Cactus Game Design Message Boards

Referencing it Biblically, I would say yes, it should be an offering.

Luke 1:9 talks about Zechariah the priest burning incense as it was customary for the priests to do.  It references back to Exodus 30 when the Israelites were beginning to construct the Tabernacle.

Ex 30:7-9

7 "Aaron must burn fragrant incense on the altar every morning when he tends the lamps. 8 He must burn incense again when he lights the lamps at twilight so incense will burn regularly before the LORD for the generations to come. 9 Do not offer on this altar any other incense or any burnt offering or grain offering, and do not pour a drink offering on it.

The custom of burning incense was an offering specifically done by the priests in a fashion that God had perscribed.

No, Burning Incense is not an offering.  The question has been asked a few times in the past.  Those threads were probably purged by now.  A great explanation was given by Bryon.  I won't do it justice but he said something like this:

Only the offerings commanded by the Lord through Moses when the law was given are considered offerings.  I guess the burning of incense was not among those commands.  As Christians, technically many of the things we do are offerings so by a looser definition we could classify many enhancements are offerings.  When developing the Priests set the playtesters chose the stricter definition for Redemption.

No, Burning Incense is not an offering.  The question has been asked a few times in the past.  Those threads were probably purged by now.  A great explanation was given by Bryon.  I won't do it justice but he said something like this:

Only the offerings commanded by the Lord through Moses when the law was given are considered offerings.  I guess the burning of incense was not among those commands.  As Christians, technically many of the things we do are offerings so by a looser definition we could classify many enhancements are offerings.  When developing the Priests set the playtesters chose the stricter definition for Redemption.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but The passage quoted here from Exodus 30 is God giving Moses the commands for the Tabernacle.  And the incense that is to be offered is a specific incense for a specific purpose.  That incense was only made for that offering, and any other use of it was considered an offense enough to have the person cut off from the Nation of Israel.

So how is this not an offering Commanded by God to Moses?

Correct me if I am wrong here, but The passage quoted here from Exodus 30 is God giving Moses the commands for the Tabernacle.  And the incense that is to be offered is a specific incense for a specific purpose.  That incense was only made for that offering, and any other use of it was considered an offense enough to have the person cut off from the Nation of Israel.

The verse used for Burning Incense was Luke 1:9, not Exodus 30.  In context, the verse is:

8Once when Zechariah's division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, 9he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside.

The scripture is about a specific instance of incense being burned, just like Angelic Visit or Shipwreck are about a specific occurrence, not general visits or wrecks.  Thus, since it isn't an occurrence when the laws were given, it isn't classified as one, and I'm pretty sure that was done intentionally... otherwise, OP'd much?

Quote from: thestrongangel on October 14, 2009, 12:09:39 AM

Correct me if I am wrong here, but The passage quoted here from Exodus 30 is God giving Moses the commands for the Tabernacle.  And the incense that is to be offered is a specific incense for a specific purpose.  That incense was only made for that offering, and any other use of it was considered an offense enough to have the person cut off from the Nation of Israel.

The verse used for Burning Incense was Luke 1:9, not Exodus 30.  In context, the verse is:

Quote

8Once when Zechariah's division was on duty and he was serving as priest before God, 9he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense. 10And when the time for the burning of incense came, all the assembled worshipers were praying outside.

The scripture is about a specific instance of incense being burned, just like Angelic Visit or Shipwreck are about a specific occurrence, not general visits or wrecks.  Thus, since it isn't an occurrence when the laws were given, it isn't classified as one, and I'm pretty sure that was done intentionally... otherwise, OP'd much?

Firstly, I don't play teal, I play Gold.

Secondly if you look at the reference in luke 1:9, its says according to the custom of the Priesthood.  How did they get those customs?  They were given by God to Moses so that Aaron would have the means to instruct the priesthood.  And this burning of incense was made specifically for this purpose and no other.  It was considered a capital offense to use it or even possess it for anything else other than this offering.

While I won't argue that making that card an offering would power up teal, by the definition that was given in this thread:

Only the offerings commanded by the Lord through Moses when the law was given are considered offerings.

Burning incense is an offering by this standard, whether or not it is overpowering or not.  Unless your trying to specifically remove this card because of its power, it does meet the requirement of an offering the Lord commanded through Moses.

Redemption is "based on the Bible" in the same sense that a movie is "based on a true story".  It doesn't mean that a few things change to make the game more fun or the movie more interesting.  It isn't "Biblical" that Peter can try to save a LS and that Nebuccadnezzar can try to stop him since they didn't even live at the same time.  But it makes the game more fun.

And as the board's most vocal opponent of pre-block ignore, I completely agree with the PTB that letting Joiada do pre-block ignore with Burning Incense every turn makes the game a LOT less fun.  Therefore, if they want to use a technicality to refuse to classify Burning Incense as an offering, then WOOT!

Or the card's subject is incense which happens to be burning, rather than about the act of burning. It's a much stronger argument to just say "there would be an overpowered combination if it were an offering" rather than trying to do unintuitive made-up syntactic handwaving.

but even if it is the process of it, i could be offering something which = an offering. it is an ofering just as much as titheing since that was offering your money to God.
And if sin offering is an offering, than why not burning insence?

But wasn't burning insence a sacrifice? i might just be really confused. Maybe i should ask my dad for a little more info about it since he is a Bible College Professor lol

I'm on your side on this one guys, but believe me, it's not gonna be overturned.

I'm on your side on this one guys, but believe me, it's not gonna be overturned.

You're on the side of the easiest recurrable pre-block ignore combo ever being possible? How would that make the game fun?

Good luck if you can never block TC makes it slightly easier, but still.