional interepretations. I'm going to stay away from this 
due to all edit wars here, but just consider this as an FYI. Aleksig6 (talk) 19:30, 
26 February 2012 (UTC)
 I just now came to this Talk page to suggest that the info/data in Slifkin, Hewlett and Enc. Judaica might be combined into a separate brief article—until I read Talk:Tachash refd. above by User:In ictu oculi.  The edit-warring there just blew me away! Instead, I would now argue  that in view of the past notorious rep. of article Tachash/Taḥash the current refs. in this current article Tabernacle (Organization) are good enough for the curious reader, especially since the texts cited can be accessed online at Google Books (not Encyclopaedia Judaica, though). Their inclusion addresses the suggestions made above by In ictu oculi. I'm 
with Aleksig6 on this, and I won't even offer to write a new article "Taḥash" briefly summarizing data from those sources. To use a quote 
from Talk:Tachash: "...now stay away!" (Someone might try it about 5 years from now, but not right now. It's way too soon.) --Humaniphilon (talk) 20:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now five years later,  Nuts240 (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Ding: It's five years later, for the second time

message: Before going too much further in edits, I wanted to put out a talk page section to see if I'm missing something.  The page seems structured around a lot of the Documentary Hypothesis position.  IE that multiple sources were merged during the Babylonian period into the Torah. 
The problem with the page's structure is that none of the sources referenced actually reference that.  As I mentioned in my edit summaries, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church references the various sources exactly three times, none of them as direct connections to the text generally, and definitely not to this text specifically.  The Catholic source (New Advent) likewise contains not a mention of this textual criticism nor an inference to two strains of thought in the text.  
All of the text in this article that references the textual criticism is based on these two sources.  I propose a rewrite to remove that text given it isn't supported.  I'll offer a bold edit now to start the discussion. Squatch347 (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking back at the history, these references seem to have been added in March of 2009.  My charitable interpretation is that maybe the ODCC did make those references in 2009, since the Documentary hypothesis was mor in favor then.  Regardless, since then it was no longer included, probably as it has waned in popularity over the last decade.  Squatch347 (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large Edit